reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Critics raised concerns about the lack of testing before the COVID-19 vaccine was rolled out. Katie Lees, a fit and healthy 34-year-old, decided to get the AstraZeneca vaccine after the guidelines changed. Unfortunately, she suffered a fatal blood clotting disorder and passed away. Her parents faced backlash for speaking out about her death. The panel discusses the rushed vaccine rollout and the need for acknowledgment and compensation for vaccine injuries. Professor Kieran Phelps and her wife, Jacqui, share their own adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine. They highlight the lack of medical curiosity and the need for better support and compensation for those who experience vaccine injuries.

John Watt, a COVID vaccine-injured individual, expresses his frustration and pain, highlighting the lack of support for those affected by the vaccine. He questions why the authorities have neglected the thousands of people suffering adverse reactions. The Prime Minister acknowledges John's concerns and promises to investigate individual cases through the existing compensation scheme. He emphasizes that decisions regarding the vaccine rollout were based on medical advice and that they are committed to addressing any shortcomings. John's voice is muffled, preventing viewers from hearing his full story. The Prime Minister encourages John to share his details with the team for further investigation.

Speaker 0 states that one of their three children experienced health issues, including heart inflammation, after receiving the vaccine and subsequently lost their job for refusing further vaccination. This adverse reaction is officially registered. The speaker recounts a doctor advising their son against further vaccination outside a hospital setting, but later denying having said so. Speaker 1 says there is a good system for reporting side effects in New Zealand and finds no clear evidence of suppression of medical side effects of the Pfizer vaccine. Speaker 0 questions why the vaccine is still in use given the side effects. Speaker 1 responds that society decided to tolerate a certain number of adverse effects for the greater good, characterizing the speaker's family member's reaction as "taking one for the team."

Speaker 0 asks if the vaccine prevented people from getting COVID. Speaker 1 believes it lessened symptom severity and reduced emergency room visits, a view supposedly held by 90% of objective experts. Speaker 0 regrets getting vaccinated, fearing he would miss his son's birth. He got COVID a couple of weeks after vaccination and received conflicting test results, questioning the competence of the testers.

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.

Speaker 0 is pleased about vaccination effectiveness in preventing severe COVID and long-term effects. They mention rare side effects from vaccines and emphasize the importance of ongoing monitoring. Speaker 1 questions the safety of products on the market without complete testing. The TGA lacks data on adverse events due to underreporting, leading to audience frustration.

The speaker discusses the injuries and disabilities that have occurred after receiving the Covid-19 vaccines. They claim that the vaccines were a large human experiment and that the spike protein produced by the vaccines remains in the body for an unknown duration. The speaker suggests that the spike protein is difficult for the body to break down because it is not natural and was engineered in a Chinese lab. They accuse Dr. Anthony Fauci and others of covering up the origins of the virus and suppressing early treatment. The speaker states that about 15% of vaccine recipients have experienced medical problems, including myocarditis and blood clots, even years after vaccination.

John Watt, a COVID vaccine-injured individual, expresses his pain and frustration, highlighting the lack of support for those affected by the vaccine. He questions why he had to establish a support group in Scotland for vaccine victims and criticizes the inadequate vaccine damaged payment scheme. The Prime Minister acknowledges John's concerns and promises to address them, mentioning the existence of a compensation scheme. He emphasizes that decisions regarding the vaccine rollout were based on medical advice and encourages John to provide his details for further investigation. The Prime Minister expresses surprise at John's claim of being silenced and assures him that his case will be looked into.

Speaker 0 asks if Moderna puts any of its profits into helping people injured by the vaccine. Speaker 1 states that indemnities are a matter for the government and cannot comment further. Speaker 0 questions if Moderna is unwilling to underwrite the risk of its own vaccine and prioritize its safety. Speaker 1 reiterates that they take vaccine safety seriously and have a good pharmacovigilance process in place, but indemnities are a matter for policymakers. Speaker 0 asks about the moral responsibility of helping vaccine victims, to which Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 assuming the answer is zero.

