reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- it's that he took the COVID vaccine off the recommended schedule for children. - 95% of parents were already rejecting that advice, and actually 85% of healthcare workers rejecting that advice. - when these people in the media say that they are standing up for science, they are saying they're going against 95% of parents, and they want every single six month old in this country to have a mandated mRNA COVID injection. - There is a memo going around at the CDC and throughout HHS about how to subvert president Trump and how to subvert secretary Kennedy. - They're saying we're gonna outlast them, that the Republicans are gonna lose the midterms, that this is gonna be a flash in the pan.

Speaker 0 argues that anyone can file a complaint with a law enforcement authority for murder conspiracy and demand arrests and prosecutions. He points to a 2013 press release claiming that DARPA awarded Moderna Therapeutics up to $25,000,000 to develop messenger RNA therapeutics, noting that DARPA is the Pentagon and claiming the Pentagon bought, paid for, and envisioned these mRNA shots. He contends Fort Detrick was involved in developing COVID-19 at the UNC BSL-3 and asserts the Pentagon is on both sides of the argument, developing the weapon and the alleged vaccines. Speaker 1 asks whether there is any liability shield for deploying a biowarfare weapon and whether the narrative about congressional liability for Pfizer is a SIOP. Speaker 0 agrees that civil liability is separate from criminal liability, stating in his book Resisting Medical Tyranny that executives at companies developing these mRNA shots are guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. He cites a Portugal report claiming that upwards of 300,000 Americans had been murdered by the mRNA Franken shots and invokes the JAB resolution, describing it as a Nuremberg crime against humanity and a violation of the Nuremberg Code. He defines a Nuremberg crime against humanity as murder, extermination, and other inhumane acts committed against civilians. Speaker 1 asks about liability for government officials who approved the vaccines. Speaker 0 says FDA officials who approved the shots could be indicted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder, noting the FDA’s involvement in developing COVID-19 as an offensive biological warfare weapon at UNC BSL-3, including a cited contract listing National Center for Toxicological Research and FDA as contributors. He claims the FDA, which approves the vaccines, was involved in this development. Speaker 1 questions the CDC and media accountability, noting the CDC’s recommendation of the vaccines and media promotion of boosters. Speaker 0 says the CDC, including Director Milensky (appointed by Biden, from Harvard Medical School), is complicit, and claims the CDC has a history dating back to the Reagan administration of handling offensive biological warfare projects, including shipping weaponized agents to Saddam Hussein with implications for U.S. troops after Gulf War I. Speaker 1 asks whether there are lawmakers with intel on gain-of-function biowarfare. Speaker 0 mentions Senator Rand Paul as having a strong understanding, but asserts that some lawmakers were threatened and obstructed after consulting him, recounting an experience with Walter Jones of the House Armed Services Committee who briefly engaged but then did not follow up, implying threats prevented action. Speaker 1 asks how citizens should respond, and Speaker 0 advocates reporting to sheriffs, district attorneys, and state attorneys, noting progress with a Collier County health freedom declaration. They discuss enforcement mechanisms, seizure, and incineration of stockpiles, and trial and sentencing for those responsible. Speaker 0 condemns China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology as a bioweapons lab, alleging it was a Chinese counterpart to Fort Detrick, with the Chinese president seeking his own BSL-4 program and an offensive biowarfare arsenal. Speaker 1 notes U.S. funding and international bioweapons labs, including Ukraine and Taiwan, and ends by referencing Lindsey Graham and a speaker labeled as a professor Boyle.

The record that they're gonna rely on to make these decisions? Will you make it transparent for the American people? All the evidence is transparent. All evidence is transparent for the first time in history. You can characterize it any way you want. I quoted them today. What I said was accurate. What you said were lies. Are you saying that the mRNA vaccine has never been associated with myocarditis or pericarditis into I am simply trying to say that the people that you have put on that panel after firing the entire You're evading the question. The senator, they deserve the truth and that's what we're gonna give them for the first time in the history of that agency.

