reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker asserts that hospitals are not allowed to vaccinate patients without their knowledge, yet an alarming shift is occurring inside the medical system. They claim the word vaccine is quietly disappearing from hospital consent forms and is being replaced with a broad, vague category: biologics or biogenics. Under this new classification, a hospital can technically administer vaccines or other biological products without explicit patient consent. Insiders are reportedly observing that new surgical and hospital consent forms no longer list specific treatments. They allegedly do not say vaccine or injection; they simply say biologics or biogenics, a category so wide it can include almost anything made from living organisms and their byproducts. The scariest part, according to the speaker, is that most people sign these forms without reading them because they trust the system, because they are in pain, overwhelmed, or seconds away from being put under anesthesia. This creates a setup where a patient can enter for a routine procedure, sign a consent form filled with vague terminology, go unconscious, and wake up having received something they did not directly approve. The speaker emphasizes that no medical system should be allowed to hide procedures behind intentionally unclear language. They urge spreading the message because, in their view, most people are unaware that this is happening.

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to argue that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and claims that the Gene Technology Act does not apply to manufacturing in other countries. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's acknowledgment of transfection as part of gene therapy. The regulator disputes the definition of gene therapy. The conversation ends without resolution.

The New Zealand government is enshrining medical mandates into law through a new gene technology bill, which allows emergency authorizations for gene-based treatments without public discussion. This raises serious concerns about patient autonomy and informed consent, violating ethical standards like the Nuremberg Code. The bill could lead to the normalization of unethical practices in medicine, particularly regarding gene editing technologies like mRNA and CRISPR. Experts warn that these technologies can cause significant harm, with a history of adverse outcomes from COVID injections. The discussion emphasizes the importance of local activism to counter these developments and restore trust in the medical system, advocating for community engagement and accountability.

All childhood vaccines will soon contain mRNA, making them gene therapies that alter genetics. The vaccines won't require reapproval or go through any additional processes. The focus is on integrating mRNA into every vaccine, which is concerning because it involves tinkering with genes. The speaker urges people to be cautious and not get any vaccines, emphasizing their strong opposition to it. The speaker believes that there is a significant amount of money involved in this shift towards gene therapies.

Dr. Robert Malone, a physician scientist, discusses the rushed development and deployment of mRNA-based gene therapy vaccinations. He highlights the breach of ethics and regulatory norms, as well as the lack of informed consent. Dr. Malone emphasizes the need for open and transparent access to data regarding the safety and effectiveness of these products. He mentions the numerous adverse events associated with the vaccines, including menstrual cycle disruptions, reproductive health issues, blood clotting, damage to various body systems, immunologic and oncologic harms, and even death. Dr. Malone urges governments to disclose the data so that scientists can evaluate it and resolve the controversy surrounding these products.

Synthetic DNA and RNA injections are genetic therapies, not vaccines. The speaker questions the mislabeling of these therapies and criticizes the CDC for redefining vaccines. They argue that the shots are not effective and are being given for non-existent variants. The speaker raises concerns about the safety of these injections, including the potential for cancer and other health risks. They highlight the contamination of the vaccines with DNA and other harmful substances. The speaker calls for the cessation of these shots, the opening of cancer databases, and the return of informed consent in medicine. They emphasize the importance of trust, integrity, and community in navigating these issues.

The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's report to argue that mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy. They question why the mRNA vaccine was not tested for genotoxicity and why the Office of Gene Technology Regulator did not consider it as gene technology. The regulator responds that the question of genotoxicity should be directed to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and explains that since the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia and not manufactured there, they are not responsible for checking gene therapy. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's statement about transfection being a part of gene therapy. The regulator suggests a difference in the definition of gene therapy.

The speaker expresses concern about the presence of SD40 sequences in gene therapies, suggesting that it was not accidental and could lead to cancer. They argue that gene therapies were unnecessary as there were effective treatments available, such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which they claim are safe. The speaker questions the transparency of the FDA, as they redacted data on endotoxin levels for 75 years.

