reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 administered COVID-19 vaccinations but is unsure of the number. Speaker 0 suggests COVID is a hoax for depopulation, causing deaths and disabilities worldwide. Speaker 1 took responsibility to protect their company. Speaker 0 finds the revelations interesting.

The speaker claims that the flu vaccine's purpose has shifted from preventing the flu to only lessening symptoms. A Cleveland Clinic study allegedly found the flu vaccine had a negative efficacy of 26.9% last winter. According to the speaker, this means that individuals who received the flu vaccine were 26.9% more likely to contract influenza. The speaker notes the study doesn't detail the pharmaceutical industry's profits from the vaccine or list its side effects. They state the side effects would be less than an mRNA vaccine, as it is a dead virus vaccine. The speaker reiterates that taking the flu shot allegedly makes one almost 27% more likely to get sick than not taking it.

The speaker claims that a year and a half ago, whistleblowers revealed that the COVID-19 vaccine was never intended to work. They mention that even Bonnie Henry from Vancouver admitted on TV that vaccinated people are ending up in the hospital, but she provided a strange explanation for it. The speaker warned their father not to take the vaccine, stating that it was not designed to work and carries all the risks with none of the benefits. They mention that vaccinated people are getting sicker while the percentage of unvaccinated people getting sick is changing. The speaker asserts that the truth is being concealed, and they mention Israel as the most vaccinated country. The speaker asks if anyone remembers the name of another country they mentioned on their Facebook.

The speaker discusses a WHO meeting in December 2019 where vaccine safety was questioned. It was revealed that there is no scientific proof that vaccines are safe and effective when used together. This realization exposed a 100-year bluff, leaving many concerned about the lack of evidence for vaccine safety. The cost and affordability of vaccines were also highlighted as a significant issue for families.

Speaker 0 is hesitant about getting the vaccine, but Speaker 2 explains that getting vaccinated protects others. Speaker 3 is skeptical due to the quick vaccine development. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of vaccination to stop the virus spread. Speaker 3 believes there is fear-mongering around the pandemic.

The speaker argues that genetic vaccines are totally unacceptable and defines the introduction of transgenes into the human body as gene therapy, questioning how this can be considered acceptable practice for creating vaccines. They assert that encapsulating messenger RNA in nanoparticles and administering it leads to off-target effects, with the effects starting from the ovaries to the brain, liver, spleen, and bone marrow. They emphasize that the biggest problem is going to the bone marrow and the reproductive organs like the ovaries, and then every possible organ. Regarding spike proteins, the speaker states that spike proteins are still detected in the rash after more than a year, which they interpret as evidence that messenger RNA is producing spike proteins. They contend that there is no way for a year-old spike protein to remain in the rash and be detected. Personal choices are also mentioned: they did not choose to get vaccinated because they think it was a foolish decision from the beginning. They have not even opted for the flu shot because they consider it an unwise choice.

Speaker 1 claims that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They assert that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 states this is not just their opinion, but can be verified by anyone who examines the FDA website, specifically the package inserts and underlying clinical trial documents.

CBS did a report 20 years ago that may shock you. The percentage of seniors getting flu shots sharply increased from 15% to 65%. You'd think flu deaths among the elderly would decrease, but they continued to climb. The NIH did a study, but then suppressed it. CBS got their hands on it, and the study revealed flu shots have not reduced deaths among the elderly. The lead author was not available for comment but a co-author, Dr. Reichert, said they were astonished by the results. They also found the same poor results in other countries like Australia, France, Canada, and the UK. The CDC is now looking at new strategies, but still recommends flu shots. They may shift toward vaccinating more children to protect the elderly.

"People who take the flu shot are protected against the at strain of flu." "They're four point four times more likely to get a non flu infection." "and you might find, and a lot of people do, that they get the flu shot and then they get sick." "They're usually not getting the flu, they're getting something that is indistinguishable from the flu because the flu shot gives you something called pathogenic priming." "The flu shot not only primes you for flu, and it primes you for coronavirus." "What they found is actually the people who got the flu shot were thirty six percent more likely to get coronavirus and that's not a that's not a lone study." "We found six other major studies that say the same thing." "If you get the flu shot, you're more likely to get coronavirus."

"Over twenty years, the percentage of seniors getting flu shots increased sharply from fifteen percent to sixty five percent." "But no matter how they crunched the numbers, they got the same disappointing result. Flu shots have not reduced deaths among the elderly." "We realized that we had incendiary materials." "Doctor Reichert says they thought their study would prove vaccinations had helped." "Were you surprised?" "Astonished." "That study soon to be published finds the same poor results in Australia, France, Canada, and The UK." "Decades of promoting flu shots in seniors and the billions spent haven't had the desired result." "The CDC says they should still get their flu shots, that it could make flu less severe or prevent other problems not reflected in the totals." "But watch for the CDC to shift toward protecting the elderly by vaccinating more children and others around them who could pass the flu."

A Cleveland Clinic study found the influenza vaccine had a negative efficacy of 26.9% last winter. This means individuals who received the flu vaccine were 26.9% more likely to contract influenza. The report does not specify the pharmaceutical industry's profits from selling this vaccine.

