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.

- The speakers discuss data on vaccination, noting that “月 15 日 な ん と 1 800 万 人 の 接 種 回 数 人 数 分 の デー タ が 蓄 積 さ れ て お り ま す” – roughly, a large accumulation of data on vaccination counts (about 18 million vaccination events). - Speaker 1 attempts to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. They say the unvaccinated “は 山 ま 行 け な っ いう は 特 に 当たり 前 な ん ですよね 。 打っ て も 別 に 殴ら れ る わけ じゃ な 打っ て い ま せ ん の で 、何 の 問 題 も なく 、 フラ ット に な る わけ です 。” In other words, the unvaccinated are described as obviously not having issues even if they are not vaccinated, while vaccinated people may become “flat” or experience issues. - The main focus is on the vaccinated group. They describe a “緑 の 裏” that starts low, with a peak over one to two weeks. They note a pattern beginning around two months, with large peaks around three to four months. They interpret this as possibly reflecting a reaction pattern in doctors, who after vaccination might observe effects on the day, the next day, or about a week later, suggesting a vaccine effect or adverse response that diminishes over time. - There is mention of sending information to PM DA (a recipient or channel for information), indicating that the information is being transmitted to PM DA as part of the data flow. - Another finding is that as vaccination numbers increase, the “山” (the peak) of the adverse or death-related data shifts to the earlier positions, described as moving “前の方、左 の 方 に 移 動 し て い る.” The implication is that the distribution of the peak shifts with increasing vaccination counts. - Speaker 1 then asserts that “接 種 回 数 が 増 え て い く と 、死 亡 者 の 山 の 湿 原 が 早 く なり ます。” meaning that as vaccination numbers rise, the peak of fatalities or deaths “湿 原” becomes earlier, i.e., happens sooner. - They conclude that if there were no toxicity or lipid adjuvant effects from vaccination, the peak would not occur. This is presented as a finding: “ワクチン 接 種 に 毒 性 だ と か 脂 肪 を 誘 導 する 効 果 が なけれ ば 、山 に まず な ら な い わけ です よ .” In short, the absence of toxicity or adjuvant effects would mean the peak wouldn’t appear. - The overall takeaways emphasize observed patterns: the vaccinated group shows a rising and shifting peak over time with increasing vaccination counts, and there is a suggestion that the vaccination might be associated with a pattern of adverse observations that intensify or appear earlier as more people are vaccinated.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for pregnant women, with no impact on fertility. Clinical trials did not initially include pregnant women, but there is no biological reason for concern. Data shows that antibodies are passed through breast milk to infants. Health organizations like Health Canada and the FDA recommend vaccination for pregnant women to protect themselves and their babies. There is no evidence of negative effects on fertility or pregnancy outcomes from the vaccines.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for pregnant women, with no impact on fertility. Clinical trials did not initially include pregnant women, but there is no biological reason for concern. Data shows antibodies are passed through breast milk. Health authorities worldwide recommend vaccination for pregnant individuals to protect themselves and their babies. There is no evidence of negative effects on fertility or pregnancy outcomes from the vaccines.

**Japanese Summary:** スピーカー0は、若者に対してワクチン推奨が現在も行われているか確認を求めた。スピーカー1は、推奨は繰り返されているが、公的関与の対象からは外されていると回答。スピーカー0は、それを推奨していないと理解して良いか確認し、スピーカー1は「していない」と答えた。 **English Translation:** Speaker 0 inquired whether vaccination is still recommended for young people. Speaker 1 responded that while recommendations are repeated, they are excluded from public involvement. Speaker 0 confirmed if it's correct to understand that it is not recommended, and Speaker 1 answered, "it is not."

The speaker briefly discusses the topic of safety and asks what has been learned about serious side effects. The statement is repeated three times.

