reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses their involvement in building a vaccine payment system in New Zealand. They noticed discrepancies in the data, specifically a high number of deaths occurring shortly after vaccination. They provide charts showing the top ten batches with high mortality rates, all of which are Pfizer. They also mention the top ten vaccinators with the highest mortality ratios. The speaker questions why these deaths are happening and suggests that the vaccine should be protecting people. They also highlight spikes in deaths during flu seasons and the COVID-19 pandemic. The speaker concludes that the death rate in New Zealand has increased even after COVID-19, as shown by ongoing black lines on the chart.

Speaker 0 asked about a report and how concerning it is, questioning whether “10” is the real number. Speaker 1 said the main concern is that the report “dramatically understates the problem.” They argued that analyses rely on doctors and that it was difficult to obtain autopsies during the pandemic. Speaker 1 stated that medical professors did not want to know, resulting in very few autopsies. They said NIH, CDC, and FDA reviewed 96 autopsies of children and identified about 10 cases they considered possible or probable. Speaker 1 then pointed to VAERS, stating there are almost 1.7 million total adverse events and 39,000 deaths worldwide. They said that of the 39,000 deaths, 24% occurred on the day of vaccination or within one or two days. They acknowledged FDA officials say VAERS does not prove causation, but said that if someone was perfectly healthy and died on that day or within one or two days, they would assign blame. Speaker 1 also said there may be cases where people were already in bad health and vaccination “tipped them over,” with death ultimately caused by something else. Speaker 1’s “bigger revelation” was described as information they said was not covered by mainstream media. They stated that on 03/01/2021, Peter Marks, head of CBR within FDA, was briefed that their algorithm analyzing VAERS safety would hide and mask safety signals. Speaker 1 said that 26 days later, Marks ran a new algorithm that unmasked 49 cases of extreme masking and 25 safety signals, including sudden cardiac death, pulmonary infarction, Bell’s palsy, and different types of strokes. Speaker 1 said that in the next three months, similar data runs with the new algorithm showed more safety signals and more types of sudden death. They said the report described not “pin[ning] a badge” on doctor Anna Scharzman (identified as the dad of Speaker 1’s expert), ordering her to cease and desist, and continuing to use the algorithm the briefing warned would hide safety signals “to this day.” Speaker 1 said Peter Marks later went to work for Eli Lilly and claimed that the world is in denial. They stated they could not get the story broadcast or interviews on CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, MS Now, or CNN, and said they challenged Jake Tapper, sending the report and requesting an additional appearance.

The presentation examines the pattern of deployment of toxic vaccine batches using the VAERS dataset. It notes that the Covid vaccine was deployed in batches or lots, each with a number, and the batches are listed in VAERS in the order they were created, with adverse reactions recorded for each batch. A graph was produced with adverse reactions on the vertical axis and the sequence of batches in time on the horizontal axis, showing patterns of deployment in 2021. Each dot represents a batch, and the speaker highlights that about 95% of batches lie close to the x-axis, forming a thick line, with 80% of all batches generating only one or two adverse reaction reports and thus considered harmless. In contrast, the “clouds” and spikes above the x-axis represent toxic batches, with all such dots categorized as toxic. The breakdown given is: - 5% of all batches belong to these clouds and spikes. - The truly toxic batches generate 1,000 to 5,000 adverse reaction reports and are found above a red line, causing harm across every state in the USA where deployed. - These very toxic batches comprise about 0.65% of all batches (roughly one in 200). Total batches deployed in 2021 and recorded in VAERS: 28,330. Eighty percent are harmless (1–2 reports) within the x-axis line; the remaining 20% are more toxic, with the most extreme range up to 5,000 reports. Lesson two asks: “Who did it?” It identifies three companies appearing in VAERS: Moderna, Pfizer, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson). By filtering VAERS data in Excel, the speaker presents the contributions of each company to the toxic-batch deployment. In the full picture, Moderna accounts for every batch in the first half of the chart except two spikes pre- and post- Moderna, which are attributed to Janssen. Pfizer’s results (from their batches) match the latter half of the chart exactly, suggesting Pfizer appeared to have taken over supply for every USA batch in the latter portion. The deployment is described as carefully compartmentalized, with phases where Janssen, then Moderna, then Janssen again, and then Pfizer dominate in sequence, followed by Moderna exiting and Pfizer continuing. Lesson three describes the purpose behind Moderna’s deployment of toxic batches: Moderna appears to randomly distribute toxic batches, with the intention of harm, possibly to induce fear of a pandemic and justify stronger policies. Janssen’s initial spike is interpreted as a test before Moderna’s deployment. Pfizer is described as carrying out rigorous dosage testing, deploying the most lethal batches systematically and recording effects, and acting as the only company administering batches at that stage to avoid interference from others. Lesson four details the fine art of lethal dosage testing. Pfizer’s deployment is shown as highly clustered in time, forming distinct periods of toxic batches separated by intervals of harmless batches. Toxic batches cluster in discrete ranges (e.g., 3,000–2,500; 2,000–1,500; 1,500–1,000), with abrupt transitions between clusters and harmless periods. Toxicity ranges are not random but follow a stepwise, linear decline across clusters. The speaker concludes that Pfizer deployed highly toxic batches for discrete dosage testing across all states, implying thousands of hospitalizations, injuries, and deaths. The presentation ends by contrasting that 80% of batches are harmless, while a minority exhibit wide toxicity ranges, with claims of systematic, non-random deployment designed for testing, and notes an ironic statement about American exposure to what is described as German-led testing.

