reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The discussion centers on concerns and policy questions regarding pediatric vaccines, their safety, and how authorities respond to families who choose not to vaccinate. Key points raised by Speaker 0: - Pediatric vaccination schedules are increasing, with currently up to about 30 doses from birth to 2 years. Some vaccines, such as the hepatitis B vaccine, the acellular pertussis (3-in-1) vaccine, and the influenza vaccine given after 6 months, contain additives such as thiomersal (mercury-containing compound) and aluminum adjuvants. There is worry among some about potential long-term effects on brain development from thiomersal and other additives. - Thiomersal in vaccines is described as an organomercury compound that decomposes to ethyl mercury; historical notes are given about its association, in some sources, with developmental disorders in the 1990s, and there is reference to materials from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare explaining its presence in certain vaccines and associated documentation. - The vaccine components discussed include thiomersal in current hepatitis B vaccines (e.g., Belcevir or Veemegen trade names), and aluminum-containing compounds in combination vaccines and the cervical cancer vaccine (HPV). There are concerns about neurotoxicity and memory impairment reported in some sources, and questions are raised about how these substances are evaluated in light of pediatric metabolism and excretion. - The text also points to broader concerns about modern additives in foods (artificial sweeteners, neonicotinoids, tar dyes) as part of a context for questioning vaccine safety, though the central focus remains vaccines and their additives. Speaker 0 also emphasizes a paradox: despite declining birth rates, the number of children with developmental disorders such as ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, and learning disabilities has risen, leading to heightened parental anxiety about early vaccination (birth to 2 months). The speaker highlights that even if experts claim the amounts are tiny, parents’ concerns persist. A call is made to present attached documentation and graphs to explain these points, as well as the overall safety profile. Questions and responses about policy and practice: - Speaker 1 explains preventive vaccination law (Article 8 and 9) authorizing municipalities to issue guidance and reminder notices for vaccinations, including vaccines against measles, rubella (MR), HPV, and Japanese encephalitis (the latter appears in the discussion as often related to catch-up schedules). The notices are for encouragement, not coercive mandates. - On the issue of refusals and potential neglect: it is stated that vaccinating of unvaccinated children is not, by itself, considered neglect; the decision to not vaccinate does not automatically constitute abuse or neglect. The speaker emphasizes that the question is about ensuring access to vaccination information and avoiding punitive labeling. - The role of childcare facilities and schools: there is discussion about whether vaccination status affects eligibility or admission. It is clarified that vaccination history is part of health records but does not automatically disadvantage a child in admission processes. Authorities acknowledge that some educators may view non-vaccination as neglect, and there is a preference to improve information sharing and awareness so that staff understand vaccination matters without stigmatizing families. - The need for uniform understanding among healthcare workers and educators is stressed. It is suggested that vaccination-related information be shared between childcare, school administration, and health departments to minimize misunderstandings and to ensure equitable treatment. - There is acknowledgement of concerns about social attitudes toward families who opt out of vaccination, and a call to respect differing judgments while improving communication and education among professionals. Speaker 3 and 4 contribute: - They reiterate that in childcare settings, health screening and eligibility processes may consider vaccination history, but not in a way that inherently disfavors unvaccinated children. They also address the possibility of attitudes among staff about neglect, noting a need for consistent information, training, and collaboration to reduce stigma. - A broader aim is expressed: foster a society where mutual respect for different vaccination decisions is possible, supported by clear communication and shared information among healthcare providers and educators. Overall, the discussion distinguishes between official guidance and punitive actions, reinforces that unvaccinated status alone is not treated as neglect, and calls for better information-sharing and supportive responses to families navigating vaccination decisions.

The discussion around vaccines is often oversimplified, leading to distrust in government recommendations. For instance, the hepatitis B vaccine is given to newborns, despite the disease primarily spreading through drug use and sexual contact. This raises questions about the necessity of immediate vaccination. While vaccines are generally beneficial, there should be room for individual choice and discussion. The COVID vaccine presents similar complexities, especially regarding its necessity for healthy children. It’s crucial to have open debates about vaccine safety and efficacy, rather than adhering strictly to consensus. Science evolves, and we should remain open-minded about potential links between vaccines and conditions like autism and schizophrenia, as we still lack definitive answers. Ultimately, it’s about following the science without preconceived notions.

