reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 states: He took 69 vaccines, probably more doses than anyone in the room, and cannot be labeled an anti-vaxxer. If given what he knows today and had the choice, he would not take those 69 vaccines. He would rely on the McCullough Foundation report, which now summarizes 12 studies, showing a healthy child born today remains healthier if they take no vaccines whatsoever. He notes that he and his kids were healthy.

“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.”

Speaker 0 asserts that there is no safe vaccine on the childhood schedule and labels themselves an anti-vaxxer because no vaccine has been properly tested for safety. They state that, in the book Vax Facts, you are more likely to die from the vaccine than from the disease for which there is a vaccine, and that this is true for every single vaccine on the childhood schedule. They acknowledge that death from the vaccine is still a death and “super rare,” but claim you are much more likely to die from the vaccine. They ask which do you want: a greater chance of dying from the vaccine or a lesser chance of dying from the disease, noting that for many of these diseases, the risk is zero.

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.

Childhood vaccines save around 4 million lives globally each year, and I fully support them. The polio vaccine, in particular, is remarkable; it would take a strong argument to convince me to eliminate it. While I believe many vaccines are beneficial, it's important to evaluate the effectiveness of others. If certain vaccines aren't effective, we need to investigate further.

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.

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.'

I stumbled on data. This is hard to believe if you haven't heard this before. For every single vaccine on the childhood schedule, your risk of death, we're just looking at death, because that's what parents fear the most. I don't want my child to die of this disease for which we have a vaccine. How could I live with myself? Your risk of dying from the vaccine far exceeds your risk of death from the disease. You can say that unequivocally. Unequivocally. For every single disease for which we have a vaccine. Wow. So what you what are you afraid of? If you're afraid of your child dying, do not give them a vaccine. Right. Period. You should be afraid of some of these other things when severe autism is is just skyrocketing. These are kids who need lifelong care.

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.

The speaker discusses polio and vaccines by tracing how the disease is perceived versus the data. Polio is described as “the worst disease in world history, not actually, but that's the spin,” and similarly framed as “completely eliminated by mass vaccination, not actually, but that's the spin.” Looking at polio globally, with eight billion people on Earth, the speaker asks how many people died last year from polio, answering “Zero.” The number who had paralysis from polio is stated as “Five hundred and sixty, and ninety seven percent of them was vaccine strain or vaccine induced poliomyelitis.” The speaker notes that opponents claim this is due to vaccination, but then raises the question of how that accounts for more than a billion people on Earth who never had the polio vaccine, asserting they have the exact same death rate. The argument is extended to measles, with the claim that the death rate is the same whether or not one is vaccinated, and similarly for other diseases. The speaker emphasizes a specific approach used in a book: “the only way to do it, I think, compare the product, are they all the same? The diseases, are they all the same?” This leads to the central question of how to handle risk for one’s children. A quick final point compares vaccine decisions to everyday risk decisions. Parents weigh disease risk and vaccine risk when deciding whether their kids should engage in activities such as football, which could involve a head injury; riding a bicycle at night, which could lead to injury; or sleeping over at someone’s house. The speaker argues that all of these are risk decisions quite similar to the vaccine and disease decision because you have to weigh the disease and weigh the vaccine. Yet, the speaker notes, there has never been a mandate for football, and there has never been a mandate that children not ride bikes at night in their neighborhood, or that they not sleep over at someone’s house if they don’t feel good about it in their particular neighborhood.