Today’s discussion highlights a critical moment for American health, focusing on Senator Bill Cassidy's influential role. His vote could significantly impact the direction of health policy, particularly regarding vaccines. Cassidy pressed Bobby Kennedy on whether he would unequivocally state that vaccines do not cause autism, which Kennedy refrained from answering directly. The emphasis here is on rebuilding trust in public health institutions, advocating for ongoing scientific inquiry rather than definitive statements. The decline in public trust is attributed more to health authorities than to Kennedy. The conversation underscores the importance of addressing vaccine safety concerns without oversimplifying the complexities involved, especially for individuals with unique health situations.

Paul Offit said that I'm going to do everything I can to make vaccines less available and affordable, which will hurt the vaccine infrastructure in this country. I'm supposedly joining hands with Donald Trump to march into measles land. But I'm not going to take away anyone's vaccines. People should be able to get them if they want. I want to give people good science. We don't have good safety studies on almost any of the 72 vaccines mandated for children. HHS admitted there are no pre-licensing safety studies for any of them, except the COVID vaccine. We need to know the risk profiles of these products. We also don't have good data on adverse effects from the COVID vaccine, which is a crime. The CDC's surveillance system captures less than one percent of vaccine injuries. Congress and the National Academy of Sciences have repeatedly ordered the CDC to put together a better vaccine. We will do that right away.

All of this cannot be true. Are you lying to Congress about being pro-vaccine, or did you lie on those podcasts? We have it all on tape. Senator, that statement from the Lex Fridman podcast has been debunked. I was asked if there are safe and effective vaccines, and I said some live virus vaccines are. I also stated that no vaccine is universally safe and effective, as every medicine has individuals who may react negatively, including vaccines. I was interrupted before I could elaborate. I've clarified this multiple times, including on national TV, so bringing it up now is misleading.

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.

"The FDA recently revoked the emergency youth authorizations for three COVID vaccinations while simultaneously green lighting four new COVID nineteen vaccines with twenty twenty five and twenty twenty six formulas." "The the reason for the revocation of that emergency youth authorization is because obviously the COVID pandemic and the public health emergency is over." "But just to correct the record because there's been a lot of misinformation on this, the FDA's decision does not affect the availability of COVID vaccines for Americans who want them." "We believe in individual choice. That's a promise both the president and the secretary have made, and it's a promise they have now delivered on."

A person asks a pharmacy employee for the Moderna vaccine safety studies and placebo safety studies. The employee provides the manufacturer's package insert, stating the patient version is truncated, but the full information is inside. The person questions how informed consent is possible if all safety studies aren't listed. The employee agrees, stating they should not be giving the vaccines at all, but are told to. The employee claims everything they have seen, including patients they have given it to, indicates it is safe. When asked about the studies supporting the claim of safety and effectiveness, the employee says they cannot answer.

Senator Roberts questions Minister Gallagher about the number of vaccines that have indemnity from the Australian government. Minister Gallagher explains that indemnity arrangements were put in place for vaccines procured during the pandemic to ensure the national vaccine rollout program could be carried out safely. Senator Roberts argues that with low demand for boosters and multiple vendors, the need for indemnities is unnecessary. He questions the government's motives for issuing new indemnities and accuses them of using taxpayer money for vaccine harm. Minister Gallagher defends the government's agreements with vaccine providers and emphasizes the importance of vaccination for public health. Senator Roberts continues to criticize the government's use of indemnities and accuses them of promoting experimental mRNA products.

The question asked whether the president believes the COVID vaccine should be available to and covered by insurance for all Americans regardless of age and preexisting conditions. The response notes that the FDA recently revoked the emergency youth authorizations for three COVID vaccinations while simultaneously approving four new COVID-19 vaccines with 2025 and 2026 formulas. The revocation is described as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the public health emergency being over. To correct the record, it is stated that the FDA’s decision does not affect the availability of COVID vaccines for Americans who want them. The administration says, “We believe in individual choice,” a promise the president and the secretary have made and delivered on.