When searching for vaccines online, you'll often come across anti-vaccine misinformation. Social media platforms like Facebook amplify this misinformation. Amazon is a major platform for anti-vaccine books, with only a few pro-vaccine books available. Anti-vaccine groups have also become politically active, spreading false information to state legislators. Unfortunately, there is a lack of pro-vaccine advocates in the country, with only a handful of academics defending vaccines. Many parents who are hesitant about vaccines can be convinced through conversations explaining the evidence that vaccines do not cause autism.

In 1985, millennials received a few vaccines. Today, children may receive up to 70 shots by age 18, including 27 before age 2, and up to 6 shots in one visit. The speaker asks if these shots are producing healthier kids, and claims the data says no. The speaker suggests that asking questions about the vaccine schedule is discouraged. Some parents who question the schedule may be reported to Child Protection Services or dismissed from their pediatrician's office. The speaker asserts that parents are being held hostage and did not sign up to co-parent with the government.

Speaker 0 suggests that a child who hasn't received any immunizations will have to endure six injections at once. Speaker 1 confirms that a six-month-old would receive DTaP, polio, and Hep B vaccines. Speaker 0 mentions that the type of Hep B vaccine depends on previous sessions. The same applies to a two-and-a-half-year-old. Speaker 1 questions why aluminum adjuvants are used in vaccines, to which Speaker 0 replies that they make the vaccine more effective. Speaker 1 asks about the form of aluminum and its effects, but Speaker 0 is unsure. They discuss the quantity of ingested and injected aluminum, but Speaker 0 believes the amount in vaccines is safe. Speaker 1 questions the ability of aluminum to cross the blood-brain barrier, but Speaker 0 is unaware. They also discuss antigens, macrophages, and vaccine ingredients, but Speaker 0 lacks specific knowledge. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 asking about family history factors and the type of polio vaccine used in the US. Speaker 0 provides some clarification.

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.

Parents are reportedly having difficulty finding pediatricians who will see their children if they deviate from the CDC's vaccine schedule. Many parents are now questioning what is best for their children, with most wanting some vaccines but preferring not to administer multiple vaccines in one visit. In some areas, like Pinellas County, practices often don't entertain deviations from the CDC schedule. Some parents pay out-of-pocket or travel far to find doctors who respect their preferences. One senator shared a story of a family member who travels to accommodate her vaccine preferences. Senator Davis referenced the Hippocratic oath, emphasizing respecting and caring for the patient and their preferences. Parents have a right to make choices for their children as part of the patient-physician relationship, rather than having their preferences disregarded.

The speaker discusses the complexity of vaccines and the correlation with autism rates. They compare the number of vaccines in the US to other countries and question why certain vaccines are not widely used. They criticize limited studies on vaccine safety and call for more thorough research. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the details and not dismissing concerns about vaccine safety. The speaker expresses frustration with those who do not thoroughly investigate the issue. Ultimately, the focus is on finding ways to help children without causing unnecessary conflict.

The speakers discuss the need for public awareness about the benefits and risks of vaccines. They question the effectiveness of vaccines in eradicating diseases like polio and suggest that autoimmune diseases may be caused by immunizations. They mention the difficulty in getting responses from organizations regarding adverse reactions to vaccines. One speaker expresses frustration about having to fight for the choice not to vaccinate their children. They also mention the different vaccination requirements in certain states. The video ends with a mention of returning after a break.

Vaccine recommendations typically come from the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices (an outside consulting committee at CDC) and VRBPAC (within FDA), which recommends vaccine licensure. These committees only adopted evidence-based medicine about twelve years ago. The speaker states that during their administration, they want safety studies prior to vaccine licensure and recommendation. They claim vaccines are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing, and the COVID vaccine was the only one tested in a full placebo trial. They assert that the other 76 shots children receive between birth and 18 have not been safety tested against a placebo, meaning the risk profile is not understood. The speaker intends to remedy this.

Speaker 0 states that permanent residents in the U.S. are mandated to be up to date on CDC-recommended vaccines, but this is not mandated for those entering the country illegally. Speaker 0 claims that measles cases in New Orleans are coming from people entering the country from elsewhere. Speaker 0 asks if the federal government should mandate that those becoming U.S. citizens be up to date on their immunizations. Speaker 1 states they are strongly pro-vaccine, an advisor to a vaccine company, and supports the CDC vaccine schedule.

