reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Vaccine court has thousands of individuals who claim vaccines caused their children's autism, with supporting documentation. This presents an opportunity to study these children and identify common factors that may have made them susceptible to injury. The speaker has inquired why such a study hasn't been conducted. The responses given are inadequate, such as suggesting someone else should do it or citing privacy concerns. The speaker believes parents would gladly share records for research if approached with trust. The speaker suspects the lack of interest stems from a pre-existing knowledge of the answer, echoing Dr. Healy's suggestion that the question is deliberately avoided.

Speaker 0 summarizes that days after Bill Gates visits Singapore for a high-level meeting, the government quietly passes a new law granting the power to mandate injections and jail anyone who refuses. The law is laid out in the Infectious Diseases Act. Section 47 states that during any outbreak or even the suspicion of one, the director general of health can order any group of people to undergo vaccination or other prophylaxis. If individuals do not comply, they can be fined up to $20,000 or imprisoned for up to a year. Further, Section 67 ensures no accountability if something goes wrong, with no lawsuits or liability for the health officer, the doctor, or the government. The account notes that this is in Singapore, described as one of the strictest nations on earth, contrasting it with Singapore’s harsh anti-drug stance—public banners warn that possession of even 15 grams of heroin can carry the death penalty, with different penalties for drug offenses depending on age. The speaker then asserts a broader claim: beyond injections, the policy is about what those injections are doing. A new peer-reviewed study from Turkey is cited, claiming that mRNA COVID shots reduced female rats’ egg reserves by up to 60%, described as permanent destruction of primordial follicles, which determine how long a woman can have children. The speaker links this to a wider pattern observed in women, including menstrual disruption, early menopause, infertility, miscarriages, and fetal death, while asserting that no one is allowed to say it. The narration concludes by arguing that if this were any other drug, it would have been withdrawn from the market years ago, but instead the “pop agenda” is being pushed, with the implication that authorities and researchers are doubling down on the policy.

As a pilot, it is mandatory for me to take the COVID-19 shots to keep flying. However, after taking the shots and boosters, medical examiners found evidence of a new heart rhythm issue in pilots. This has caused problems with passing the required EKG tests every six months. To address this, the FAA has increased the window for pilots to pass the tests. Unfortunately, the vaccine has caused heart damage in pilots, as seen in cases of incapacitation. There is no recourse for us pilots since this is a federal mandate, and we cannot challenge the government. It is unclear if other pilots are discussing this issue.

A pilot discusses the mandatory shots that pilots have to take in order to keep flying. They mention that after taking the shots, there was evidence of a heart rhythm issue on the medical exams. The FAA has increased the window for pilots to pass the exams, but there is no recourse for the pilots. Other pilots are also talking about this issue and refusing to take any more vaccines. The pilot mentions biodigital convergence but doesn't provide further details. They speculate about a new pandemic and state that pilots won't participate in it. The pilot also mentions that airlines were given $1 billion three years ago to keep flying empty planes to create the illusion of business.

Speaker 0 frames the issue as 'the corruption of science' and the 'capture of the agencies' by pharmaceutical industries, stating the goal is to restore integrity and credibility to science. Speaker 1 cites a CDC internal study: 'black boys who got the vaccine on time had a two hundred and sixty percent greater chance of getting an autism diagnosis than children who waited.' He adds that 'The chief chief scientist on that, Doctor. William Thompson, the senior said vaccine safety science at CDC, was ordered to destroy that data. And then they published it without that fact.' Finally, he asserts, 'So, you know that story. And you know of hundreds of stories like that. It happens all the time. We are being lied to by these agencies, and we're gonna change that right now.'

