reSee.it - Related Video Feed

There's concern about the lack of good data on vaccine adverse effects. The CDC's surveillance system captures less than 1% of vaccine injuries, which is inexcusable. Congress and the Institute of Medicine have repeatedly ordered the CDC to improve it. Now, with Kennedy sworn in, there's a new commission and a congressional caucus to address these issues, targeting big agriculture, pharma, and food. The HHS Secretary is announcing a new, more accurate vaccine injury reporting system designed to be more transparent than the old one and release secret studies. The goal is to revamp the system to reveal the real picture of vaccine injuries and encourage doctors to report them. This approach aims to strategically show the data and address problems rather than outright banning anything, similar to discrediting fraudulent systems. We're coming for the globalists' assets.

There is no education in medical schools about vaccines, their contents, safety records, informed consent, or the vaccine injury compensation program. Congress removed all liability from pharma related to vaccine adverse events in 1986. Medical professionals are taught to memorize the vaccine schedule. Almost $4 billion has been paid to vaccine-injured patients since 1992. There appears to be a conflict of interest regarding payments to providers for completing vaccine schedules. Patients are being dismissed from practices due to vaccine safety concerns. Employers are forcing employees to receive the flu vaccine or face corrective action or job loss. There is a lack of informed consent; providers often give information sheets after vaccinating. There is a lack of transparency regarding vaccine complications, and patients are shamed for suggesting they were harmed by a vaccine. Unlike other adverse reactions to medications, vaccine adverse events are often dismissed.

The Institute of Medicine reported in 2011 that over 150 vaccine-related injuries have not been studied, and the CDC has repeatedly been ordered to conduct these studies but has refused. The pharmaceutical companies producing vaccines, such as Merck, Sanofi, Glaxo, and Pfizer, have faced over $35 billion in penalties for misconduct. Trust in these companies is misplaced without solid scientific evidence. While vaccines should remain available for those who choose them, there is a need for rigorous scientific scrutiny. The FDA has misled the public in the past, as seen with Vioxx and opioids, raising concerns about their credibility regarding vaccine safety. The focus should be on ensuring public health, not pharmaceutical profits.

My name is Dr. Brian Hooker, a vaccine safety scientist and father of a vaccine-injured son. Since 1962, the CDC's vaccination schedule for children has expanded significantly, from 5 doses to 73 doses by 2023, with minimal safety testing. Independent studies show vaccinated children are at least twice as likely to experience developmental delays, ear infections, and gastrointestinal disorders, with asthma diagnoses 4.5 times higher. A 2022 study comparing over 1,800 unvaccinated children revealed they had significantly lower rates of various disorders. Additionally, myocarditis rates following COVID-19 vaccinations are concerning, with many cases requiring emergency care. Despite the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act mandating biannual safety reports, the Department of Health and Human Services has never submitted one, indicating a failure to protect citizens from vaccine-related injuries. Thank you.

There are 3,400 peer-reviewed papers in the National Library of Medicine that describe fatal and nonfatal vaccine injury syndromes. These vaccines cause real side effects in four major categories: cardiovascular issues like heart inflammation and cardiac arrest, neurologic problems such as stroke and neuropathy, unprecedented blood clotting that doesn't respond to usual treatments, and immune system abnormalities.

Vaccine recommendations typically come from the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices (an outside consulting committee at CDC) and VRBPAC (within FDA), which recommends vaccine licensure. These committees only adopted evidence-based medicine about twelve years ago. The speaker states that during their administration, they want safety studies prior to vaccine licensure and recommendation. They claim vaccines are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing, and the COVID vaccine was the only one tested in a full placebo trial. They assert that the other 76 shots children receive between birth and 18 have not been safety tested against a placebo, meaning the risk profile is not understood. The speaker intends to remedy this.

You need to know the risk profile for products like the COVID vaccine. Many discuss adverse effects, but we lack sufficient data, which is unacceptable. Our surveillance system doesn't work. In 2010, the CDC had the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, meant to detect injuries. However, a CDC study revealed it captures less than 1% of vaccine injuries. This is inexcusable. Congress, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Academy of Sciences have repeatedly directed the CDC to develop a better vaccine surveillance system. We will require it and address it immediately.

Vaccines eradicated smallpox and polio. The speaker was taught that vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary, and there's no reason to question it. Medical school rotations reinforced that vaccines are safe and effective, and the speaker was told to ignore the inserts because that's lawyer jargon. Medical school provided no education about vaccine contents, safety records, informed consent, or the vaccine injury compensation program. The speaker assumed the science was settled and didn't question vaccines.