As of the 15th, data have accumulated from vaccination records covering 18 million people (including vaccination counts and corresponding individuals). The analysis compares vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups as accurately as possible, represented by orange (unvaccinated) and green (vaccinated). In the unvaccinated group (orange), no “mountain” or peak appears, which the speaker says is expected: since unvaccinated individuals have not received injections, their outcomes do not suddenly change due to vaccination, so the pattern remains flat. The issue is described as occurring in the vaccinated group (green). At first, the vaccinated group’s pattern is low, but during the following period the speaker reports that the “mountain” emerges: not immediately, but increasingly after about one to two weeks. The speaker claims that a clearer peak becomes visible around one month, and then develops again around the third and fourth months, when the “mountain” is said to form. The speaker interprets this timing in a specific way. They suggest that doctors who administered the injections may have been filing reports to the PMDA (Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency) based on observations that, roughly within the first day to about one week after vaccination, there is likely an effect of the vaccine leading to disappearance of reactions—described as “in a period where onset reactions would have occurred” being replaced by a lack of “unwanted responses” in that early window. The speaker also reports an additional finding: as vaccination counts increase, the “mountain” in deaths is said to shift earlier and toward the left in time. They state that increasing the number of vaccinations leads to earlier appearance of the death peak, which they describe as increasing risk within a shorter period. In their explanation, this implies that the effect contributing to the peak becomes stronger or more pronounced with repeated doses, because “more doses” are said to make the peak appear sooner. They further claim that for a peak to arise, vaccination would need to have a toxic effect or an effect that induces “fat” (脂肪) according to the speaker’s wording. They conclude by stating that they believe the observed shifting and earlier peaks indicate accumulating harmful effects: as dose frequency increases, toxicity would overlap (“重複混沌”) and the time until effects dissipate would shorten, consistent with the earlier movement of the peak.

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.

The speakers discuss the lack of accurate data on vaccine-related deaths and adverse effects. They mention various investigations and studies conducted internationally, highlighting statistical signals of increased deaths during vaccination campaigns across Europe. They also mention issues with data in England, where a delay between vaccination and death results in vaccinated individuals being classified as unvaccinated. This artificially inflates the number of unvaccinated deaths. An English study shows that vaccinated individuals make up a higher percentage of deaths compared to their population percentage. These findings raise concerns about the effectiveness of vaccines and the accuracy of government data.

