reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Many are questioning the safety of childhood vaccines, including COVID vaccines, due to potential side effects. The Midwestern Doctor suggests that some vaccines have minimal benefits but documented side effects, leading to increased infections and new side effects. This cycle has resulted in the creation of more vaccines, driving profits for pharmaceutical companies. COVID vaccines are criticized for their risks outweighing benefits. Doctor Pierre Kory, a COVID vaccine critic, now questions the safety of childhood vaccines after reading the Midwestern Doctor's analysis.

All vaccines, including COVID vaccines, are causing harm to children. There has never been a study comparing fully vaccinated kids following the CDC schedule to unvaccinated kids. The difference in health outcomes is dramatic, with unvaccinated kids being consistently healthier. A 10-year study by Dr. Paul Thomas, which was retracted unethically, showed that vaccinated kids were more likely to get the diseases they were vaccinated against. Being unvaccinated should be applauded because vaccines are causing chronic diseases in America. A study with over 1,000 unvaccinated people showed significantly better health outcomes compared to fully vaccinated individuals. The CDC promised to conduct a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals but never followed through. No vaccine is safe or effective, and no study has proven otherwise.

A recent study involving 99 million COVID vaccine recipients found increased risks of neurological and heart disorders, described as rare but significant. For example, the risk of brain swelling increased by 378%, myocarditis by 610%, and Guillain Barre syndrome by 286%. The cumulative risk of these adverse events raises questions about the overall safety of vaccines, especially considering the CDC's childhood vaccination schedule, which includes 72 doses without long-term safety trials. Each vaccine has a list of potential side effects, many serious, yet they are often labeled as rare. Historical data shows a rise in chronic illnesses among vaccinated children, suggesting a troubling trend. The notion that vaccine injuries are non-existent is misleading, as many children are experiencing adverse effects. It’s crucial to recognize and evaluate these risks comprehensively.

The speakers express concern about the limited reporting of adverse reactions to vaccines. They highlight a report suggesting that only 5% of adverse reactions are recorded in the database. Despite this, they emphasize the safety of the COVID vaccine and assure viewers that it is safe. They also compare the number of adverse event reports for all vaccines in New Zealand, which is typically around 1500 a year, with the low number of deaths reported following vaccination.

The speaker discusses the question of vaccinating children aged 5-11 against COVID-19. The professor argues in favor of vaccinating them, citing the need to protect children who may require intensive care. However, the other speaker clarifies that currently, there are only 10 children aged 0-9 and 2 children aged 10-19 in intensive care, far from the hundreds mentioned. Even during the peak of the pandemic, there were only 48 children in intensive care out of 7,000 patients. The professor also claims that half the world is vaccinating children aged 5-11, but the other speaker refutes this, stating that while several countries have started vaccinating this age group, they remain a minority. Israel, for example, only recently opened vaccination for this age group due to a lack of sufficient data on the benefits and risks.

According to the speaker, the COVID vaccine has caused more deaths in the last 8 months than 72 other vaccines combined over the past 30 years. They claim that children are most at risk of suffering from heart attacks due to myocarditis, with a 50% chance of death or requiring a heart transplant within 5 years. The speaker mentions different studies that estimate the likelihood of children getting myocarditis from the vaccine, ranging from 1 in 300 to 1 in 2,700. They argue that the risk of COVID-19 for healthy children is zero, based on studies that found no healthy American child who died from the virus. The speaker also discusses data from Pfizer's trial, highlighting neurological injuries and the case of a girl who is now wheelchair-bound after participating in the trial. They express concern about mandating the vaccine for children based on limited testing.

The discussion revolves around the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines. Speaker 0 believes vaccines have done more good than harm, citing personal experiences. Speaker 1 argues that vaccines did not reduce severity, hospitalization, or death, as the virus became milder and early treatment improved outcomes. They claim misclassification bias in reporting vaccine-related deaths and point to high post-vaccine mortality rates. Calls are made to remove vaccines due to safety concerns.