There are over 3,400 peer-reviewed papers in the National Library of Medicine that describe fatal and non-fatal vaccine injury syndromes. These vaccines have real side effects in four major categories: cardiovascular issues like heart inflammation and cardiac arrest, neurologic problems such as stroke and neuropathy, unprecedented blood clotting that doesn't respond to usual treatments, and immune system abnormalities.

There have been unprecedented injuries, disabilities, and deaths from COVID-19 vaccines. By January 22, 2021, 182 deaths were reported to the US vaccine adverse event reporting system. The FDA and CDC, who co-administer the program, lack experience in vaccine campaigns. Pfizer knew about 1,223 deaths within 90 days of their vaccine but kept it confidential. Moderna has not released their data. There are over 34,100 peer-reviewed papers on vaccine injuries, disabilities, and deaths.

Everything regarding vaccine policy will change due to better information. No vaccines given in the first six months of life have been tested, except for the DTP vaccine. According to the Institute of Medicine, the one study done on DTP found a link, but it was thrown out because it was based on the CDC's surveillance system, which they deemed no good. The speaker questions why the CDC lacks a functional surveillance system, especially since vaccines are exempt from prelicensing safety testing. The CDC's system captures fewer than one percent of vaccine injuries, rendering it worthless. The speaker pledges to fix the system and follow the science, including publishing all data sets, replicating studies, and publishing peer reviews, which the CDC has never done. This will provide the public with real answers for the first time.

We couldn't find any prelicensing safety trials for the 72 vaccines doses that are recommended for American children. Unlike other medications, vaccines were exempt from conducting safety trials that compare health outcomes between a placebo group and a vaccine group. This lack of safety trials is concerning considering the widespread use of these vaccines.

Mainstream media claims that the link between autism and vaccines has been debunked through studies. However, these studies only examined the MMR vaccine and thimerosal. The Institute of Medicine stated that vaccines administered during the first six months of life have never been studied for a link to autism. The vaccines given in the first six months include DTaP, hep B, and pneumococcal. The only vaccine studied was DTaP, and the study showed a link to autism. However, the Institute of Medicine discounted the study because it was based on the CDC's VAERS system, which they deemed too unreliable for studying vaccine injury. They stated that the CDC's only surveillance system is inadequate for conducting reliable studies.

A PDF crowdsourced document that I believe CNN put out was sent to me by a New York Times reporter researching me, citing 200 different studies on vaccines that supposedly used placebo. I spoke with Dr. Joel Worsch, a pediatrician with an MS in epidemiology who wrote a book and is credible, neutral, and honest, and he says we don't know. There's not enough data to know. He breaks it down: the vast majority of these studies are not on the CDC schedule; many used active comparables, not inert placebo. After filtering, 25% of these studies pertain to vaccines on the schedule. Of those, inert placebo is used in about 5% of items. Longitudinal safety studies are zero; perhaps one or two were prelicensing. Journalists do their job: I spoke to doctor Joe; here's what I found. Cognitive dissidence is described as insecurity about flaws in the party.

The CDC funded a machine counting system designed to analyze vaccine injuries through cluster analysis. Led by Lazarus, the team tested the system at Harvard Pilgrim HMO, comparing its findings to VAERS data. The study revealed that VAERS captured less than 1% of vaccine injuries, while their system captured over 95%. The data indicated injuries in approximately 2.7% of all vaccines, roughly one out of every 37. Despite the system's accuracy, the CDC allegedly shelved it in 2010. The speaker claims that for 22 years the CDC has continued to use VAERS, a system they know doesn't work. The speaker advocates for changing VAERS or creating a supplementary system that accurately tracks vaccine injuries.

Vaccines are neither safe, effective, necessary, nor harmless, and this has been a two-hundred-year indoctrination. No vaccine has ever been proven safe because true placebos aren't used, and subjects aren't followed long enough. Safety is determined by whether the vaccine causes immediate death. Long-term effects like asthma, allergies, eczema, ADD, ADHD, neurological problems, and autoimmune diseases are not monitored. The FDA arbitrarily decided in the early 1990s that side effects appearing more than 72 hours after vaccination are unrelated.

David Ketzer and others have stated the current vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) does not work and needs replacement. VAERS is voluntary, and doctors face disincentives to report vaccine injuries, including time constraints, uncertainty about causality, and emotional reluctance. In 2010, the CDC designed a machine counting system using cluster analysis to identify unique injury patterns associated with specific vaccines. This system, developed by a team led by Lazarus, was tested at Harvard Pilgrim HMO. The results indicated that VAERS captured fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries, while the new system captured over 95%. The data revealed injuries in approximately 2.7% of all vaccines, or about one in every 37 vaccines. Despite the system's accuracy, the CDC shelved it in 2010 and continues to use VAERS, even though it is known to be ineffective.