Speaker 1 discusses important findings from autism research that families should know when making decisions. The FDA will act on acetaminophen use during pregnancy, with the FDA responding to clinical and laboratory studies that suggest a potential association between acetaminophen used during pregnancy and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, including later diagnosis of ADHD and autism. Scientists have proposed biological mechanisms linking prenatal acetaminophen exposure to altered brain development, and the FDA has evaluated contrary studies that show no association. Today, the FDA will issue a physician’s notice about the risk of acetaminophen during pregnancy and begin the process to initiate a safety label change. HHS will launch a nationwide public service campaign to inform families and protect public health. The FDA recognizes that acetaminophen is often the only tool for fevers and pain in pregnancy, as other alternatives have well-documented adverse effects. HHS encourages clinicians to exercise their best judgment and use acetaminophen for fevers and pain in pregnancy by prescribing the lowest effective dose for the shortest necessary duration and only when treatment is required. Thanks to politicization of science, the safety of acetaminophen against the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders in young children has never been validated. Prudent medicine therefore suggests caution with acetaminophen use by young children, given that strong evidence also associates it with liver toxicity. Some studies have found that use of acetaminophen in children can potentially prolong viral illnesses. The FDA will drive new research to safeguard mothers, children, and families. In addition to a possible acetaminophen connection to autism for pregnant women, infants, and toddlers, the research has revealed that folate deficiency in a child’s brain can lead to autism. There are also other confirmation studies. One finding cited is that two studies show children who are circumcised early have double the rate of autism, highly likely because they’re given Tylenol. The speaker notes that none of this is positive, but it is information that should be paid attention to. Speaker 0 comments that there is a tremendous amount of proof or evidence, though he is not a doctor, and that he studied this a long time ago.

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.

厚生労働省は妊婦にワクチンを推奨していません。 The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare does not recommend the vaccine for pregnant women.

The speakers discuss dietary restrictions, with Speaker 1 advising against eating after 7 PM and suggesting cucumber juice and watermelon salad as alternatives. Speaker 0 expresses disbelief and Speaker 1 corrects them, referring to them as a girl. Speaker 0 reluctantly agrees to follow the advice. The conversation then shifts to Speaker 0's pregnancy, with someone informing them that they won't be having the baby this week based on their appearance.

推奨はしているんでしょうか、していないんでしょうか。若者に対して。 推奨をしていると公的勧告の対象から今は外している。 推奨していないと理解してよろしいでしょうか。 していない。 わかりました。 **Translation:** Is it recommended or not, for young people? It is recommended, but is now excluded from the scope of public recommendations. Is it correct to understand that it is not recommended? It is not. Understood.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

Speaker 0 expresses a belief that adverse events from regular vaccines occur more frequently than people imagine, including things like allergies. They state that their own allergy to wheat is likely the result of an adjuvant that caused their immune system to react to something normal in their gut in a way from which they feel they will never recover. They also mention that one of their sons has seasonal allergies that are significant enough to disrupt daily life, while another son has a dairy allergy that the speaker attributes to an allergy to mother's milk, which the speaker says they did not understand at the time but observed as the baby spit up regularly after breastfeeding. The speaker describes this dairy-related issue as a huge waste of a precious resource and questions whether evolution could be blamed for it, noting the expectation that ancestors would be starving and not surrender such nutrients if food were abundant. The speaker elaborates on their current interpretation by suggesting that the dairy allergy in their child was developed very early, probably from an adjuvant in a childhood vaccine. They use this line of reasoning to illustrate a broader point about their view of vaccines and safety testing. The long, winding explanation leads to the central claim: given the education they have received, if they could do everything again, they would choose not to give any vaccines to their newborn children. They make it clear that they are not asserting that it is impossible that some vaccines are more beneficial than harmful, but they state that they now know they cannot trust the safety testing. In the closing, the speaker asserts that even if there were indications that a vaccine might be net beneficial, they would be compelled to wonder what else they do not know. The overall message emphasizes a deep skepticism about safety testing and a belief that current knowledge is insufficient to justify vaccinating newborns, as presented by Speaker 0.