Vaccines eradicated smallpox and polio. The speaker was taught that vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary, and there's no reason to question it. Medical school rotations reinforced that vaccines are safe and effective, and the speaker was told to ignore the inserts because that's lawyer jargon. Medical school provided no education about vaccine contents, safety records, informed consent, or the vaccine injury compensation program. The speaker assumed the science was settled and didn't question vaccines.

The discussion revolves around the use of thimerosal in vaccines and the potential link to autism. The speaker questions why single-dose vials are not used instead. The response emphasizes the safety and effectiveness of current vaccines, despite concerns. The conversation also touches on manufacturing challenges in switching to single-dose vials. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of definitive answers regarding the safety of mercury in vaccines and advocates for caution in light of increasing autism rates. Ultimately, the debate centers on the balance between vaccine supply and potential risks.

The childhood vaccine schedule is under scrutiny, with the World Council For Health calling for a moratorium on childhood vaccines due to safety concerns. Vaccines given in multiple rounds may contribute to neuropsychiatric disorders like ADHD, autism, and seizures. Studies suggest that children who receive no vaccines have better outcomes.

The speakers discuss the increased number of vaccines since 1990 and question if all are necessary. One speaker claims the US vaccine schedule includes twice as many shots as other Western countries. They suggest parents should educate themselves, space out or delay vaccines, and clean out toxins. One speaker believes public health officials may not always have people's best interests at heart. They claim the AAP and medical schools are financed by drug companies and that vaccines are the pharmaceutical industry's largest growing division, worth $13 billion. They suggest asking pharmaceutical companies to take a loss for the good of children is a tough sell.

Speaker 0 questions the truth and asks if pediatricians are incentivized by the percentage of vaccinated patients. Speaker 1 notes that Dr. Paul Thomas has made a good video on the topic, and that many other pediatricians have followed, suggesting a possible need for a better answer from Dr. Hooker. Speaker 0 states that pediatricians are typically incentivized directly by HMOs, which buy and sell vaccines, making vaccines a big business for HMOs. The incentivization is described as typically anywhere from $200 to $600 per fully vaccinated patient, as long as a certain percentage of the practice is fully vaccinated. Some pediatricians can reportedly make upwards of $1,000,000 or more a year just from these incentives. Speaker 0 also reports hearing stories of pediatricians firing patients who refuse vaccination, asserting that such firing occurs. Speaker 1 confirms that the story of firing patients for vaccine refusal is heard repeatedly, and adds that there are also lies told to parents. Examples given include claims that vitamin K at birth is necessary to prevent the baby from bleeding out before leaving the car, and that not receiving the HPV vaccine will result in death from cancer. The speaker says that these stories have been told over and over again by parents. Speaker 1 then asks how such lying can be allowed to go on, expressing frustration with what they perceive as misinformation being spread to parents.

The speaker states they searched for years for a pre-licensing safety trial of the 72 vaccine doses effectively mandated for American children. They claim that every other medication requires a safety trial comparing health outcomes in a placebo group versus a vaccine group before FDA licensing. The speaker assumed this was also done for vaccines. They state they found out that vaccines were exempt from this requirement.

Many countries lack proper safety monitoring systems for vaccines, leading to miscommunication and confusion. Adjuvants are necessary for vaccine effectiveness, but can increase adverse reactions. Long-term effects and cross-reactivity between adjuvants are concerns. Health professionals are starting to question vaccine safety due to lack of confidence and education.

Doctors report receiving minimal training on vaccines during their medical education. They were taught that vaccines are safe, effective, and have saved millions of lives, with emphasis on adhering to the vaccination schedule. Doctors say they did not learn the specific components of vaccines and assumed they contained saline water and bits of viruses. Without independent investigation, doctors presume vaccines are beneficial and essential for all children to receive on schedule. Since doctors may lack in-depth knowledge about vaccines due to limited training, parents should be trusted and listened to.

The speaker is questioned about his stance on childhood vaccines, with many scientific and medical organizations disagreeing with him. The audience asks how they can help him align with science. The speaker clarifies that he is not anti-vaccine, but believes vaccines should undergo safety testing like other medicines. He criticizes the lack of prelicensing placebo-controlled trials for vaccines and cites examples of potential risks and lack of long-term studies. The other speaker argues that there is evidence of vaccines preventing diseases and highlights the importance of distinguishing between association and causation. The speaker emphasizes the need for good science and questions the trustworthiness of pharmaceutical companies. The conversation ends with a discussion about the speaker's family not supporting his views on vaccines.

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.

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