The CDC funded a machine counting system, designed by a team led by Lazarus, to analyze vaccine injuries through cluster analysis. This system was tested at Harvard Pilgrim HMO, comparing its findings to VAERS data. The study found VAERS captured less than 1% of vaccine injuries, while the new system captured over 95%. The data revealed injuries in approximately 2.7% of all vaccines, which is about one out of every 37 vaccines. Despite the system's accuracy, the CDC shelved it in 2010 and has continued using VAERS for 22 years, despite knowing it doesn't work.

If analysis of public data sets reveals a connection between government-promoted vaccines and autism, it would constitute a tort, potentially impacting many injured individuals. However, the 1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program grants vaccine companies immunity from liability, regardless of recklessness or product toxicity. While childhood vaccination schedules have expanded from three vaccines to potentially 69-92 doses between conception and age 18, this increase may contribute to an epidemic of immune dysregulation and various diseases like diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, seizure disorders, ADD/ADHD, speech/language delays, tics, Tourette's, narcolepsy, autism, peanut allergies, anaphylaxis, and eczema. These injuries are listed as potential side effects on vaccine inserts, yet the CDC has allegedly failed to adequately study suspected vaccine injuries, despite recommendations from the Institute of Medicine. It's claimed that the CDC has deliberately derailed such studies, and scientific publishers often reject studies critical of vaccines. There is a need to remove the taboo around discussing this issue and conduct honest research.

The transcript follows a documentary-style examination of rising chronic illness in American children and a contested view of vaccine safety and testing. It weaves together personal testimonies, investigative reporting, and expert interviews to present a narrative that vaccines may be linked to widespread health problems and that the safety science behind vaccination is insufficient or flawed in certain respects. Key claims about child health trends - A diverse set of pediatric health issues is described as increasingly common: ADHD, allergies, eczema, psoriasis, autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, lupus, Crohn’s disease), IBS, sleep disorders, seizures, and neurological conditions. Several speakers list multiple conditions affecting children, suggesting a broad chronic disease trend. - A striking statistic cited: “More than forty percent of American children now have at least one chronic health condition” (Speaker 5). Relatedly, autism rates are described as rising from “one in ten thousand” decades ago to “one in thirty one” today (Speaker 5). - An overarching contention is that these rapid increases are unlikely to be explained by genetics alone, given the relatively fast pace of change in incidence. The central study and the “hidden” narrative - The documentary frames a study led by a scientist who allegedly conducted research into chronic disease and vaccination but chose not to publish due to fear of repercussions. Hidden-camera investigations and interviews are used to explore why such data might remain unpublished and how the medical establishment responds to dissenting findings. - The film positions Dr. Zervos (Marcus Zervos), an infectious disease expert at Henry Ford Health System, as a pivotal figure who agreed to a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study but reportedly did not publish the results, leading the filmmakers to pursue further inquiry with him and others. Vaccines, safety testing, and the placebo question - A core claim is that vaccines have not undergone the gold standard of safety testing: double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials for the entire childhood schedule. The film argues that no childhood vaccine has completed such a trial prior to licensure. - The hepatitis B vaccine (Recombivax HB) is used as an example: its pre-licensure safety data reportedly cover only five days after each dose, with no long-term control group, and section 6.1 of the insert notes five days of safety monitoring, raising questions about detecting longer-term autoimmune or neurological injuries. - Opposing voices acknowledge ethical constraints around placebo trials in the presence of existing vaccines, but the documentary challenges this by pointing out that certain comparator trials (e.g., Prevnar 13 vs Prevnar 7) were not against saline placebo, and thus do not establish a safety baseline. - A recurring metaphor is the “whiskey study” scenario to illustrate how non-saline placebo comparisons can mislead safety conclusions. Retrospective and observational studies; the vaccine-safety signal - The film emphasizes retrospective and observational studies as alternatives to randomized trials, arguing they can reveal safety signals when prospective trials are unavailable. It highlights the Henry Ford Health System’s data as a major retrospective study: a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated analysis based on a large, integrated health database. - According to the film, the Henry Ford study found that vaccinated children had higher risks across multiple chronic health categories. Specifically, ten years of follow-up suggested: - Vaccinated children were 2.5 times more likely to have a chronic health condition overall. - An approximate fourfold increased risk for chronic health conditions in certain analyses. - A 4.29-times higher risk for autism was not statistically significant due to small autism counts in the unvaccinated group, but substantial signals were observed in other neurodevelopmental outcomes. - The study reported markedly higher rates of autoimmune diseases (around six times higher) and various neurodevelopmental disorders in the vaccinated group compared with unvaccinated peers. - In the ten-year window, 57% of vaccinated children had a chronic health condition versus 17% of unvaccinated children. - The documentary notes methodological limitations common to retrospective studies, such as follow-up differences and confounding factors, but argues that sensitivity analyses did not overturn the main findings. The vaccine schedule, broader policy, and dissent within the medical community - The narrative asserts that a large portion of physicians publicly defend vaccines as safe and effective, with long-standing support for vaccination policies and mandates. Yet it also recounts stories of physicians who faced professional pushback, licensing actions, or public criticism after raising questions about vaccine safety or suggesting alternative research paths. - The film mentions the Institute of Medicine’s 2011 report, which stated that there were over 150 injuries likely associated with vaccines that had not been studied, and it notes that no large, randomized comparisons between fully vaccinated and fully unvaccinated populations had been published by major institutions (as of the report’s release). - The filmmakers recount efforts to obtain a definitive vaccination–unvaccinated study from Henry Ford and other institutions, with some figures expressing willingness to publish if the study clearly demonstrated that unvaccinated children fared better, while others face professional or political pressures. Vaccine advocacy versus safety concerns; the call for replication - Pro-vaccine voices in the film emphasize that vaccines have prevented millions of deaths and remain broadly safe, citing the historical success of vaccines and the large body of published research supporting vaccine effectiveness and safety. - Proponents of re-examination advocate replicating retrospective cohort analyses in other large health systems (e.g., Kaiser Permanente, Harvard Pilgrim, CDC’s VSD) to test whether similar patterns emerge. They stress the ethical and scientific necessity of replication to determine whether the observed signals hold across populations. - The film closes with a call for replication and transparency: if the data are robust, publishing them could transform the understanding of off-target and non-specific effects of vaccination. If replicated, such studies could reshape how vaccines are administered and studied. The documentary also threads personal stories of vaccine injury, including cases of severe reactions after various vaccines and the emotional and logistical toll on families. It juxtaposes these individual tragedies with the broader debate over vaccine safety research, urging readers to consider the evidence, replication, and the possibility that current vaccine safety paradigms may require reassessment.

