reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The FDA, NIH, and CDC recommended vaccinating pregnant women at any time, leading to a rise in maternal mortality. A recent paper showed a concerning increase in maternal deaths in the US, erasing decades of progress in obstetrics. Pregnant women are dying with no mention of COVID or vaccines in the report. This alarming trend should be a cause for concern for everyone.

Pharmaceutical companies paid $1.06 billion to reviewers at leading medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and BMJ, allegedly corrupting the peer review process. Studies from the CDC, FDA, and Pfizer purportedly revealed major breaches in safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy, but these findings were ignored. Independent researchers who published findings contradicting pharmaceutical industry narratives faced persecution, censorship, and threats to their medical licenses and board certifications. The speaker claims this happened to them personally.

A doctor claims there were "perverse incentives" during the pandemic to administer COVID vaccines. As an outpatient physician, she states she could have made $1,500,000 if she had vaccinated the 6,000 COVID patients she treated. She suggests that both outpatient and inpatient settings had "financial incentives" to adhere to government protocols.

After receiving trial documents, a Florida doctor noticed an 80% miscarriage rate in Pfizer recipients. Her practice delivers around 300 babies annually, with a 100% increase in miscarriages post-COVID vaccine rollout. She shared her data on doctor Jessica Rose's substack in 2022, highlighting the influence of big pharma on medical schools. This was discussed on American Thought Leaders with Janik Tellek.

Behind the scenes communications from the BC Centre for Disease Control revealed that COVID-19 vaccines were 16 times more dangerous than flu shots for children. The data was manipulated before being released to the public, omitting comparisons to flu vaccines and downplaying serious adverse events. This lack of transparency raises concerns about health regulators withholding vital information from the public.

In the past, medical advice on eggs, aspirin, and other issues has been corrected without retracting articles. However, during the COVID pandemic, poorly researched articles were used to attack individuals like us. Now, as COVID cases decrease, these articles are being withdrawn from public view. If evidence is being buried, shouldn't that raise a red flag for you?

The speaker claims the Shimabukuro study published in the New England Journal of Medicine on 04/21/2021, misrepresented miscarriage rates, reporting 12.6% when raw data allegedly showed 82% in women vaccinated during the first trimester. The speaker alleges conflicts of interest and misrepresentations by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and Journal Editor in Chief Eric Rubin in publications intended to coerce pregnant women into taking vaccines. The speaker asserts that subsequent studies claiming vaccine safety during pregnancy are compromised by biased funding, institutional mandates, and threats to medical licenses. Pharmaceutical companies allegedly paid $1,060,000,000 to reviewers at leading medical journals between 2020 and 2022, corrupting the peer review process. Safety signals were allegedly ignored in at least six studies from CDC, FDA, and Pfizer. The speaker states their team published a study on 02/08/2025, identifying 37 adverse pregnancy outcomes significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccines. They cite a study documenting the vaccine traversing the placenta and producing spike protein in the placenta and uterus, and animal studies revealing destruction of ovarian reserve. The speaker urges halting funding to organizations like ACOG and SMFM and ending promotional campaigns for mRNA therapies in pregnant women.

- The speaker notes dated 07/25/2022, reporting on developments related to baby deaths and baby funerals. They reference the UK government website, and specifically Northampton NHS in detail mentioning children's funerals, noting that contracts for this area have appeared that were previously unseen. They point to contractfinderservice.gov.uk and advise looking for “children's and babies' funerals.” They identify several awarded contracts, including one for Hertfordshire, another for Hertfordshire specifically for baby funerals, and contracts awarded for Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS, and Leicester Hospitals NHS. - The speaker mentions that the WNHS is another organization involved for those who do not want to have Mexican arranged funerals, stating that they will do that for you now. - A doctor in Australia, Dr. Luke McClinton, is described as leading the fertility services at the Mater Hospital and as a principal investigator for a series of randomized controlled trials. He is also described as the president of the Australian Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine and is labeled as “the top doctor in Australia in this field.” - The speaker asserts that Dr. Luke McClinton was sacked on Friday for not getting the jab and for attempting to release his data on miscarriages post-vaccination. They state that he has until the following Friday to exit his private practice rooms, as he is no longer allowed to practice in public or private settings. - The speaker claims that Dr. McClinton has been investigating miscarriages in couples post-vaccination and states that the “normal miscarriage rate” is between five and perhaps as high as sixteen percent. They then claim that since the introduction of the vaccine, he has found that seventy-four percent of women who are vaccinated are now having miscarriages. - The speaker reiterates the statistic: “Seventy four percent of women are having miscarriages who are vaccinated.” They suggest that this statistic would explain why hospitals allegedly want to deal directly with crematoria, with vans taking multiple babies directly to the crematorium, bypassing funeral directors. The speaker emphasizes that they had previously mentioned these points.

