reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The chart is outdated, a few months old. If you want to see something truly concerning, take a look at what happened. Translation: The chart is old, a few months old. If you want to see something really worrying, take a look at what happened.

The chart is outdated. Look at what happened. Who was there? Get ready. It's your turn.

They found a loophole in paperwork despite seeming stupid.

Vaccines don't cause autism. The science is clear. Vaccines don't cause autism. Vaccines do not cause autism. I do not deny that we need to do more about autism, but it has nothing to do with vaccines. We have thoroughly debunked any association between autism and these vaccines. Robert, it is nearly consensus in the scientific community that there's no link there. To deny a mountain of scientific evidence, which has already taught us that the combination of measles, mumps, rubella, or MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism, Vimerosal, an ethylmercury containing preservative that wasn't a number of vaccines doesn't cause autism, and that too many vaccines given too soon, if you will, doesn't also cause autism. We know that the schedule is safe. Are there peer reviewed scientific reports that indicate a link between No. Between vaccines and autism? No. Not only is there not a peer reviewed work, this is probably the most studied public health issue involving children. Vaccines are really the one thing we have looked at as causing autism. The Institutes of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control have repeatedly investigated this. Vaccines do not cause autism. We don't need more research. At some point, enough is enough. It's fine to continue to collect data, but at some point, you have to take note for an answer. We're not sure what causes autism, but we know that vaccines do not. Mountains of evidence. No, you know, this has been looked at extensively. Nothing's been more studied in the world than this connection between vaccines and autism. We'd heard it. We've heard it for decades. You know, actually almost a century now, if you want to get into it. This has been the battle cry of the pharmaceutical industry and every shill that works for them. But whether you know it or not all the way back in 2020 for those of you that were watching then we actually disproved this myth right then. Debunked it with a lawsuit where we went at the CDC and said really if the head of your page on the CDC website says vaccines plural meaning all vaccines do not cause us to do we have that original website. This is what it said: vaccines do not cause autism. There it is. All vaccines doesn't say one of them or two of them all vaccines by the plural s at the end of vaccines. If vaccines do not cause autism will you please provide us with all of the evidence and studies that show that vaccines don't cause autism. Send us that evidence. Well they didn't and we sued them and we went to court. Back in 2020, we won the case. Here it looks like in the document. They gave us the list. It's actually 20 studies. 20 total studies make up the entire list of what they look to when they say that these childhood vaccines, the five, and the cumulative effects of them given in the first six months of life, do not cause autism. The first one is an MMR study. The second one an MMR and a DTaP study. The next ones are MMR, these four are MMR and Thimerosal studies. Then the next all the way through to 20 are all just Thimerosal studies. Lastly, we have one antigen study. Of the 20 studies, the first MMR studies are not in the first six months of life; Thimerosal studies show none of the vaccines in the first six months of life had Thimerosal. There was only one study relevant to the first six months of life, the IOM review of the DTaP vaccine, and it said there are no studies that prove or disprove the association with autism. Therefore, that was the only one that was relevant to the first six months of life, and it proved that they had no answers. And so for everyone that's ever sent Mountain of Evidence, that's been a lie. We won in court. It's a lie. You can take that to the bank. And actually just months after winning that lawsuit, that was in May, by August they pulled down the statement vaccines do not cause autism. We celebrated it but five months later it went back up and we've been stuck there with this propaganda statement that have no basis in science up until last night when this happened to the website. Let's see the new page. Here it is. It now says autism and vaccines and right under that it has the key points. So we read those key points. The claim vaccines do not cause autism is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism, meaning those vaccines in the first six months of life. Meaning the IOM lawsuit that proved that. Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities. HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links. It does have an explanatory statement I want to read right now. It says this about why you will still see it with an asterisk the header vaccines do not cause autism has not been completely removed due to an agreement with the chair of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that it would remain on the CDC website. Apparently, this was that backroom deal that was made with Senator Cassidy, of course, when Robert Kennedy Jr. was up there. But now you can see on the page it is clear we are making the statement or it's being made by the CDC that this is not a scientific statement and so ultimately this is a massive change. I tweeted out about it today and to every parent of an autistic child that's been out there. For every one of you that did interviews, whether in the film Vaxxed or when we toured the nation and for everyone that's ever been gaslit, the days of gaslighting are over. We are now moving into science-based, evidence-based statements on the CDC website. It's a beautiful day.

Terry, it's not the 1980s. These people will harm you. Please stop. I beg you. They will kill you.

They want us dead. That's what they want.

Speaker 0 suggests looking at what happened to someone who is months old, possibly 12 months old. Speaker 1 is unsure and suggests "they" hit "him" because the guy is down the walk.

I was searching for babies, but there were none left. I wanted a baby, not a 12-year-old girl.

Terry, it's not the 1980s. These people will harm you. You have to stop and back off. Please, I'm begging you. They will kill you.

Someone was upset and stated, "They're fighting. They're really trying to hurt me." They then exclaimed, "Run. Damn. Run."

Speaker 0: In fact, I've listened to their and I tell them to go themselves. I don't I don't can't believe I used that word. My kids will be shocked. My grandchildren will be further shocked. I'm just quoting the president of The United States. And so, I think

The chart is a bit old, a few months. If you want to see something new, check out what happened.

Speaker 0 conveys a message about instructions he received: to hit them and just leave. He says someone will pull him off of them and leave, implying a planned withdrawal after the act. He emphasizes to the audience with a direct assertion, telling them, "I'm telling you." He also repeats the intent to strike, stating that he will hit them as many times as he can. The overall sense is that violence was framed as a course of action followed by immediate departure, with an expectation of intervention or removal by others afterwards. These passages describe a prearranged violent action followed by withdrawal.

There are 20 million people who are a few months old and have something to say.

Take a look at what happened in Orlando. What happened? They mentioned something significant. What exactly occurred? Let's explore the details of the situation.

They don't really care about us.

Did you get the vaccine? It's not a big deal.

The speaker references an outdated chart, a couple of months old, and expresses surprise or shock at more recent developments.

We visited the land of unconfirmed witnesses. Afterward, he died. I'm sure our visit had something to do with it.

There are 20 million people who are a few months old and eager to witness something significant. Take a look at what unfolded.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

The speaker mentions holding onto an old chart and suggests looking at what happened recently for a clearer picture.

Wanna see something interesting? Look at what happened. I don't know. He might be a bit off; I think they hit him because of that. What do you think?

I think it's time for him to try something new because I can't handle his past anymore. According to the laws.

Had the necessary actions been taken regarding this individual in recent years, those girls would still be alive.