The speaker discusses the reliability of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is used by the CDC to test vaccine safety. They explain that VAERS is a poor system because it relies on voluntary reporting from doctors, who often do not see the connection between a vaccine and adverse events. The speaker suggests that a machine counting system would be more effective. Despite its limitations, VAERS has reported more deaths and injuries from vaccines since 1986 than any other vaccine in history, making it the most dangerous vaccine according to CDC's measure.

The CDC funded a machine counting system designed to identify unique injury clusters related to vaccines. This system, developed by a team led by Lazarus, was tested at Harvard Pilgrim HMO. The machine counting system's data on vaccine injuries was compared to VAERS data from the same period at Harvard Pilgrim. The study found that VAERS captured less than one percent of vaccine injuries, while the new system captured over ninety-five percent. Data showed injuries in about two point seven percent of all vaccines, approximately one out of every thirty-seven. The CDC then shelved the system in 2010 and continues to use VAERS, a system they know doesn't work. The speaker advocates for changing VAERS or creating a supplementary system that actually works.

There are over 3,400 peer-reviewed papers in the National Library of Medicine that describe fatal and nonfatal vaccine injury syndromes. These vaccines cause real side effects in four major categories: cardiovascular issues like heart inflammation and cardiac arrest, neurologic problems such as stroke and neuropathy, unprecedented blood clotting that doesn't respond to usual treatments, and abnormalities in the immune system.

The speaker claims the current vaccine injury surveillance system, VAERS, captures less than one percent of vaccine injuries, according to a 2010 CDC study. They state that the CDC had a machine counting system to roll out to HMOs but shelved it. The speaker intends to improve surveillance, gather data sets, and create data-sharing agreements with scientists worldwide. They aim to investigate the contribution of vaccines, mold, EMF, food, and other exposures that began in the late 1980s to health issues.

1. No education in medical schools about vaccines—contents, safety, informed consent, or the vaccine injury compensation program. 2. 1986 Congress enacted legislation removing all liability from pharma related to vaccine adverse events. 3. We are taught to memorize the vaccine schedule and will have to memorize it again for boards. 4. Almost $4,000,000,000 has been paid to vaccine-injured patients since 1992; fairness in information is questioned. 5. There is a conflict of interest regarding payments to providers for completing vaccine schedules. 6. Patients are dismissed from practices because of vaccine safety concerns; questioning may lead to termination. 7. Employers are forcing flu vaccine or face corrective action or job loss. 8. Lack of informed consent and failure to provide safety sheets; no awareness of the compensation program. 9. Lack of transparency about vaccine complications; patients are shamed for adverse events; example of penicillin allergy recorded after rash.