Senator Ron Johnson introduces Aaron Siri at the Kennedy Center, praising Siri as a highly consequential attorney and highlighting Siri’s work since the COVID era. Johnson recounts how his own oversight role in Congress evolved to rely on the adversarial legal process to extract information from a large government, noting that enforcement power rests in the courts. He frames Siri as someone who, through litigation and testimony, has exposed what he views as flaws in vaccine science, regulation, and safety oversight. Johnson describes Siri’s rise to prominence during the COVID period, beginning with public hearings on vaccine injuries in Milwaukee (June 2021) and Washington, DC (November 2021). He notes that Siri represented Dr. Patricia Lee, a physician who publicly discussed vaccine injection injuries and medical treatment obstacles, illustrating how federal health agencies and the CDC/FDA were perceived to respond to reports of injury. Siri’s testimony is credited with exposing calls to his practice from vaccine-injured doctors seeking treatment and the CDC/FDA officials’ defense of VAERS. Johnson highlights Siri’s 2022 and 2025 hearings, including the release of the VAERS data via the v-safe system, which Siri reportedly showed indicated higher rates of medical care sought and activity impairment among the vaccinated. Siri’s deposition of Stanley Plotkin and other experts is cited as foundational to his arguments about safety science, conflicts of interest, and the integrity of the vaccine schedule. Johnson points to the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) conclusions as being insufficient to prove vaccine safety for the entire childhood schedule, and to Siri’s presentation of the Henry Ford study (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children) showing higher rates of chronic illness among the vaccinated. A central claim Johnson attributes to Siri is that vaccines have immunity from liability, due to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA). Siri’s summary is that vaccines are the only product in America with blanket liability protection for manufacturers and administrators, preempting design-defect claims via the Supreme Court interpretation that “the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts all design defect claims.” Siri argues this immunity removes the market incentive to develop safer vaccines and leaves safety oversight to federal health authorities (HHS agencies: NIH, CDC, FDA) rather than to private manufacturers. Siri’s account of the 1986 act is that it created a mandate for safer childhood vaccines, with three provisions: (1) the general rule placing the secretary of HHS in charge of vaccine safety; (2) a task force of NIH, CDC, and FDA to make safety recommendations to the secretary; and (3) a biannual report to Congress on actions to improve vaccine safety. Siri contends that the biannual reports have never been submitted, and the task force produced only one report (in 1998) before disbanding, with Secretary Kennedy recently reinstating the task force. Siri’s firm ICANN has filed FOIA requests and submitted recommendations to HHS about how to improve vaccine safety, asserting that the current safety framework is not adequate. Siri then surveys the landscape across federal agencies. He asserts that the absence of liability incentives undermines safety, citing industry-pricing and trial designs, and he presents specific examples of licensure trials for routine vaccines that he claims were inadequate by design. Examples include: - Hepatitis B vaccines (Recombivax HB and Engerix B): five days of safety monitoring in trials with 147 participants, according to package inserts and FDA reports he obtained; he notes a lack of long-term safety data and questions the adequacy of control groups. - Prevnar 7 and Prevnar 13 (pneumococcal vaccines): uses Prevnar 7 as a control for Prevnar 13; safety data show notable serious adverse events but are deemed acceptable for licensure; subsequent trials used Prevnar 13 as control for Prevnar 15 with continued concerns about safety signals. - DTaP vs DTP: claims DTP served as control and that DTP itself was not licensed on placebo-controlled trials; cites a Guinea-Bissau study showing higher mortality with DTP vaccination and other studies suggesting increased overall mortality with DTP. - Dengue vaccine: notes long-term, placebo-controlled data showing increased severe harm and death in certain age groups; argues that non-placebo, ethically problematic trial designs can mask safety issues. Siri asserts a categorical claim based on FDA licensure documents: not a single routine neonatal vaccine on the CDC schedule has been licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial; when another vaccine served as control, that control was never a placebo. He presents this as evidence that safety assessments were compromised, especially for early-life vaccines administered in the first six months. Regarding autism, Siri frames it as a litmus test for vaccine safety studies. He recounts IOM findings that were inconclusive about DTaP (and related vaccines) causing autism, citing the lack of sufficient studies and the absence of unvaccinated comparison groups in many analyses. He describes ICANN’s FOIA drive to obtain CDC studies showing vaccines do not cause autism, asserting that most of the CDC’s own 20-study list did not address the vaccines in question. In deposition clips, Siri indicates that the IOM and CDC have not produced adequate evidence to rule out a causal link for several injuries, and that the only mainstream “no autism” position has come under legal scrutiny when the agencies faced court-ordered settlements and deposition testimony. Siri concludes with reform recommendations across agencies: - FDA: remove conflicted personnel from vaccine safety reviews, require clear licensure standards, mandate proper controls and longer safety monitoring, require practitioner notification of trial details, and post pre-registered study protocols; regain transparency of de-identified health data. - CDC/HRSA: align vaccine injury compensation with statutory requirements; expand the VICP to cover more injuries; ensure the CICP is reformed and funded to reflect safety concerns; reduce conflicts of interest; promote alternative, non-pharmaceutical approaches for root causes of chronic illness. - NIH: limit pharma involvement in vaccine development, focus taxpayer-funded research on root causes and replication, and avoid patent-related partnerships that create conflicts. - CMS/HHS-wide: require automated VAERS reporting and public access to de-identified health data; ensure religious exemptions are preserved; depoliticize vaccines and end mandates as political tools; end chronic disease by addressing vaccines as a contributing factor to immune dysregulation. Siri closes by insisting that mandating vaccines is a political act that undermines informed consent, arguing that safety should be decoupled from politics and that safety and efficacy claims should be grounded in rigorous, transparent science. He emphasizes that informed consent, not mandates, should govern medical decisions.