On the 15th, data accumulated from 18 million vaccination events or people is being tracked. The presenters attempt to compare vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups, with the claim that unvaccinated individuals do not face particular problems when interacting with others, while the discussion centers on the vaccinated group and a phenomenon described as “the green side” that initially shows low numbers for one to two weeks. From around February, a large peak emerges, continuing through March and April, suggesting that the effects observed may be related to vaccines and their side effects. It is suggested that doctors who were vaccinated may have observed effects on the same day, the following day, or about a week later, which could reflect the influence of vaccination, and this information is being sent to PMDA. One more finding is reported: the more vaccination is administered, the more the peak tends to move forward and to the left, indicating a shifting pattern in the timing of peaks. As the number of vaccinations increases, the “mountain” of deaths is said to occur earlier, implying that with increased vaccination there may be a shift toward earlier occurrence of deaths in a shorter interval. The speakers emphasize a key point: if there is no toxicity associated with the vaccine or no effect that would attract lipids, a peak may not occur. This is presented as the first finding: increasing vaccination frequency appears to move the peak. The implication drawn is that the observed shift in peaks is linked to the increasing number of vaccinations, and that the timing of peaks changes as vaccination numbers rise. The dialogue frames these observations as findings rather than assertions about vaccine safety, noting the potential role of vaccine-induced toxicity or lipid-adjuvant effects in driving the observed peaks, while also acknowledging that the absence of such effects would mean peaks might not develop.

Vaccinated individuals are still at risk of getting COVID, but may have milder symptoms. Vaccines were introduced late in the pandemic, and early treatment and natural immunity were key in saving lives. There is controversy over vaccine safety, with reports of deaths following vaccination. Some studies suggest vaccinated individuals are at higher risk of severe outcomes. Calls have been made to remove vaccines from the market due to safety concerns. Translation: Vaccinated people can still get COVID, but may have less severe symptoms. Early treatment and natural immunity were important in saving lives. There are concerns about vaccine safety, with reports of deaths after vaccination. Some studies indicate vaccinated people may be at higher risk of severe outcomes. There are calls to remove vaccines from the market due to safety concerns.

Speaker 0: Take the shot and protect yourself and the people around you. We all feel a chill when we hear that. Mrs. van der Hof from the RIVM, you’ve researched the effects of vaccination. If you look under the line, has it had any usefulness? Speaker 1: It has certainly been useful. In fact, from our research, but also from many other studies, people who were vaccinated had a lower chance of dying from COVID, and we see that effect with every shot that’s given. We also studied whether there is a higher chance of dying from diseases other than COVID shortly after vaccination, to see whether there is vaccine harm, and we do not find that either, which is also in line with what is found internationally. Speaker 0: Okay, because that is the story you hear at the dinner table. Earlier this week someone said, I see so many people dying, there must be something. Speaker 1: Yes. Well, there are certainly people who have died due to the vaccination. We cannot deny that. That has been investigated; we find that in the Netherlands through Lareb, and we find that internationally as well. You just have to weigh the very small chance that you become ill or die from a vaccination against the chance that you become very ill or die from COVID. And the balance tips toward vaccination. Speaker 0: Yes, vaccination protects more than it harms, you just said. Also, have you studied the chance of death due to vaccination? Speaker 1: Well, we looked at people who were vaccinated and whether within 2 months after vaccination they had an increased chance of dying from anything other than COVID. If there were an indication there, we would see it, and we absolutely do not find that. Speaker 0: No, that is simply not found. Okay. Mrs. Van der Broek, and the pandemic was a priority.

The speaker claims that the COVID vaccine is toxic and could have caused the deaths of 17 million people worldwide. They suggest that there is a temporary increase in all-cause mortality following vaccine rollouts, which is consistent across different countries. Another speaker points out that normally, deaths decrease in the summer, but during the vaccine campaign, there are spikes in mortality, even in the Southern Hemisphere where it should be low. They mention that this pattern is seen during booster rollouts as well. This phenomenon is described as unprecedented.

The speaker claims that the vaccine is toxic and could have caused the deaths of 17 million people worldwide. They argue that after each vaccine rollout, there is a temporary increase in overall mortality. This pattern is observed consistently across countries with sufficient data. Another speaker points out that typically, deaths decrease in the summer and increase in the winter, but during the COVID vaccine campaign, there are spikes in mortality right after the campaigns, even in the summer. They mention that this pattern is seen in both the northern and southern hemispheres. The speakers emphasize that this is a new phenomenon.

In a Japanese study of 20,000,000 people, they could determine vaccine status and found "highly significant that all the excess deaths were in the vaccinated group, that the non vaccinated group had none." Last week, "a study of twenty minute million people. 22,000,000 people. Yeah. Yeah. It's not a bad study." An Australian statistician's paper reportedly shows that "about three months after every splurge of a vaccine booster, mortality went up," with "the peak mortality was a hundred days after the after vaccine vaccination." This timing aligns with the Japanese finding. There’s mention of an Australian government inquiry into excess deaths that "said there's nothing in it." "That's all due to COVID."