The speaker outlines a series of alarming claims regarding mRNA vaccination and female fertility. They state that in a study involving rats, mRNA-vaccinated subjects exhibited a 60% reduction in primordial (premortial) follicles. The speaker emphasizes that primordial follicles represent a finite resource with no regenerative capacity, noting that women are born with a limited number of these follicles. The implication drawn is that the mRNA shots can reach the ovaries and instruct the ovarian tissue to produce toxic spike protein. According to the speaker, the body's response to this production is to attack the spike protein, leading to tissue damage and destruction of eggs. The destruction of eggs is presented as irreversible, given that primordial follicles do not regenerate, which the speaker asserts has direct consequences for fertility. Further, the speaker cites human data indicating a 33% lower birth rate among vaccinated women, linking this observation to the ovarian damage described in the animal model. They combine these points to argue that a pattern of reduced reproductive capacity is occurring and that this pattern is supported by both the animal study and the human data referenced. The speaker portrays these findings as extraordinarily worrisome and asserts that regulators have failed to address the issue. They argue that regulatory inaction is contributing to what they describe as an ongoing decline in humanity’s fertility. The overarching message is a call for regulatory attention and intervention in response to what they characterize as significant risks to fertility associated with mRNA vaccination. In summary, the speaker claims: - Rats given mRNA vaccines showed a 60% reduction in primordial follicles. - Women are born with a finite, non-regenerating pool of these follicles. - mRNA vaccines purportedly reach the ovaries and cause production of toxic spike protein, provoking an immune attack that damages ovarian tissue and eggs. - This damage allegedly leads to a 33% lower birth rate in vaccinated women, as suggested by cited human data. - The combination of these factors is described as highly concerning and in need of regulatory action, warned against as contributing to a potential future decline in human fertility.

The speaker discusses the scientific evidence surrounding the interference with data by the deputy mayor. They provide an example of a research paper that found no reduction in lung problems or asthma symptoms in children despite improvements in air quality. The mayor and deputy mayor wanted the sentence reworded to imply the opposite of the findings. The speaker concludes that the mayor's team attempted to manipulate data and questions if they are doing it in other areas as well.

The speakers claim that well-funded entities suppressed the truth about autism. They state that parents of autistic children who have tried to investigate the causes of autism have encountered intense resistance. They allege that studies used to support the claim that vaccines don't cause autism are easily disproven, but the media's ownership allows the lie to spread faster than the truth. One speaker believes that many find it too difficult to accept that vaccines could cause autism. They mention someone who suspects a vaccine caused their child's autism but still shamed others for not taking the COVID vaccine, illustrating the power of propaganda. People are afraid of social ostracization and are hesitant to speak their minds, often only whispering their true feelings to close friends. The speakers reference montages showing the horrible things people said about unvaccinated individuals.

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.

Speaker 0 explains that even the obstetrics and gynecology association has reportedly pushed to vaccinate pregnant women as a duty, but doctors are the ones who do not know the facts. They reference a highly regarded medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, which published a study claiming a 12.6 percent user rate for the vaccine’s research results. Based on that paper, the 三 富 士 川 学 会 then attempted to vaccinate pregnant women. In reality, among the 827 individuals involved, 700 were in the postpartum period, 127 were in the antepartum period, and initial data were from that group. Specifically, for the group limited to those under twenty weeks (twenty weeks or less), which is 127 people, the miscarriage rate was 82 percent. Therefore, the argument is that, going forward, one can see how dangerous the vaccine is from those numbers. The speaker contends that data were hidden and later mixed into the 700-person postpartum group, yielding a miscarriage rate of 12.6 percent. Because of this, the claim is that even a leading medical journal has been influenced by money to publish such conclusions. Overall, the points presented are: - The obstetrics field is described as advocating vaccination of pregnant women as a duty, while physicians allegedly lack awareness of the underlying facts. - The NEJM published a study deemed to show a 12.6 percent user rate, which the speaker implies is problematic. - The 三 富 士 川 学 会 vaccinated pregnant women, but the data show that among 127 women under twenty weeks, the miscarriage rate was 82 percent. - The speaker asserts that this information was hidden and later combined with data from the 700 postpartum cases to produce a 12.6 percent miscarriage rate. - The implication is that even a top medical journal can be swayed by financial influence, resulting in biased reporting.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

I'm a pilot with airlines and we were required to get shots to keep flying. After getting the shots, medical exams showed heart rhythm issues affecting pilots passing EKG tests. The FAA extended the window for passing the tests due to vaccine-related heart damage. There's no recourse as it's a federal mandate. All pilots are discussing this and refusing further vaccines. The conversation shifts to biodigital convergence and concerns about the true nature of the vaccine.

The speaker claims the Biden administration covered up science related to the COVID shot. Information related to vaccine complications was allegedly censored as COVID vaccine hesitant content. The speaker alleges the heart inflammation in young, healthy men and boys was not disclosed as soon as it should have been, resulting in thousands of kids developing myocarditis unnecessarily. The speaker suggests the administration knew the shot didn't stop transmission but kept it secret. The head of the FDA is cited as saying the Biden administration suppressed information about myocarditis damage to children. The speaker believes this sounds criminal, especially considering mandates for school, work, and travel.