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.

I'm looking at a world population of 6.8 billion, projected to hit 9 billion. If we focus on new vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive health services, we might be able to lower that by 10 to 15 percent. If someone says they're going to reduce the world's population by 10 to 15 percent using vaccines, it suggests that some people will die because of those vaccines. This doesn't sound like saving people. I never considered myself anti-vax, but here we are.

Two hepatitis vaccines exist, and one of them had a safety study that lasted for four days on a 100 and forty three kids, a product that's gonna be given to the seventy six million kids. The risk profile prior to the introduction of the vaccine, the risk of a baby dying from hepatitis B was one in seven million. That means you need to give 7,000,000 hepatitis B vaccines to prevent one death if you're going to give seven. This statement emphasizes that the risk of infant death from hepatitis B was one in seven million. So, Mr. Sikh, and I guess before that.

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.

I stumbled on data. This is hard to believe if you haven't heard this before. For every single vaccine on the childhood schedule, your risk of death, we're just looking at death because that's what parents fear the most. Your risk of dying from the vaccine far exceeds your risk of death from the disease. You can say that unequivocally. Unequivocally. For every single disease for which we have a vaccine. Wow. So what you what are you afraid of? If you're afraid of your child dying, do not give them a vaccine. Right. Period. You should be afraid of some of these other things when severe autism is is just skyrocketing. These are kids who need lifelong care. Yeah. Yeah.

Nick, what does the Maha crew need to do and what do the people need to be demanding? First, we have to look in the past. Back in the nineteen fifties, they removed the Qatar polio vaccine for ten deaths. They removed the swine flu vaccine of nineteen seventies for twenty to fifty deaths. They removed the Rhoda Shield vaccine in 1999 due to ten cases of bowel obstruction. So regardless, it doesn't even matter. These vaccines have far surpassed the threshold for withdrawal of a product. There's just no argument. The data is there. There is no reason to deny it. People need to act accordingly with the data.

Dr James Dunchwander, a physician with dual board certifications in emergency and integrative medicine, has spent 32 years evaluating thousands of children. He notes that parents, to their dying breath, say a vaccine caused their child to descend into autism, or a vaccine caused their child's neurologic disorder, asthma, eczema, or food allergy. He acknowledges a huge disconnect between what these parents are telling us and what is taught in the field. As an ER physician, he warns that ignoring mom or dad is perilous, but he is not here today to debate the safety and efficacy of vaccines. He will, however, challenge each member of the room to that debate and challenge the CDC, the NIH, and any university to a public forum, but he believes it will never happen because “The science isn't there.” He states that the biggest cause of vaccine hesitancy in this country is the lack of true vaccine science. He asks the committee to please the community council and to do their job. He admits he used to naively think that ASAP based all their recommendations on rigorous study of multiple trials determining safety and efficacy, but has since learned that ASAP is simply participating in an industry-wide phenomenon he terms junk science. He contends that junk science has allowed, with respect to colleagues in the room, the presentation of papers and studies that would never pass the rigors of a peer-reviewed journal if they were on any subject other than vaccines. He cites an example: a GSK paper on their MMR vaccine in which ten percent of these healthy 12-year-old babies ended up in an emergency room in six weeks, and two and a half percent of them developed a new chronic medical condition. He notes this was not compared to a placebo group or a delayed vaccine group, but to the current MMR two vaccine, describing the situation as the moral equivalent of comparing ten shots of whiskey to nine shots of whiskey and a shot of vodka, and saying vodka doesn’t cause intoxication. He also asserts that junk science allows vaccines we know don’t work to be doubled down, increasing the dose and frequency. He recalls seeing the committee in the last meeting look at the pneumococcal vaccine and say it doesn’t work, yet leave it on the schedule and leave it up to clinicians to determine whether to give it to a patient. He finishes by stating, “Please do your job.”