In the message described, Speaker 0 highlights a key claim: the CDC and FDA were fully aware of the masking phenomenon within their empirical Bayesian analysis. The speaker emphasizes that this awareness was part of the information being conveyed in a letter to Bobby Kennedy. The central issue raised is not about general safety signals, but about the timing of deaths relative to vaccination. The speaker notes a concern that began earlier, stating that back in October there were discussions with Mike Eden about these injections. The concern is tied to what was observed in the data, specifically that “early on in March and April” the data appeared to be "screaming at us" when looking at thousands of deaths. The speaker provides a concrete statistic: “forty six percent of those deaths were occurring on the day of vaccination than one or two days.” The speaker then updates the figure, saying that they are “up to almost thirty nine thousand deaths” in total, and adds that “Twenty four percent of those deaths occurred on the day of vaccination or within one or two days.” The speaker asserts that this information “has been available month by month by month since about March, April 2021,” yet alleges that “the federal officials are still not acknowledging it.” Instead of acknowledging these signals, the speaker claims officials point to other metrics, stating they “go to these, you know, PRR, the proportional reporting ratios, or a more sophisticated” approach. The claim continues that when PRRs were showing safety signals, officials reacted as if, “oh, we're not using those. We're using empirical Bayesian analysis. They set the trigger.” In summary, the transcript presents a narrative in which the CDC and FDA are described as being aware of a masking phenomenon identified through empirical Bayesian analysis, with specific, alarming timing data linking a significant proportion of deaths to the day of vaccination or the following couple of days. The speaker contends this information has been publicly accessible on a monthly basis since early 2021, but accuses federal officials of not acknowledging it and of favoring a different analytic framework (PRR) or of claiming to use empirical Bayesian analysis after the fact, implying that the trigger for safety signals was set within that framework. The overall emphasis is on the alleged discrepancy between available data and official acknowledgment, as well as the choice of analytic methods used to interpret safety signals.

The speaker claims that the vaccine is toxic and could have killed 17 million people worldwide. They argue that after each booster rollout, there is a peak in all cause mortality, which is consistently observed across different countries. Another speaker points out that normally, deaths decrease in the summer, but during the COVID vaccine campaign, there are spikes in mortality right after vaccine campaigns, even in the Southern Hemisphere where it should be a low death period. They mention that this pattern is seen in all 17 countries they studied. Overall, they emphasize that these observations are unprecedented.

Speaker 0 asks about a report and how concerning it is, suggesting that if the reported figure is 10, there is a “real number” that could be higher. Speaker 1 says the main concern is that the analysis “dramatically understates the problem.” They describe the difficulty of getting autopsies during the pandemic and say medical professors didn’t want to perform them, resulting in very few autopsies. They state that NIH/CDC/FDA reviewed 96 pediatric autopsies and concluded about 10 were possible or probable. Speaker 1 then argues that safety signals were “screaming,” and points to VAERS. They claim there are almost 1.7 million total adverse events and 39,000 deaths worldwide. They say 24% of the 39,000 deaths occurred on the day of vaccination or within one or two days. Speaker 1 also references the point that VAERS doesn’t prove causation, while stating that if a person who was “perfectly healthy” died that day or within one or two days, they would “be blaming” the jab. They add that in some cases people may have been in bad health already, with death tipped over by another cause. Speaker 1 says the “bigger revelation,” which they claim was unveiled three weeks ago and is “still not being covered by the mainstream media,” involves FDA’s VAERS algorithm. They state that on 03/01/2021, Peter Marks (head of CBER/FDA’s division approving vaccines and surveilling post-approval safety) was briefed that their algorithm analyzing VAERS would “hide and mask safety signals.” They say that 26 days later, a new algorithm unmasked safety signals, producing 49 cases of extreme masking revealed and 25 safety signals, including sudden cardiac death, pulmonary infarction, Bell’s palsy, and different types of strokes. They claim that similar data runs over the next three months showed more safety signals and more sudden death. Speaker 1 further claims that FDA did not “pin a badge” on Anna Scharzman, referred to as the father of their expert, and instead “shunned her off to the side,” ordered her to cease and desist, and decided to use the algorithm they had been warned would hide safety signals, which they say is still being used. Speaker 1 states that Peter Marks left for Eli Lilly and claims “the entire world” is in denial. They say they have been unable to broadcast the story or get interviews on CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, MSNBC, or CNN, and that they challenged Jake Tapper, who they say agreed to read the report but has not invited them back yet.