UC Riverside and UC Berkeley have developed vaccines in lettuce and tomatoes, while tobacco companies have done so in tobacco products. The concern is about proper dosing and labeling of these products to ensure consumer safety. The bill aims for transparency in grocery stores selling vaccine-containing produce. The technology is still in development, but the goal is to prevent issues like improper dosing seen in the cattle industry. The discussion highlights the need for consumer awareness and regulation in this emerging field.

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to support the claim that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and manufacturing processes conducted in other countries. The speaker highlights the contradiction in the regulator's statements and the disagreement with Pfizer's definition of gene therapy. The regulator argues that the definition of gene therapy is subjective. The conversation ends without a resolution.

Human vaccines can be integrated into foods like lettuce and tomatoes, as demonstrated by research from the University of California Riverside and UC Berkeley. There are concerns about the legality and consumer awareness regarding these products. If a food contains a vaccine, it should be labeled as a pharmaceutical to ensure proper dosage information for consumers. The discussion highlights the importance of transparency in food labeling, especially regarding potential vaccine content. The aim is to prevent issues similar to those seen in the cattle industry, where improper dosing led to resistance. Ultimately, consumers should be informed about what they are purchasing in grocery stores.

A bill in Tennessee proposes labeling food with vaccines, while Idaho has a similar bill. Edible vaccines are being studied at UC Riverside, where scientists are exploring the use of plants like lettuce to produce mRNA vaccines. Traditionally, vaccines are grown in eggs or animal cells, but plant-based vaccines are being developed. Genetic editing is being used to create edible vaccines in plants like bananas, potatoes, tomatoes, lettuce, rice, wheat, soybeans, and corn. Medicago is using gene editing to turn plants into mini bioreactors for vaccine production. There are concerns about mRNA vaccines being used on livestock, with the potential for transference to humans through meat consumption. Transparency laws are being debated to inform consumers about genetically modified products in livestock.

The speaker attempted to defund research on transgenic edible plant vaccines in the ag approves bill, arguing that taxpayer dollars are funding research into vaccines grown in lettuce and spinach. The concern is that people will be vaccinated when they eat these plants. The speaker believes there should be tighter regulations due to the risk of pollen escaping and contaminating neighboring farms that do not intend to grow vaccines in their food. Although the speaker was able to initially stop taxpayer spending on this research in the ag approves bill, the bill was discarded in favor of an omnibus bill, resulting in another year of funding for transgenic edible plant vaccine research.

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to argue that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and claims that since the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia, they were not manufactured there. The speaker disagrees, stating that transfection still occurs in Australian citizens. The regulator disagrees with the definition of gene therapy and the reliance on the manufacturer's statements. The conversation ends without a resolution.

Speaker 0 explains that in the agriculture appropriations bill, they tried to defund research for transgenic edible plant vaccines. They describe the concept as scary and state that taxpayer dollars are funding research on vaccines produced in lettuce and spinach, such that when people eat those leafy greens, they would be vaccinated with whatever vaccine the plant is producing. The speaker asserts that there is a belief this approach amounts to “playing God with our spinach,” and argues that if someone wants to pursue this, tighter rules are probably necessary because pollen can escape and pollute plants in neighboring farms that did not intend to grow vaccines in their food. The speaker notes that they attempted to put rules on this issue in the agriculture appropriations bill and were able to stop taxpayer spending in that bill. However, the speaker states that the bill was thrown in the trash and an omnibus was passed instead. As a result, the speaker warns that there will be “another year of transgenic edible plant vaccine research,” and indicates that this topic will be a post of its own. In summary, the speaker highlights the following points: the existence of research funded with taxpayer dollars into transgenic edible plant vaccines produced in vegetables like lettuce and spinach; the concern about potential vaccination through consumption of these plants; the risk posed by pollen dispersion to neighboring farms; an effort to restrict funding via the agriculture appropriations bill that was ultimately unsuccessful due to the bill being discarded in favor of an omnibus; and the expectation that such research will continue for another year. The overall message emphasizes opposition to funding this line of research and points to procedural outcomes that hindered the attempted defunding, while noting that the broader effort and its controversy would be revisited in a future post.

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to support the claim that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and manufacturing processes conducted in other countries. The speaker highlights the contradiction in the regulator's statements and emphasizes that transfection, a part of gene therapy, occurs in Australian citizens. The regulator disagrees and questions the definition of gene therapy. The speaker concludes by relying on the manufacturer's statements.