The FDA recently revoked the emergency youth authorizations for three COVID vaccinations while simultaneously green lighting four new COVID nineteen vaccines with twenty twenty five and twenty twenty six formulas. The the reason for the revocation of that emergency youth authorization is because, obviously, the COVID pandemic the public health emergency is over. But just to correct the record because there's been a lot of misinformation on this, the FDA's decision does not affect the availability of COVID vaccines for Americans who want them. We believe in individual choice. That's a promise both the president and the secretary have made, and it's a promise they have now delivered.

The speaker criticizes Mr. Kennedy for spreading disinformation about COVID vaccines. They mention an incident where Kennedy used unvetted data from VARs to claim that vaccines were killing people, leading to vaccine hesitancy and unnecessary deaths. The speaker calls this science denial and questions Kennedy's credibility. In response, Kennedy argues that VARs is an unreliable system for reporting vaccine adverse events due to voluntary reporting. He claims that CDC's own studies show that VARs undercounts vaccine injuries by a hundredfold. Kennedy also mentions a Harvard study that developed a more accurate system, but CDC allegedly shut it down and refused to address the issue. Kennedy questions why CDC doesn't have a better system in place.

We're seeing the tip of the iceberg. So right now, I think probably the most prominent, demonstration of that, is, what secretary Kennedy did with changing the childhood schedule for COVID nineteen. In that, we were directed that only children with underlying conditions would be the ones that should qualify for vaccination. That's not what the data shows. Six month old to two year old, their underlying condition is youth. Fifty three percent of those children hospitalized last season had no underlying conditions. The data say that in that age range, you should be vaccinating your child. I understand that not everybody does it, but they have limited access by narrowing that recommendation. Insurance may not cover it.

You have raised concerns about Robert Kennedy's potential influence on vaccines and vaccine manufacturing. While you emphasize the importance of following scientific guidelines, there are fears that Kennedy could undermine access to vaccines, which could have serious consequences for children's health. Despite his assurances, there is skepticism about his commitment to supporting vaccinations. You assert that Kennedy could profit significantly while jeopardizing public health, leading to tragic outcomes for children. In response, you affirm your support for vaccines and the childhood vaccination schedule.

I will comply with all ethical guidelines. However, you are implying that I should not challenge backseat decisions. As Secretary of HHS, Robert Kennedy could undermine vaccines and their manufacturing, potentially profiting while risking children's health. I support vaccines and the childhood schedule, but I prioritize good science. You should clarify that Kennedy has undergone the same ethics review as other nominees and has signed an ethics letter regarding conflicts of interest. While concerns about his financial interests are raised, he has complied with all applicable laws. I cannot confirm if any previous nominee has made millions from suing entities they would regulate, but all nominees face scrutiny over their financial interests, and Kennedy has met the necessary requirements.

The speaker discusses COVID booster shots and vaccine mandates, expressing support for vaccines but opposing mandates. They highlight their role in vaccine development and criticize the current administration's handling of the pandemic. The speaker emphasizes the importance of transparency from pharmaceutical companies and vows to resist COVID-related restrictions.

I'm asking if you will agree not to sue drug companies. I'm not agreeing to that. As secretary of HHS, you could influence lawsuits in many ways, such as promoting anti-vaccine views, appointing like-minded individuals, or changing vaccine schedules and compensation rules. You could even share FDA data with law firms for their benefit. I'm asking you to commit not to financially benefit from these lawsuits while serving as secretary. I will comply with ethical guidelines. You're trying to undermine vaccines. As secretary, you could harm vaccine access while profiting from it. I support vaccines and the childhood schedule; I just want good science. Then say you won't profit from your role as secretary.