Speaker 0 states that “there’s 25% of Americans who believe that they know somebody who was killed by a COVID vaccine,” emphasizing “killed” and “killed,” and repeating that the figure is “25% of Americans.” Speaker 0 then says “52% of Americans believe that the vaccines are causing injuries, including death,” and repeats “52%.” Speaker 0 continues by discussing clinical trial studies and what has or has not been released. Speaker 0 says that “if you look at the clinical trial studies, the actual studies that were done that were released of the Pfizer vaccine,” “Moderna has not released it.” Speaker 0 then specifies the Pfizer trial numbers: “If you look at the Pfizer vaccine, there were 22,000 people in the placebo group, 22,000 people who got the actual vaccine.” Speaker 0 presents an outcome claim tied to those groups, saying: “And the people who got the vaccine had a 23% higher death rate from all causes at the end of that study.” Speaker 0 frames a question regarding whether the higher death rate could be related to the disease itself. Speaker 0 says: “But that could not be the disease itself?” and then asks, “No, well... Because we know that...” Speaker 0 then brings up a logical implication, saying: “If it is, then the vaccine doesn't work, does it?” Speaker 0 responds to this with a partial back-and-forth, stating: “Well, it's certainly... Well, no, no, that's not, that's...” ending mid-thought. Overall, the transcript centers on Speaker 0’s reported survey-style figures (25% believing they know someone killed by a COVID vaccine; 52% believing vaccines cause injuries including death) and Speaker 0’s discussion of Pfizer clinical trial study details (placebo group size of 22,000; vaccine group size of 22,000; a claimed 23% higher death rate from all causes for those who received the vaccine at the end of the study), alongside Speaker 0’s statement that Moderna has not released the corresponding clinical trial studies. The transcript also includes a question-and-response exchange about whether the observed death-rate difference could be due to the disease itself and what that would imply.

The speaker claims that based on the number of vaccine doses administered worldwide, they have calculated the toxicity of the vaccine and believe it would have killed 17 million people. They also mention a correlation between booster rollouts and an increase in all-cause mortality, which they observe in multiple countries. Another speaker adds that typically, deaths increase in winter and decrease in summer, but during the COVID vaccine campaign, there are spikes in mortality right after vaccine campaigns, even in the summer. They note this pattern globally, including in the Southern Hemisphere. This phenomenon is described as unusual and unprecedented.

The speaker claims that the COVID vaccine is toxic and could have caused the deaths of 17 million people worldwide. They argue that after each vaccine rollout, there is a temporary increase in all-cause mortality. This pattern is observed consistently across countries with sufficient data. Another speaker points out that normally, deaths decrease in the summer, but during the COVID vaccine campaign, there are spikes in mortality. This is especially evident in the southern hemisphere, where there should be a low death period. The speakers conclude that this is a new phenomenon and it occurs globally during booster rollouts.

The speaker discusses their involvement in building a vaccine payment system in New Zealand. They noticed discrepancies in the data, specifically deaths occurring shortly after vaccination. They share charts showing the top ten batches with high death rates, primarily from Pfizer vaccines. They also highlight the high mortality rates among certain vaccinators. The speaker questions the reasons behind these deaths and emphasizes that vaccines are meant to protect people. They mention spikes in deaths during flu seasons and the impact of COVID-19 on mortality rates. The speaker concludes that the death rate in New Zealand has increased even after COVID-19, as shown by ongoing black lines on the chart.

Vaccinated individuals are not less likely to get infected with COVID, but may have milder symptoms. Vaccines were introduced late in the pandemic, and data on vaccine status in hospitals may be inaccurate. Reports show a significant number of deaths following vaccination, raising concerns about vaccine safety globally. Calls have been made to remove these vaccines from the market due to their perceived dangers. Translation: Vaccinated people may still get COVID but might have less severe symptoms. Vaccine safety is being questioned due to reports of deaths following vaccination. There are concerns about the accuracy of hospital data on vaccine status.