"Senator: 'We discovered is that Anthony Fauci was destroying federal records. He was encouraging other people to destroy federal records. That is a crime.' He testified to the house a year ago and said he wasn't doing that. 'That's a crime to perjure himself.' 'We will bring him back. I've asked him to come and testify this fall. If he doesn't come voluntarily, we will subpoena him.' 'The question is, is he immune because of the pardon? I think that that needs to be challenged in court.' 'I have encouraged the Trump administration that they should prosecute this case and challenge the auto pen. I don't think the auto pen is sufficient.' 'There were so many pardons that I'm not sure Biden was aware of all the people he did pardon.' 'There is not a direct link from the person running the auto pen to the president. The person that was running the auto pen never spoke with the president.' 'And I think a president's signature on something so as important as legislation or a pardon is absolutely required.'" "Susan Monarez will testify before the senate HELP committee tomorrow. This will be her first appearance since being ousted from the role. She will be joined by Deb Aury, a former chief medical officer and deputy director who was one of four CDC officials who resigned after Monarez was ousted." "The chair with the president of Moderna ... I asked him about the expectation that he'll be getting a lot less revenue from the vaccine for COVID perhaps this time around. The scientific evidence shows that the risks of taking the COVID vaccine for children exceeds the benefits, and the scientific evidence is abundant on this. There's a study out of Israel that showed that about six to eight kids 20 that are healthy will get an inflammation of the heart that is very dangerous, and that risk exceeds the benefits of a vaccine. Every kid at six months needs to get a COVID vaccination, and that defies the scientific evidence and shows me that she's not objective. It's the same with the hepatitis B vaccine. Unless the mom has hepatitis B vaccine, disease, there is no indication for the vaccine at birth, and we need to readdress that."

There's no safe vaccine on the childhood schedule, period. So at this point, I'm also an anti vaxxer because we don't have a safe vaccine. We don't even have a single one that was properly tested for safety. However, if you aren't comfortable with how you want your child to die, I say in the book in the book Vax Facts that you are more likely to die from the vaccine than you are from the disease for which there is a vaccine. And this is true for every single vaccine on the childhood schedule. It's still a death. It's still super rare, but you're much more likely to die from the vaccine. So which do you want? You want a greater chance of dying from the vaccine or a lesser chance of dying from the disease? Of course, for many of these diseases, the risk is zero.

"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."

"Only half the children in the country got that vaccine, and the other half didn't." "no routine vaccine was tested for overall effect on mortality in randomized trials before being introduced." "The program we are talking about at this time, the vaccine program, was introduced sort of in the late seventies after the success with the eradication of smallpox." "When you come out here, you had two point three times higher mortality if you were DTP vaccinated." "So the moving cough vaccine or the pertussis vaccine was associated with two fold higher mortality." "You can have a vaccine which is fully protected against a specific disease, but associated with higher mortality." "Once they looked at it, they were dying at 5x the rate of all of these other issues."

I asked if they could provide a single prelicensing placebo-controlled safety trial for any of the 72 vaccines required for American children. After searching, they claimed the documents were in Bethesda, but I never received them. We then sued the HHS under the Freedom of Information Act. After a year, they acknowledged they could not locate any prelicensing safety trials for the mandated vaccines. These vaccines come with zero liability. I am not anti-vaccine; I believe in honesty and good science. I've spent 30 years advocating to remove mercury from fish, and no one ever labeled me as anti-fish.

The speaker claims the risk of death from whooping cough is less than one in 2.3 million, while the risk of death from the vaccine is greater than one in 76,000. They state the vaccine is killing far more children than the disease itself, estimating potentially 20 to 40 times more deaths from the vaccine. Another speaker emphasizes that any vaccine, specifically DTaP, carries the risk of death for a child.

In 1990, when the hepatitis B vaccine was introduced, I questioned the justification for administering it to one-day-old infants. My research revealed that the clinical studies supporting the vaccine involved older children, not infants, and lacked proper safety assessments. I found no credible evidence to support giving this vaccine to newborns, leading me to conclude that it was primarily driven by profit motives rather than health needs. With only about 200 women annually giving birth with chronic hepatitis, the rationale for widespread vaccination seemed flawed. This prompted me to investigate other vaccines, and I discovered that they also lacked proper placebo trials and comprehensive safety evaluations, raising concerns about their validity.