Speaker 0 confronts a pharmacist about their son's hospitalization due to myocarditis after receiving a COVID jab. Speaker 0 is upset that his wife was not informed about this potential side effect. Speaker 1 explains that they may not disclose the side effect to avoid scaring parents away from vaccinating their children. Speaker 0 expresses disbelief and insists that parents should be given accurate information to make informed decisions.

Speaker 0 acknowledges reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with the Pfizer vaccine but seems unsure about the mechanism behind it. Speaker 1 asks if the vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. Speaker 2 questions if people were forced to get vaccinated to keep their jobs and asks Speaker 0 to retract their statement. Speaker 0 clarifies that everyone had the choice to get vaccinated or not, and they don't believe anyone was forced.

The speaker claims the medical landscape is dominated by COVID vaccine injuries, disabilities, and deaths, and that they submit multiple entries daily to VAERS, facing scrutiny and potential penalties for falsification. They state they diagnosed an executive in her late thirties with Guillain Barre syndrome from COVID-19 vaccination. The speaker estimates that only 1% of manuscripts on COVID vaccine injuries are being published, suggesting a tremendous bias, and that there are about 4,000 papers on the vaccine debacle, which is about 1% of reality. They claim to have never seen myocarditis, heart failure, or blood clots from eating frosted flakes, but are seeing people devastated by the shots. The speaker advocates for removing COVID-19 vaccines from the market, a critical reevaluation of the vaccine schedule, dropping all vaccine mandates, and rescinding the 1986 Vaccine Injury Compensation Act.

The speaker discusses the vaccine's link to death and disability, citing over 37,000 deaths globally reported on VAERS. They criticize regulators for not addressing this issue earlier and mention a conversation with Francis Collins about vaccine-related deaths. The speaker also mentions a conversation with Dr. Redfield, who admitted downplaying vaccine injuries to avoid creating hesitancy. Dr. Redfield acknowledged that there are more injuries than reported.

A person shares their personal experience of shaking uncontrollably after receiving a vaccine, and another person talks about their loved one who died 33 days after vaccination. They express frustration with the lack of acknowledgement of vaccine injuries by the government and hospitals. They mention a significant increase in miscarriages and various unexplained symptoms reported to Pfizer. The speaker emphasizes the lack of understanding and treatment options for these conditions. They also mention the dismissal of vaccine injuries as misinformation and the difficulty in seeking justice. The conversation ends with a mention of vaccinated individuals being considered a dead end for the virus, and the speaker's last conversation with their son before his death. They express frustration that despite knowing the truth, no one is taking action to help.

COVID vaccines are declared safe by Speaker 0. Speaker 1 expresses pain, trauma, and regret due to lack of help for vaccine injuries. They mention people with amputations and heart conditions, and question why they had to set up a support group in Scotland. They criticize the vaccine damage payment scheme and state that over 30,000 people in Scotland have had adverse reactions to the vaccine. Speaker 1 demands that Rashid Shunaka start doing the right thing. Speaker 0 responds by saying that decisions regarding the vaccine were made based on medical advice from experts.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

Summary 3: The video highlights the experiences of individuals who have suffered adverse effects from the Covid-19 vaccine, expressing frustration with the lack of recognition and support from healthcare providers and the government. Concerns are raised about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, emphasizing the need for further investigation and transparency. The vaccination of children and the changing guidelines surrounding it are also discussed. The speakers stress the importance of sharing their stories and supporting one another in the face of indifference and suffering. Additionally, the video addresses the challenges faced by individuals who advocate for honest debate and informed choices about vaccines, as they receive abuse from both pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine sides. The role of government advisory groups and the media in creating a culture of fear and stifling democratic discussion is highlighted. Overall, the video calls for open dialogue and informed decision-making to prevent further harm.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain why the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination but does not provide a clear explanation. Speaker 0 insists on understanding the mechanism and questions why the vaccine is considered safe without addressing the risks. Speaker 2 intervenes, suggesting that Speaker 1 will address the question later. Speaker 1 talks about the benefit-risk ratio and the global recommendation of health authorities. Speaker 0 reiterates the question, to which Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. Speaker 2 confirms this agreement.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about a report stating that serious adverse reactions occur in 1 in 800 vaccinated individuals. Speaker 1 claims to be unaware of the report but mentions routine screening of literature for adverse events. When asked about Moderna's rate of serious adverse events, Speaker 1 cannot provide the information. Speaker 0 expresses frustration and finds it extraordinary that a multinational company cannot provide this data. Speaker 1 offers to provide the information later but states that no safety concerns were observed in their clinical trials. Speaker 0 concludes that the conversation is a waste of time.