The speaker says that even for obstetrics and gynecology societies, vaccination during pregnancy has been pursued as a duty, but physicians do not know the actual facts. They reference the New England Journal of Medicine, a famous medical journal, where a study of a vaccine’s adverse outcomes claimed that the user rate was 12.6%. Based on that paper, the Sanpeshikawa (Sanbushikawa) Association reportedly promoted vaccination for pregnant women as well. In reality, the data were as follows: of 827 people, 700 were in late pregnancy, and 127 were in the early stages (first trimester). When restricting to the 127 people who were under 20 weeks, the usage rate was 82%. Therefore, the speaker argues that this data reveals how dangerous the vaccine is, and that the data were hidden and mixed with high-profile 700-person data to produce the 12.6% miscarriage rate that was published. This is presented as evidence of a situation where even in medical journals, information was handled to favor the other side due to money and other influences.

Sarah Brenner, who has worked deeply within the government at the FDA and through the COVID crisis, explains her roles and perspectives. She notes that she was the chief medical officer for diagnostics and was detailed to support White House operations during the COVID-19 response for the Biden administration, with beginnings during the Trump administration. When asked about her own vaccination status during her time at the FDA, Brenner states that she did not take the COVID-19 vaccine. Her primary reason was that it was unknown at the time what the biodistribution patterns of those products would be, and in particular what the excretion would be in breast milk. She expresses that this exposure was a major concern for her. The interviewer suggests that events since then have confirmed Brenner’s choice, framing her stance as implying that it’s a bad idea for women who are pregnant to take the vaccine, while noting that the FDA still recommends it. Brenner responds by emphasizing the importance of being honest, open, and transparent in providing informed consent to patients about what the known and unknown, as well as probable and less probable, benefits and risks are of any medical intervention. Throughout the discussion, Brenner highlights transparency as a central theme in medical decision-making and patient information. The exchange underscores tensions between evolving scientific understanding, regulatory recommendations, and individual risk considerations for pregnant individuals.

The transcript follows a pregnant woman’s intense emotional crisis and complicated pregnancy, interspersed with a separate account from a mother about a missing child. - The pregnant woman, identified as Speaker 0, contemplates the due date and the prospect of abortion. She fears November 9 might force a stressful decision, and she tells Speaker 1 that she cannot promise she won’t hurt herself, expressing suicidal thoughts and describing that suicide would bring her peace of mind. She cannot predict how she would behave if told her baby is due sooner or later, and she repeatedly says she would like to get rid of the baby, seeing the child as giving her nothing and feeling disconnected from it. - Speaker 2 mentions the need for a good ultrasound (USG) test result to clarify the due date, suggesting possibilities like the twentieth, twenty-seventh, November third, or November 5. The hope is that a clear result will ease the situation. - The conversation reveals escalating suicidal thoughts, including contemplation of specific methods and a “suicide package” offered by a friend ofSpeaker 0 who knows how to obtain substances. The package costs 380 zilates. The assistant asks if she will kill herself and the child because she cannot wait twelve days, prompting Speaker 0 to reaffirm the urgent need for the ultrasound result and the associated stress. - Speaker 0 describes the pregnancy as producing neither joy nor maternal connection; she explicitly states she does not identify with the fetus, does not talk to it, and does not want it. She describes daily life as painful and says she would like to end the pregnancy. She distinguishes between the baby’s reality and her own mental state, reporting that the baby’s presence has provided nothing to her emotionally. - Marcelina’s birth becomes a turning point. The baby is born by C-section after a hospital stay, with the baby described as a girl weighing about three kilograms and healthy, scoring 10 points on assessment. The mother reports that the baby’s test results were good, and that her mental state is improving, though she remains stressed about the surgery itself. She had not seen the baby during delivery due to the hospital setup and the emotional intensity, and she shares that the atmosphere was tense and nerve-wracking. - Post-delivery, Speaker 0 describes being in significant pain and on medications, including hydroxyzine, and recalls distress from the prior night. While she dreams of the baby, she feels emotionally detached and uncertain about whether she can handle contacting the child in the recovery room. She expresses a desire to leave the hospital soon to avoid further distress and contemplates whether she would want to have more children in the future, acknowledging a sense of underdeveloped maternal instinct. - The narrative then shifts to a separate account (Speaker 2) of a missing child, Tomok, told by a mother who describes the day her child was abducted, her ongoing search, and her determination. She recounts searching outdoors, praying for punishment to be directed at herself rather than her child, and vows to fend for her child, insisting that a child is a living being and not a consumable object. Thirty years later, she remains convinced her son is alive. - The overall arc combines pregnancy distress, considerations of abortion and self-harm, a difficult but ultimately successful birth, and a parallel testimony of enduring desperation and perseverance in the face of a long-term missing-child tragedy.