The speaker is elaborating on his wife's recent post, giving an example of why reinstatement, back pay, and apologies aren't enough. He references Undersecretary Cisneros acknowledging in July that the DMAT data was working properly and acknowledging a 151% rise in myocarditis. The speaker then compared a 5-year average to 2022 data, focusing on active duty fixed wing and helicopter pilots. The results showed increases in several conditions: hypertensive disease (36%), ischemic heart disease (69%), pulmonary heart disease (62%), heart failure (973%), other forms of heart disease (63%), and cardiomyopathy (152%).

Speaker 0 describes a distinction between cataracts at the front of the eye and cataracts “in the back of the eye.” They claim that while a cloudy eye is commonly associated with cataracts at the front, radar, microwaves, and wireless technology can cause cataracts behind the eye. They mention pearl powder as something that reverses cataracts and attributes this reversal to dehydration or cooking effects in the eye caused by microwaves, suggesting the pearl powder hydrates the eye and reverses damage. They explain that a microwave heats up your blood and heats up the eye, “cooks the water,” and therefore they advise not using microwaves in the home because there is “no reason” to use them. They state doctors discussed this when radar and microwaves and wireless technologies were being used, claiming these technologies were “cooking” the back of the eye. The speaker asserts that microwaves work by penetrating deep into the body and causing damage that cannot be seen but occurs at the back of the eye. The speaker references a presentation to the US military, noting that many military personnel working on radar developed cataracts behind the eye. They claim there were lawsuits from military members and that the VA and government were trying not to pay out. The overall point made is that eyesight may not improve or may worsen over time due to microwaves or wireless technology, which the speaker links to cataracts behind the eye. They frame these claims as evidence that exposure to microwaves has a connection to back-of-eye cataracts, and they highlight the response of military personnel to this issue, including lawsuits and governmental dispute over compensation.

Democrats are allegedly being instructed to sue HHS and RFK Jr. to halt the investigation into the cause of autism, which affects one in thirty children, and one in twelve boys in California. Twenty-five percent of autistic children are reportedly nonverbal. The speaker believes that big pharma, big food, and big chemical companies already know the cause of autism and are pressuring Democrat lawmakers to stop the investigation. The speaker questions why anyone would not want to know the cause of autism and asserts that mainstream media, which receives over 70% of its income from big pharma, is likely preparing hit campaigns against RFK Jr. The speaker believes the motivation is money and that these entities care more about profits than people's health. Despite this, the speaker believes the cause of autism will eventually be discovered and that RFK Jr. is making a significant move to block big pharma.

The speaker lists a range of substances—aluminum, barium, strontium, manganese, surfactants, polymer fibers, graphene—as elements allegedly present in breathable air, describing the situation as horrifying and implying widespread dispersion linked to coordinated programs. They claim that, ultimately, all roads lead to those who print the money, and assert that the coordinating entities behind these programs include the Department of Defense (DOD) and DARPA. The speaker states that there are documents proving the existence of these programs, including an 800-page United States Senate document from 1978 that outlines the scope and scale of the programs and calls for intergovernmental cooperation even between otherwise adversarial nations because of the cross-border ramifications of these programs. Regarding which country is the biggest player, the speaker identifies the United States of America, citing the size of the U.S. military. They claim the U.S. military has three times more aerial tankers—described as the primary aircraft used in these operations—than all other militaries in the world combined. The speaker then revisits the condensation trail narrative, labeling it as perhaps one of the greatest lies ever perpetrated on populations worldwide. They argue that all military tankers and all commercial aircraft are equipped with high bypass turbofan jet engines, defined as jet-powered fans, and that 90% of the air moving through those engines is not combusted. By design, the speaker says, this makes the engine nearly incapable of producing condensation trails except under rare and extreme circumstances, and those circumstances are diminishing each day due to warming in the troposphere. The speaker mentions that two former military pilots who fly private aircraft—described as important people—have contacted GongWatch.org. In both cases, these individuals were off the coast of the Pacific Northwest when their aircraft were forced into emergency auto descents because the outside air was 45 to 50 degrees above what it should have been. The air, according to the speaker, was not dense enough to carry those aircraft. The people who contacted GongWatch.org are described as very alarmed but very afraid to speak out.

The speaker believes there hasn't been an open-minded investigation into the etiology of autism because it's dangerous for scientists to ask the question. They risk being incorrectly labeled as "anti-vaxxers," which could end their careers. This suppression of scientific curiosity prevents finding answers. The speaker has organized an initiative within the NIH to address the question of autism's etiology in a wide-ranging manner, not limited to vaccines.