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 speaker asks if there has been a study comparing the health outcomes of children following the CDC vaccination schedule and those who are unvaccinated. The other speaker says they are not aware of such a study and suggests it may be considered bad malpractice not to vaccinate a child. They discuss the possibility of a retrospective study using the Vaccine Safety Datalink, but note the need to control for confounders. The speaker presents an exhibit showing higher rates of health conditions in vaccinated children and suggests the need for larger studies to confirm or refute these findings. The other speaker agrees.

We need comprehensive double-blind, long-term placebo studies to properly evaluate vaccines. Vaccines work by tricking the immune system into thinking it has encountered a disease, which raises concerns given the rising autoimmune diseases we see today. Our immune systems appear confused, attacking our own bodies. While some may question whether environmental factors like air, food, or water are to blame, it's crucial to note that vaccines are specifically designed to manipulate the immune response. Unlike past vaccination schedules, children today receive numerous vaccines—up to 72 times—far exceeding what previous generations experienced. This trend is negatively impacting the health of our children, and we must address this issue urgently.

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 speaker discusses concerns about the origins of COVID-19 and the risks of childhood vaccination. Dr. McCullough warns about the dangers of vaccinating children and presents findings on heart inflammation post-vaccination. A study from Tokyo, New York, and Houston reveals that vaccinated individuals experience a 46% increase in heart workload. The speaker urges for a reevaluation of vaccine safety and calls for an end to vaccine mandates.

The speaker questions the effectiveness and safety of COVID vaccines, citing data on high death rates and adverse effects like myocarditis. They criticize the small sample size of Pfizer's clinical trials and argue that the benefits may not outweigh the risks, especially for young people. The speaker emphasizes the need for transparent data and larger studies to make informed decisions about vaccination.

The speaker asks if there is a higher incidence of myocarditis among adolescent males aged 16 to 24 after taking the vaccine. The other speaker responds by saying that the data from the CDC shows that there is actually less myocarditis in people who get the vaccine compared to those who get COVID. The first speaker disagrees and presents six peer-reviewed papers that contradict this claim. They also mention speaking with the president who privately acknowledged the increased risk of myocarditis. The conversation then shifts to discussing the rationality of mandating three vaccines for adolescent boys and the timing of myocarditis after the second dose. The first speaker criticizes the CDC's recommendation to vaccinate individuals who have recovered from COVID and experienced myocarditis. They argue that many countries do not offer the vaccine to children unless they are at risk for severe disease. The first speaker concludes by stating that the risk and benefits of vaccination need to be weighed, and that parents are unlikely to comply with mandatory vaccination for their children.

The speakers express concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine's impact on the immune system. They believe that the vaccine may lead to chronic diseases and permanently alter the immune system. They mention a drop in killer T cells and an increase in herpes family viruses, shingles, and human papillomavirus. They also note an increase in molluscum contagiosum and endometrial cancers. The vaccine is said to weaken the immune system and redirect cellular activity. The speakers reference data showing a doubling of diseases in categories such as acute kidney and liver injury, myo and pericarditis, and thrombosis. They argue that these illnesses are not solely due to COVID-19.

Doctors' fallibility and the lack of consideration for natural immunity are discussed. The conversation touches on mandatory vaccination, anecdotal evidence, and the risks and benefits of vaccines. The speakers debate the number of children who died from COVID and the importance of vaccines. They also mention the potential harm caused by vaccines and the need for individual choice. The conversation ends with a mention of the COVID vaccine's testing and the speaker's personal experience with it.

All vaccines, including COVID vaccines, are causing harm to children. There has never been a study comparing fully vaccinated kids following the CDC schedule to unvaccinated kids. The difference in health outcomes between these two groups is dramatic, with unvaccinated kids being consistently healthier. A 10-year study by Dr. Paul Thomas, which was retracted unethically, showed that vaccinated kids were more likely to get the diseases they were vaccinated against. A study by the control group with over 1,000 unvaccinated people also revealed significantly better health outcomes compared to fully vaccinated individuals. Despite promises, the CDC has never conducted a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. No vaccine is safe or effective, and no study has been able to prove otherwise.