The speaker claims that searching the FDA website for “FDA licensed vaccines” and checking section 6.1 on vaccine insert documents will show that placebo trials “never did” occur, including for childhood vaccines. They argue that placebo trial details are included in insert materials for vaccines where the public “never got to see” certain information due to lack of informed consent, and they say experts would claim those studies were done because they rely on what the insert language indicates or what they assert based on expert testimony. The speaker further asserts that Tony Fauci lied about six-foot distancing and that “Everyone at the CDC and the regulatory agencies” lied about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, specifically claiming the vaccine “would stop transmission” was false and that if vaccinated people contract and transmit the virus, “the virus stops with you” and they claim it “does not” stop with you. They say the FDA has “already admitted it,” and they call for people to “start asking people to show their work,” to seek evidence, and to “not trust experts any longer,” stating they have been lied to “long enough.” They express that they hope a documentary is not the last one and say they take interviews without concern about edits that could make them look “crazy,” because they believe viewers will agree. The speaker then discusses the “vaxxed versus unvaxxed study,” saying they have been addressing it “forever” and that they took a risk by agreeing to trust the study’s results if the other party published them. They say the CDC has “done this study a thousand times” in ways meant to prove vaccinators are healthier and “they can’t do it,” and they claim that results become “bad” when the study is done “the right way.” They describe an “inconvenient study” that they say is inconvenient for panelists, for the pharmaceutical industry that they say owns television stations, and for CDC leadership and HHS officials they claim were involved in “covering up the real science.” They conclude that people will “not take it anymore” and that they now have evidence “like they have never, ever had before.”

Pediatricians may be incentivized to administer vaccines due to revenue structures. One article claims that 50% of pediatricians' revenue comes from vaccines. Insurance companies like Blue Cross allegedly pay bonuses to pediatricians who maintain a 95% vaccination rate among their clients. This bonus structure may disincentivize pediatricians from accommodating alternative vaccination schedules, potentially leading them to dismiss patients who request them. These incentives may prevent doctors from prioritizing patient care due to financial considerations. The speaker claims that twenty years ago, 20% of doctors worked for corporations, but now 80% do, and these corporations prioritize revenue over patient well-being.

The speaker claims that women who received the vaccine in the first trimester had an 82% miscarriage rate. They state that this is the same miscarriage rate observed in the Pfizer 5.3.6 post-market analysis.

We found that the FDA lied about a maternal rat study that was testing the safety of mandating a vaccine to pregnant women. In every litter, individual pups had horrible bone deformities. This signal was extremely prominent. Moderna submitted the rat study, as they were required to do. The FDA then lied about the study results by claiming there were no problems. It was a huge enterprise in lying.

Doctors administered untested gene therapy to infants, toddlers, and pregnant women, claiming it was safe. However, the mRNA jab was deemed the most dangerous medical product for pregnant individuals. Traditional medical principles were disregarded, including giving experimental drugs to pregnant patients and assuming any death or injury post-intervention was related. Regulatory authorities worldwide dismissed adverse events as unrelated until proven otherwise, leading to disastrous consequences.

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.

The speaker discusses a New England Journal of Medicine study from April 21, 2021, and an accompanying op-ed by Eric Rubin, Stephen Morrissey, and Rochelle Walensky, alleging they made false and fear-mongering statements about the risks to pregnant women, unborn children, and newborns if they didn't get vaccinated. This was allegedly done despite evidence suggesting pregnancy reduced maternal mortality and data showing the COVID-19 vaccine was the deadliest and most injurious vaccine ever released. The speaker claims the study, authored by 21 federal employees including Tom Shimabukuro, was biased. Out of 827 pregnant women in the study, they highlight a claimed miscarriage rate of 12.6%, which they argue is abnormally high compared to the normal rate of 3% at a normal booking visit. They allege that 700 of the women received the vaccine in their third trimester, but were artificially placed in the first trimester data. This allegedly skewed the miscarriage rate for women vaccinated in the first trimester to 82%, which is the same miscarriage rate seen in the Pfizer post-market data.

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.

Now that people are seeing the trial documents, we're finding out about bad outcomes, like the eighty percent miscarriage rate in the Pfizer trials. They were aware of this. I'm Dr. Kimberly Biss, an OBGYN. After the COVID vaccines rolled out in 2021, I saw disturbing trends in my patients. My miscarriage rate had doubled from the previous year. I tracked my data in real time and published my findings on Dr. Jessica Rose's Substack in 2022. A lot of medical schools get a large portion of their funding from big pharma. I'm Yaniv Kelek, and this is American Thought Leaders.

Pharmaceutical companies paid $1.06 billion to reviewers at major medical journals, allegedly corrupting the peer review process. Studies from the CDC, FDA, and Pfizer purportedly revealed major breaches in COVID-19 vaccine safety signals during pregnancy, but these findings were allegedly ignored. Independent researchers who published findings contradicting pharmaceutical industry narratives faced persecution, censorship, and threats to their medical licenses and board certifications. The speaker claims this happened to them personally.