推奨はしているんでしょうか、していないんでしょうか。若者に対して。 推奨をしていると公的勧告の対象から今は外している。 推奨していないと理解してよろしいでしょうか。 していない。 わかりました。 **Translation:** Is it recommended or not, for young people? It is recommended, but is now excluded from the scope of public recommendations. Is it correct to understand that it is not recommended? It is not. Understood.

Speaker 0 describes their doula team’s situation during a birth: the husband has left with the baby because the baby, Lisa, was asked to leave, leaving the mother to give birth alone in the room. Speaker 1 confirms they are supporting a doula client who desires their presence. Speaker 2 then informs them that the nurses are asking them to leave, citing visitation privilege and requesting the policy on visitation. Speaker 0 asks whether this decision is being made before considering the impact on care. Speaker 2 reiterates that visitation privileges could conflict with care, and implies that once competing with care arises, the nurses’ concern becomes an issue. Speaker 1 questions how their presence impedes care. Speaker 2 declines to elaborate, stating that it’s about visitation grounds. Speaker 0 notes that the mother will be alone in the room as a result, since the husband left with the baby. Speaker 1 expresses confusion over the nurse’s stance, stating they have made no medical interference and are simply present to support and assist with hip squeezes, not to intervene medically. Speaker 0 says they have been making their own consent and decisions, and that the mother has no one else with her. Speaker 1 asserts that the nurses’ grounds to remove them are unfounded, and emphasizes that the mother can speak for herself; they are not speaking for her. The overall tension centers on whether the doulas’ presence constitutes medical interference or is a permissible support under visitation policies, with the mother at risk of being alone during childbirth.

Speaker 0 raises the question of whether cities should be allowed to ignore federal law regarding reporting of illegal immigrants and effectively provide sanctuary to immigrants. Speaker 1 responds by explaining that cities ignore federal law because there is no funding at the federal level to support the kind of enforcement required. He references the New York Times, noting that a city near his state implemented similar sanctions and subsequently experienced adverse effects—“their city went in the dumpster,” with stores closing and other consequences—leading to a policy reversal. He argues that the underlying issue is the need for a federal government capable of enforcing laws and asserts that the administration has been fundamentally derelict in not funding the requirements needed to enforce the existing laws. Speaker 0 follows up with a direct question to Senator Biden: yes or no—“Would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law?” Speaker 1 answers: No. Speaker 0 closes with a brief, informal remark: “You okay.”

日本語: 話者0は、厚生労働省が妊婦に特定の行為を推奨しているかどうかを尋ねた。話者1は、推奨していないと答えた。話者0は感謝の意を述べた。 English translation: Speaker 0 asked if the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare recommends a specific action for pregnant women. Speaker 1 replied that they do not. Speaker 0 expressed gratitude.

Speaker 0 asks whether the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare currently recommends something for pregnant women or not. The answer is: "not recommended." "Understood. Thank you."