Speaker 0 raises the possibility that electric current generated in a particular fashion could cause heart disease and/or stroke, calling it a “mind blowing thought” for many people. Speaker 1 recalls being a member of the first ad hoc committee to evaluate biological studies conducted for Project Sanguine. He states that several studies showed definite effects, including animals exposed growing at a slower rate than control animals. He adds that exposure to this type of magnetic field seems to produce stress. He notes that the Navy did not disseminate a report widely. Speaker 1 further explains that human volunteers exposed to the same sort of magnetic field as the Sanguine antenna experienced, following a twenty-four hour exposure, considerable elevations in serum triglycerides. He mentions five specific projects where positive results were obtained, but funding was terminated and the work stopped. Speaker 0 asks whether this pattern is definite. Speaker 1 says it appears so: when a study begins to find adverse effects, the money dries up. He asserts it’s not just adverse effects but any effect, and points out that someone who publicly claimed that the transmission line’s voltage field—much stronger than that from the Sanguine antenna—is harmless would have to change position if the Sanguine antenna were found to be harmful. He believes many committee members are biased. Speaker 0 summarizes the concern, suggesting that a stack deck may be involved. Speaker 1 agrees, stating he would not want to live in an area where such an antenna system was operative, nor would he want his family there. He cannot say for certain that it would be hazardous today, but he believes there is a very clear indication that it may be.

The speaker reveals that a vaccine funded by the WHO was discovered to be a fertility regulating vaccine. It was used without women's knowledge in South America in 1993. The vaccine caused idiopathic infertility, irregular periods, failed pregnancies, threatened abortions, premature labor, and other complications. These findings suggest a sinister agenda behind the vaccine's use.

Autism is a complex disorder with multifactorial ideology. We are continuing to investigate multiplicity of potential causes with no areas of taboo. One area that we are closely examining, as the president mentioned, is vaccines. Some forty to seventy percent of mothers who have children with autism believe that their child was injured by a vaccine. President Trump believes that we should be listening to these mothers instead of gaslighting and marginalize them marginalizing them like prior administrations. Some of our friends like to say that we should believe all women. Some of these same people have been silencing and demonizing these mothers for three decades because research on the potential link between autism and vaccines has been actively suppressed in the past.

Speaker 1 states that less than one percent of the public is totally unvaccinated. The Amish are given as an example of a largely unvaccinated group. Speaker 1 claims it is very rare to find an autistic child in the Amish community, and that ADD, autoimmune disease, PANDA PANS, and epilepsy are also rare. Speaker 1 asserts the U.S. government has studied the Amish for decades, but has not released a report. Speaker 1 believes the reason for this is that the report would show that not following government guidelines leads to better health outcomes. Speaker 1 concludes that the report would be devastating to the narrative and would show that the CDC has been harming the public for decades by burying data.

First speaker: The question is about how many people are totally unvaccinated, and whether this is mainly among parents who stepped up. The claim is that it’s a very small percentage because many people blindly followed the vaccination recommendations for children. Second speaker: It’s less than one percent of the public who are unvaccinated. The Amish are given as a perfect example of a large group that is largely unvaccinated. The speaker asserts that you won’t find an autistic child who was unvaccinated, and that such chronic diseases as ADD, autoimmune diseases, PANDA/PANS, and epilepsy are very rare in the Amish community. The speaker claims that the US government has studied the Amish for decades, but there has never been a public report. The reason given is that such a report would show that not following the guidelines leads to healthier outcomes, and therefore there would be a disclosure that would be devastating to the narrative. According to the speaker, there is no public report because it would reveal that the CDC has been harming the public for decades and is bearing all the data privately.

The speaker claims previous studies indicating no link between certain factors and specific outcomes were flawed. They allege researchers eliminated older children from the data, stratified the data improperly, and used other "tricks." The speaker states that external literature shows over 100 studies indicating a link. They announce plans to conduct new observational, retrospective, and epidemiological studies, as originally recommended by the Institute of Medicine, using publicly available databases. They characterize this new approach as "real science."

The speaker believes COVID vaccine programs should be stopped. They are astounded by the number of papers critical of the vaccine or showing negative effects. The speaker claims a group of researchers funded by Pfizer and the NIH bullies editors to retract papers with negative findings about the vaccine. They assert the number of retractions is appalling. According to the speaker, in one instance where an editor resisted, Nature Springer bought the journal and retracted the paper. The speaker states that this is what they have been dealing with.