A physician who experienced an adverse reaction to the Moderna COVID shot states that the COVID shots should never have been authorized for children and pregnant women. After receiving the Moderna shot, the speaker developed transverse myelitis, autonomic dysfunction, and an unspecified immune disorder, leading to medical retirement. The speaker is now co-chair of React19, representing Americans injured by the COVID shots. The speaker claims that the clinical trials were rushed, safety data was withheld or altered, and reporting systems like VAERS and V-Safe have failed. The speaker questions whether regulatory agencies have a conflict of interest. The speaker alleges that instead of proving safety and efficacy, the COVID-19 shots were assumed to be safe and effective, with short follow-up data, and were given to pregnant/lactating women and children without long-term safety data. The speaker is appreciative that the COVID-19 shots have been removed from the childhood vaccination schedule for healthy children, but much damage has already been done. The speaker advocates for recognition, research, medical care, and compensation for those injured by the COVID-19 shots.

The speakers claim the push for a COVID vaccine was motivated by money, and they believe there's a connection between the vaccine and subsequent deaths and blood clots. They express frustration that people aren't acknowledging this connection. One speaker shares a story about a veteran who was allegedly told that the hospital treating him was not allowed to connect his adverse side effects to the vaccine, even when listed as side effects. They say corporations don't want to talk about it because they mandated the vaccine. They believe people who got vaccinated don't want to admit they made a bad decision, leading them to deny any link between the vaccine and increased mortality rates, strokes, cancer, and heart attacks. One speaker recalls being gaslit by a former prime minister who denied coercing anyone into getting vaccinated, despite restrictions placed on the unvaccinated. Another speaker says they were misrepresented on CNN during their own recovery from COVID.

Speaker 0: No compensation is available for people with legitimate vaccine injuries, as there is already a system in place through ACC for managing such cases. Speaker 1: However, many vaccine-injured individuals have been denied by ACC and are facing personal financial burdens for their treatment. The requirement of proving the injury is a high bar to meet. Speaker 2: It is not a high bar if a proper examination system is in place. If someone was fine before receiving the vaccine and experienced severe consequences afterward, it is likely caused by the vaccine. We should let an independent commissioner investigate the truth instead of arguing about it.

Speaker 0 asks if people are not afraid of the side effects of the Covid vaccine. Speaker 1 responds that they are more afraid of long-term effects of Covid itself than the vaccine's side effects. They mention that billions of people have been vaccinated with no major side effects reported. Speaker 1 also addresses the concern that women are more affected by vaccine side effects, stating that there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. They mention not having any information from the COVAS (the organization responsible for scientific surveillance) or any published studies on this matter.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain the process of how the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination. Speaker 0 insists on an explanation of the mechanism, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. Speaker 1 emphasizes that all medicines have benefits and side effects and refers to the benefit-risk ratio. Speaker 0 continues to press for an explanation of the biochemical pathway, but Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. The transcript ends with Speaker 2 confirming Speaker 1's agreement to give a further response.

Speaker 0 assures that reported side effects of the vaccine are expected and not concerning. They urge people to report any unusual reactions. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of transparency and unbiased investigation into outbreaks following vaccination. They question the accuracy of recording underlying causes of death related to COVID-19. Speaker 0 dismisses these concerns, stating that spreading doubts about vaccine safety during a pandemic is dangerous and undermines public health. Speaker 1 finds the minister's response concerning and ends the conversation.