The discussion centers on pediatric vaccination, concerns about vaccine additives, and the policies around notifying and handling families who choose not to vaccinate. Key points raised about vaccines and additives - The number and type of pediatric vaccines have increased over the years, with regular vaccination schedules extending up to 30 doses from birth. Some vaccines, such as certain hepatitis B vaccines, the 3-valuent (3-in-1) vaccine, and post-6-month optional influenza vaccines, contain thimerosal (mercury-containing preservative) and/or other additives that provoke worry about brain impact or cancer risk. - Thimerosal is discussed as an organomercury compound that decomposes to ethyl silver in the body; it is described as having been linked to developmental disorders in the 1990s, with references to documents from Materials Supplemental 1 and 3, and to B-type hepatitis vaccines (e.g., a product branded as Beemgen) containing thimerosal and organo-silver components. - The discussion notes aluminum compounds in some vaccines (with two types in the quadrivalent types and in the cervical cancer vaccine) and mentions concerns about aging-related memory impairment (Alzheimer’s risks) associated with aluminum compounds. - Influenza vaccines, including those supplied post-6 months, are described as containing both thimerosal and chloromethyl sulfone-like additives (referred to as chelators/a set). The quadri- and other mixed vaccines are noted to include thimerosal and aluminum compounds; the cervical cancer vaccine is noted to contain aluminum compounds as well as thymus-specified adjuvants. - There is a broader perspective linking neurotoxins in vaccines to concerns about developmental disorders (ADHD, autism spectrum, learning disorders, emotional instability) and general caution about late-emerging effects. The panel emphasizes that even if expert explanations claim trace, minimal quantities do not reassure all caregivers given rising rates of developmental issues despite fewer births. Observations on public health trends and caller concerns - The panel highlights a marked rise in developmental disorders (ADHD, autism, learning disorders, emotional instability) among children after a period when these categories expanded, juxtaposed with a decreasing birth cohort, implying a seemingly paradoxical upward trend when viewed by percentage. - General concerns extend beyond vaccines to other substances in the modern environment (artificial sweeteners, residual pesticides like neonicotinoids, artificial colorings) as potential public health risks. Responses and policy points from officials - The formal framework: Routine vaccination is a matter of public health policy; the Vaccination Act provisions empower municipalities to issue notifications and encourage vaccination, but the notifications are not coercive mandates. Vaccination reminders for vaccines like MMR, HPV, and Japanese-origin vaccines are described as communications to encourage uptake rather than punitive actions. - If a caregiver declines vaccination, it is stated that this alone does not constitute abuse or neglect, and refusal to vaccinate is not treated as neglect in determining child welfare. The responses emphasize that “prevention vaccination being unvaccinated” should not automatically trigger neglect findings. - The panel distinguishes between a notification (intervention to promote vaccination) and a neglect finding; it is stated that unvaccinated status alone does not automatically lead to neglect designation. - There is emphasis on informing and sharing information among healthcare providers, educational staff, and child-care settings to ensure consistent understanding that vaccination status is not equivalent to parental neglect. There is a call for standardized awareness within healthcare, child-care, and school administrations. - Questions also address administrative processes: whether vaccination history must be included in the Health Liaison form used during daycare enrollment, and whether non-vaccinating caregivers should be labeled as negligent. Officials indicate that vaccination history should be recorded but that lack of vaccination should not penalize enrollment; information sharing across child-care and school systems should be possible to reduce stigma. - The dialogue includes concerns about the attitudes of some caregivers and teachers who may perceive non-vaccination as laziness; officials stress reducing such misconceptions and promoting respectful, informed decision-making. Concluding remarks from the speakers - The dialogue clarifies the difference between interference/consultation (干渉通知) and formal seeking of consent (勧告) for vaccination, and confirms that neglect findings should not be based solely on non-vaccination. The speakers express an intention to promote accurate, balanced information and to reduce stigma around families who choose not to vaccinate, while continuing to encourage vaccination as a public health measure.