The dialogue centers on the FDA’s decision to limit access to COVID-19 boosters to people 65 and older or those at high risk, and the rationale behind that stance. The first speaker notes surprise at the FDA announcement, which they interpret as restricting individual choice by narrowing booster eligibility. They ask for clarification on why the decision was made and why boosters might no longer be available to those who believe they would help. The second speaker explains there has been no randomized controlled trial for four to five years, so the appropriate number of boosters for a healthy American is unknown. They pose questions: should booster frequency be like the two-dose pattern of the MMR vaccine, like the two or three doses for HPV or hepatitis B, or could it be as high as 80 boosters over a healthy person’s lifespan? They state that the theory of a repeated booster strategy for healthy individuals lacks supporting data. Their job, they say, is to require clinical trial data before approving a COVID vaccine for younger, healthy Americans, noting this population differs from five years ago due to ubiquitous population-based immunity, a different circulating virus, and a vaccine formulation that introduces a new protein in the body. They ask whether it makes sense to “blindly rubber stamp” a vaccine that creates a new protein every year for the rest of a person’s life, implying skepticism about perpetual annual vaccination for the next century. Consequently, they published a framework in The New England Journal of Medicine for “sensible COVID vaccine booster regulation in The United States” that uses an age-stratified approach and positions the U.S. as “catching up with the rest of the world.” They claim part of the motivation is alignment with international practices: the UK recommends boosters for those 60, 75 and high risk, and France for 80 and high risk. They argue against pushing boosters on healthy six-year-old girls annually without evidence. They reference the framework’s reception from vaccine manufacturers, noting they issued positive statements because they like predictability.

The discussion centers on Robert Kennedy's potential conflicts of interest as Secretary of HHS regarding lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies. One party questions Kennedy's commitment to not financially benefit from lawsuits while in office and for four years afterward. Kennedy states he will comply with ethical guidelines but refuses to agree not to sue drug companies. Concerns are raised about his ability to influence vaccine policies and lawsuits, potentially benefiting financially. Kennedy insists he supports vaccines and the childhood vaccination schedule, emphasizing the need for good science. A committee member defends Kennedy, stating he has gone through the necessary ethics review process. The conversation highlights the tension between regulatory responsibilities and personal financial interests.

The CDC has recommended COVID vaccines for everyone over the age of 6 months, which contradicts the UK's recommendation for those over 65. The CDC's communication does not mention the vaccines being safe and effective. They provide some data on the estimated risk of hospitalizations prevented per 1,000,000 doses, but there is limited information on adverse reactions. The speaker questions the CDC's thinking and highlights the high number of adverse reactions compared to the number of hospitalizations prevented. They also mention the increase in the price of COVID vaccines and raise concerns about the independence and trustworthiness of drug regulators. The symptoms of COVID are similar to those of a common cold for most people.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., HHS Secretary, announces with NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary that the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule. Kennedy states that the Biden administration previously urged healthy children to get COVID shots despite a lack of clinical data supporting repeat boosters in children, which Kennedy says ends today. He claims there is no evidence healthy kids need the vaccine, and most countries have stopped recommending it for children. Kennedy concludes that this action brings the country closer to realizing President Trump's promise to make America healthy again.

Bobby Kennedy has been nominated by President Trump for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services. His opponents are attempting to discredit him by falsely claiming he wants to eliminate the polio vaccine. The truth is that a petition was filed questioning the safety of one specific polio vaccine, which was licensed based on inadequate clinical trials. The petition aimed to require a proper review, not to eliminate access to the vaccine. Additionally, the conversation touches on the broader issues of vaccine safety, the conflicts of interest in health agencies, and the increasing chronic health conditions in children. Kennedy's commitment to transparency and public health reform is emphasized, highlighting the need for change in the current healthcare system.

- "After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses." - "BARDA has begun the process of terminating these 22 contracts totaling just under $500,000,000 To replace the troubled mRNA programs, we're prioritizing the development of safer, broader vaccine strategies, like whole virus vaccines and novel platforms that don't collapse when viruses mutate." - "I'm still waiting for Robert Kennedy Jr. To say that we're going to wipe out mandates and everyone will have a choice, but this is a great step in the right direction." - "Half a billion dollars, 22 projects in the pipeline for mRNA vaccine technology." - "KFF Foundation did a survey on really what Americans are still going to want this vaccine going into the fall, the COVID vaccine."