The speaker discusses the misconception that vaccines are always beneficial and highlights the lower under-five mortality rates in other countries with fewer vaccines. They question why certain vaccines, like flu and varicella, are not widely adopted in other countries and raise concerns about the correlation between vaccines and autism. Another speaker emphasizes the need for an open debate on this topic and criticizes the limited number of vaccines and ingredients studied in relation to autism. They express frustration with doctors who dismiss the potential link between vaccines and autism without thoroughly examining the research. The speaker urges for a more collaborative approach to help children and criticizes those who antagonize the medical community.

According to the speaker, the COVID vaccine has resulted in more deaths in the past 8 months than 72 other vaccines combined over the past 30 years. They claim that children are most at risk of suffering from heart attacks due to myocarditis, with a 50% chance of death or requiring a heart transplant within 5 years. The speaker mentions studies showing that healthy children have zero risk of dying from COVID, while the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is much higher. They also discuss data from Pfizer's trial, highlighting the case of a girl who experienced severe side effects and is now wheelchair-bound. The speaker questions the decision to mandate the vaccine for children based on limited testing.

At a recent conference in Romania on the COVID crisis, a credible estimate suggested that there could be 17 million deaths worldwide from the COVID vaccine. This number may seem high, but when you consider the global population, it is not impossible. It is tragic that the vaccine is still being recommended for healthy children who are unlikely to benefit from it and may suffer serious and long-lasting harm. There has never been a proper justification for giving the vaccine to healthy kids, as they are not at high risk of dying from COVID and the vaccine does not prevent transmission. It is concerning that this practice continues even though the emergency situation has passed.

The speakers express concern that only a small percentage of adverse reactions to vaccines are reported. Despite this, they assure viewers that the COVID vaccine is safe. They highlight that prior to the COVID vaccine rollout, an average of 1500 adverse event reports were received each year for all vaccines in New Zealand, resulting in one or fewer reported deaths annually.

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

According to the speaker, the COVID vaccine has a higher death rate compared to other vaccines. They claim that children are at a higher risk of suffering from heart attacks due to myocarditis caused by the vaccine. They mention a study that found no healthy American children who died from COVID, suggesting zero risk for healthy children. However, they argue that the vaccine poses a significant risk, citing a German study that found 3 children per million died from the vaccine. The speaker also mentions neurological injuries, particularly affecting girls, and highlights the case of a girl who experienced severe side effects after participating in a trial. They conclude by suggesting that mandating the vaccine could potentially harm thousands of children.

Speaker 0 argues that, when re-examining the data from the original study, the raw numbers reveal a different pattern than what the study’s modeling suggested. Specifically, they state that, in the raw proportions, every single one of the 22 chronic disease categories was proportionally higher in the vaccinated group. This includes cancer, which the study reportedly treated as a control condition and claimed there was no difference for. According to Speaker 0, the study’s use of cancer as a control is at odds with the raw data they observed. They claim that there was a difference in cancer outcomes, contrary to the study’s implication of no difference. They emphasize that, with rare outcomes, the modeling employed in the original analysis is not very reliable, and as a result, the study did not perform any basic proportional analysis. Speaker 0 states that when they performed a basic proportional analysis themselves, cancer was fifty-four percent higher in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated children. They mention that this result is “explained biologically” and assert that there is biological plausibility behind it. Key points: - Raw proportions show all 22 chronic disease categories higher in the vaccinated group, including cancer. - The original study used cancer as a control and claimed no difference, which Speaker 0 disputes based on the raw data. - Modeling for rare outcomes is described as not very reliable. - A basic proportional analysis by Speaker 0 indicates cancer is 54% higher in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated. - A biological explanation or plausibility is asserted for the observed cancer difference in the vaccinated group.

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.