According to the speaker, now that people are getting the documents from the trials, the miscarriage rate was eighty percent in the Pfizer trials, and they knew that. Obstetrician and gynecologist Dr. Kimberly Biss observed disturbing trends in her patients after the COVID-19 genetic vaccines rolled out in 2021. She noticed her miscarriage rate from year to year had gone up by a hundred percent. She began tracking and comparing her data in real time and published her findings on doctor Jessica Rose's substack in 2022. The speaker also claims that a lot of medical schools, 50 to 60% of their money probably comes from big pharma.

Science hinges on replication, yet NIH stopped enforcing it, creating incentives to publish even when hypotheses fail. Null results often go unpublished, and journals resist publishing critiques of vaccines due to pharmaceutical funding. Editors like Marcia Engel and Richard Horton have lamented that journals have become propaganda vessels for pharmaceutical companies. Pharma pays to publish, hires mercenary scientists to validate products, and preprints spread favorable findings. Pharma reps visit doctors to influence prescribing. It is claimed that 50% of revenues to most pediatricians come from vaccines, and insurers offer bonuses for high vaccination rates, pressuring doctors to follow schedules. Corporate ownership now surrounds practice, with many doctors employed by corporations and facing revenue pressure. The system is described as incentivized to keep people sick, and the conclusion is we’re the sickest nation in the world.

Big Pharma, they own everything. There's a number of past chief editors of journals, and we're not talking just, you know, like some throwaway journals. We're talking New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, British Medical Journal. Okay. Some of the biggest journals in the world. Those are top three out of the top four that I just named. Journal of American Medical Association is the other one. But chief editors in the last twenty years, at least six of them have come out and said that at least 50% of the science that's published is fake. Come on. Read their quotes. Marcia Angel is one of them that I can remember her name. There's a guy by the name of Richard something or other from the British Medical Journal who said the same thing. I just read an article about it the other day. I'll I'll send it to you because it's I'm not surprised. I mean, depth of corruption is is stunning and and the fact that pretty much nothing's been done about it makes you wonder how long this can all last.

Speaker 0 raises a concern that something can undermine Africa’s sovereignty and states that trust in WHO cannot be maintained. He proceeds to mention a specific issue among several that he says illustrate this risk. In twenty fourteen and twenty fifteen, WHO conducted a tetanus eradication campaign in their country, described as an effort to eradicate neonatal tetanus, which affects babies who are born and eventually get tetanus. The vaccine used in that campaign is described as a different type of tetanus vaccine, characterized by the speaker as a fertility-regulating vaccine. This vaccine is said to take tetanus and combine it with a hormone called human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), which supports pregnancy. The speaker claims that when a woman is injected with this vaccine, she produces antibodies against the hCG hormone and is therefore rendered sterile. Following this, the speaker reports noticing an increase in infertility among young couples. He describes cases where couples appear normal but cannot have children, and other couples who are losing three, four, or five pregnancies before they can carry any pregnancy to term. He asserts that these patterns have been exposed and that a paper detailing the findings has been published and is available. The overall claim ties the tetanus eradication campaign and the described fertility-regulating vaccine to broader consequences, including increased infertility and pregnancy losses, as part of the speaker’s argument about the impact of external health interventions on the country’s population. The speaker also notes that the publication of their paper provides documented material related to these observations. By presenting these points, he emphasizes a linkage between the 2014–2015 campaign, the vaccine’s purported mechanism involving antibodies to hCG, and the observed reproductive outcomes, asserting that these issues have been identified, exposed, and published for public access. The narrative frames the tetanus campaign and the vaccine as a cause of infertility trends, and it positions the cited publication as evidence accessible to readers.

The transcript references the book Vaccinations Do Not Protect by Eleanor McBean and presents several assertions about vaccines and the vaccination system. It claims that the book argues taking vaccines is unconstitutional and labels vaccines as “garbage,” suggesting that vaccination is a large, protected industry. It asserts that doctors do not take the shots themselves, do not give them to their own children, but administer them to other people’s children because they receive a commission. The speaker states that some physicians have noticed patterns associated with vaccines, including paralysis within twenty-four hours after an injection, paralysis up to six months after an injection, cancer near the injection site, and diseases such as tuberculosis within twenty years. The speaker also notes that Edward Jenner, the father of vaccination, noticed a similar pattern of “poisoning the people” in 1796. The transcript emphasizes that vaccination is a big business and claims it is protected by the government. It references 1986 as a key date when vaccination was protected by the government so that people cannot sue. The speaker concludes by asserting that vaccination is the leading cause of death among children under the age of 15. Throughout, the claims are presented as facts or observations within the book and its interpretation, with emphasis on alleged patterns, motivations, and systemic protections surrounding vaccination.

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.

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.