We are unaware of what we are consuming in our food supply. Merck has been injecting mRNA into pigs since 2018, creating transmissible mRNA that can be passed on to those who consume it. Without informed consent laws, those who have refused mRNA vaccines may unknowingly receive them through their food. This technology could be used in plants and animals, leading to unintended vaccination through food consumption.

The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's report to argue that mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy. They question why the mRNA vaccine was not tested for genotoxicity and why the Office of Gene Technology Regulator did not consider it as gene technology. The regulator responds that the TGA is responsible for approving vaccine products and addressing genotoxicity concerns. They explain that since the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia and not manufactured there, the Gene Technology Act does not apply. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's statement about transfection being a part of gene therapy. The regulator suggests a difference in the definition of gene therapy.

Lobbyists for cattlemen and pork associations will use mRNA COVID vaccines on livestock. Attorney Tom Rens warns there are no laws requiring informed consent for vaccinated food, nor are there laws requiring disclosure of food being vaccinated with the spike protein clot shot. The UK passed the Genetic Technology Precision Breeding Bill of 1990 to exclude references to precision bred organisms, another term for gene edited. Gene edited food can be legally marketed in the UK and can be labeled non-GMO in America. If butchered in America, it can be labeled Product of USA.

The speaker emphasizes that the term "vaccine" is not accurate for what they are discussing. They refer to it as a genetic therapy that modifies cells to produce a specific protein. The use of the term "chemical therapy" is controversial, and even renowned scientist Disar Raoult has stated that it is not considered a therapy. The speaker mentions a manufacturer of vaccines who admitted that they considered it a form of therapy.

The speaker argues that there was no informed consent regarding the COVID vaccine, as the government and pharmaceutical companies knew it wasn't a traditional vaccine. They hid potential adverse reactions and lack of evidence on transmission prevention. Despite good intentions, people were misled into taking it.

A congressman from Kentucky opposes funding for transgenic, edible vaccines. He argues that taxpayer money is being used to study the possibility of turning plants like lettuce and spinach into mRNA vaccine factories. He believes this is a bad idea and that the American people should not be funding it. He mentions a previous incident where corn contaminated soybeans, leading to a recall and destruction of crops. He expresses concerns about the safety of genetically modified food and the potential for unintended consequences. The congressman urges adoption of his amendment to stop funding this research. The amendment is ultimately agreed to.

SB 63 is a consumer right to know measure that requires labeling of cloned foods. One speaker criticizes the FDA for allowing the sale of meat from cloned animals without further research and without labeling. Another speaker from the California Farm Bureau opposes labeling, arguing that it creates unnecessary fear and that educating consumers about the value of cloning technology is more important. The first speaker highlights how various industries have fought against labeling in the past, emphasizing the importance of consumers knowing what's in their food. A third speaker expresses concern about potential legal consequences for criticizing the meat and poultry industry. The conversation ends with a mention of veggie libel laws being different.

Transgenic lettuce is being developed to produce mRNA vaccines. The idea is to genetically engineer lettuce and spinach so that consuming them can provide vaccination against biological threats. However, there are scientific problems and potential health risks associated with this proposal. Moreover, it is part of a broader plan to bypass informed consent by incorporating mRNA gene technology into food. Another concerning concept is self-spreading vaccines, where respiratory viruses carry the vaccine and infect others. These proposals are seen as dangerous, reckless, and ethically and scientifically unsound.

Hospital 1169 requires disclosure of gene therapy qualities in products, discusses transmission of gene therapy aspects, and mandates informed consent. However, there is opposition to the bill, particularly from big pharma and agricultural lobbyists. Research reveals that vaccines may be integrated into foods, with a product called Seqevity already on the market. This technology could potentially transmit mRNA gene therapies from animals to humans. Concerns arise due to the removal of country of origin labels on food products, making it uncertain if this practice is already happening in the United States. Opposition to the bill comes from companies like Bayer Monsanto, who are incorporating gene therapy into seeds and livestock. The fight against informed consent is puzzling.