Speaker 0 asked about the visibility of the medium to long-term effects of the vaccine in three to five years. Speaker 1 responded that they cannot predict how things will be in three to five years, but mentioned that 92-93% of the population will be vaccinated. Speaker 0 expressed confusion, and Speaker 1 clarified that 92-93% is the current vaccination rate. Speaker 0 raised concerns about potential side effects, but Speaker 1 reassured them that if there are any, the majority of the population would be affected. Speaker 0 remained unconvinced and expressed hesitation about getting vaccinated.

The speakers discuss the correlation between COVID-19 vaccination campaigns and spikes in mortality. They observe that after vaccine rollouts, there is a noticeable increase in deaths, even during the summer months when mortality rates should be low. This pattern is consistent across multiple countries and age groups. The speakers mention the presence of winter peaks and booster peaks in mortality data, which contradicts the expected trends. This correlation is observed globally, including in the Southern Hemisphere where a decrease in deaths is expected during the summer.

6月15日現在、1800万人の接種回数分のデータが蓄積されている。接種者と非接種者を比較すると、非接種者はフラットだが、接種者は1ヶ月後から3～4ヶ月にかけて死亡者の山ができる。 医師たちは接種当日、翌日、1週間ぐらいに発生した副作用をPMDAに送る。接種を重ねるほど、死亡者の山が左に移動する現象が確認された。つまり、打てば打つほど死亡時期が早まる。 ワクチン接種に毒性や死亡を誘導する効果がなければ、この山はできない。接種回数が増えるほど山が左に移動するのは、毒素が蓄積し、回数が増えるほど早く死亡することを意味すると思われる。 **Translation:** As of June 15th, data has been accumulated for 18 million vaccinations. Comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, the unvaccinated remain flat, but the vaccinated show a peak in deaths from one month to three to four months after vaccination. Doctors send reports of side effects occurring on the day of vaccination, the next day, and within about a week to the PMDA. It was confirmed that as vaccinations increase, the peak of deaths shifts to the left. In other words, the more shots, the earlier the death. If the vaccination did not have toxic or death-inducing effects, this peak would not exist. The more the number of vaccinations increases, the more the peak shifts to the left, which seems to mean that toxins accumulate, and the more the number of vaccinations, the faster death occurs.

**Original Language (Japanese):** 市町村が持っているワクチン接種データを解析した結果、接種後120日前後に死亡者の大きなピークがあることが判明。ワクチンが死亡を誘導しないなら、このようなピークはありえない。接種後数ヶ月経ってから死亡する人が多いため、ワクチン接種による死亡が実際より少なく計上されている可能性がある。接種回数が増えるごとに、死亡までの時間が短くなる傾向が見られる。mRNAワクチンには免疫抑制作用があり、スパイクタンパク質の産生量に比例する。スパイクタンパク質を発現する細胞が免疫によって破壊されることも毒性の可能性がある。ワクチン接種の死亡者数は想像以上に多く、毎年の超過死亡の原因の一つかもしれない。約7万人の仲間とともにmRNAワクチン接種を止めさせるよう政府に働きかけているが、まだ成功していない。先週、ワクチン接種を止めるべきだという署名約10万人以上を厚生労働省に提出。国際的に協力し、危険なワクチン接種を止めさせるよう頑張りたい。 **English Translation:** Analysis of municipal vaccination data revealed a significant peak in deaths around 120 days post-vaccination. Such a peak would be impossible if the vaccine did not induce mortality. Because many deaths occur months after vaccination, vaccine-related deaths may be underreported. The time to death tends to decrease with each subsequent dose. mRNA vaccines have an immunosuppressive effect proportional to spike protein production. The destruction of spike protein-expressing cells by the immune system is another potential toxicity. The number of vaccine-related deaths may be higher than imagined, potentially contributing to annual excess mortality. Along with approximately 70,000 colleagues, efforts are underway to stop mRNA vaccinations, but have not yet succeeded. Last week, a petition with over 100,000 signatures to halt vaccinations was submitted to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. There is a desire to collaborate internationally to stop dangerous vaccinations.

The speakers express concern about the limited reporting of adverse reactions to vaccines. They mention a report suggesting that only 5% of adverse reactions are recorded in the database. Despite this, they assure viewers that the COVID vaccine is safe. They highlight that prior to the COVID vaccine rollout, the average number of adverse event reports for all vaccines in New Zealand was 1500 per year, with one or fewer deaths reported annually.