Speaker 0 expresses shock and disappointment at colleagues' ignorance regarding immunology. They are concerned that continued ignorance will lead to complicity in mass murder. Speaker 1 questions why colleagues comply, suggesting laziness, lack of knowledge, or fear. Speaker 0 believes it is primarily ignorance and urges colleagues to read textbooks for the truth. They accuse colleagues of supporting a dangerous vaccination program and reveal a hidden agenda to install mRNA vaccines for all infectious diseases worldwide. Speaker 1 seeks clarification on whether this includes coronaviruses, to which Speaker 0 confirms it applies to all diseases. mRNA vaccines for certain diseases like the flu are already developed and ready for introduction.

The speakers discuss the debate between doctors and pharmacists regarding who should administer vaccines. They agree that doctors should primarily be responsible for vaccinations, as patients expect to go to a doctor for this. However, they acknowledge that the flu vaccination rate is low and the government wants to increase it by allowing pharmacists to administer vaccines. This is seen as a pragmatic solution to improve vaccination rates. They hope that for COVID-19, the population's willingness to get vaccinated will be high enough that pharmacies won't be needed. They mention the establishment of vaccination centers and the availability of traditional doctor's offices for vaccinations. They conclude by stating that they may need to reconsider the involvement of pharmacies in a few years when COVID-19 becomes a regular vaccination.

The speaker discusses “Santa virus,” swine flu virus, and COVID virus, claiming “viruses are fake.” The speaker then frames the 1976 swine flu campaign as an example, saying the CDC “control plan for the national vaccination campaign against the swine flu in 1976” came out of Atlanta and that “there was not a single known case of this flu in The United States” yet “it did not stop the medical monopoly from their scheme.” The speaker says swine breeders began to inject pigs and animals, after which “all of their animals began to perish,” and claims that if swine breeders would not inject toxins into animals, “Our only market is to inject it into the people.” The speaker then claims “Doctor Morris then went public with his statement” that “at no point was there a swine flu vaccine which was effective,” and says he was fired. The speaker adds that “anybody who goes against the vaccine narrative” is “removed.” Next, the speaker says that because the pigs were passing and the vaccine needed to be delivered to people, “president Ford appears on a news program to urge the American people to submit to the vaccination for the swine flu vaccine, 1976.” The speaker says it “didn’t work with the pigs” because it was killing the pigs, and claims doctors began saying “don’t do that,” leading to the president being involved. The speaker then states that insurance agencies “went public with their warning” that they would not issue insurance to the drug firm because it “can cause a lot of damages.” The speaker ties this to 2020 by saying it “Sounds a lot like 2020.” The speaker claims “it was a foil” that insurance companies warned, while Gerald Ford appealed to “the 215,000,000 Americans” to get “the booster,” “Get the injections,” and “Get your vaccines,” and that the government would provide “donuts” and “Krispy Kreme.” The speaker calls it “Murder by injection,” and says that “within a few months” claims totaling “$1,300,000,000 filed by the victims” included “paralysis from the swine flu vaccine.” The speaker then claims the “medical monopoly” changed the name to “GBS,” and that in 1986 “Reagan signed a bill to protect all vaccines from lawsuits.” The speaker concludes by saying this “sums up vaccines in a nutshell,” asserting that presidents, animals, doctors, and TV were used and that the message is “repeating it to you until you don’t.” The speaker ends with a directive, saying anyone who tells others to put vaccines “into your body” should be “beat them up or put them in a cage and beat them up,” mentioning “UFC” as an example.

Speaker 0 argues against the flu shot, citing Cochrane and BMJ. He says: people who take the flu shot are protected against the at strain of flu, but they’re four point four times more likely to get a non flu infection. He contends that after vaccination you might get sick, not from flu but from something indistinguishable from flu, because the flu shot gives you pathogenic priming that injures your immune system and makes you more likely to get a non flu viral upper respiratory infection. He references a Pentagon story, citing Wolfe (January), stating the flu shot not only primes for flu but primes for coronavirus. In the study, they had a placebo group and a vaccine group to test prophylaxis against coronavirus for military readiness, and they found people who got the flu shot were thirty six percent more likely to get coronavirus. He claims this is not an isolated finding, saying six other major studies report the same thing. Regarding longevity, he references Cochrane’s point about what has happened to longevity in the elderly since flu shot mandates began for elderly people, saying life expectancy has dramatically gone down as the flu shot proliferation increased. He adds an observational note about the COVID vaccine period: “during the COVID crisis” there’s no science on this, but observationally, it tended to be people who got their flu shots—nursing home residents who receive flu shots and first responders who get flu shots are implicated. Speaker 1 interruptions: asks for clarification, saying, “with all due respect, I don’t understand the implications of your position. If you’re right, why wouldn’t it follow that the flu shot should be illegal? You said it’s criminal.” Speaker 0 responds with a partial cut-off fragment, beginning to reply with “to” and then stopping.

There is a discussion about how public trust in vaccination has changed since the pandemic. The speaker notes that years ago there were “five people in the world who were prepared to talk about the thorny issue of vaccination.” Post COVID, however, “half the adult population of the world are now saying, hold on, we don't trust you. You lied to us. It's not what you told us, safe and effective.” This skepticism extends to vaccines given to children, with the question, “Does this apply to all the other vaccines you're putting into my kids?” The speaker then asserts that “safety studies haven't been done,” suggesting that important research behind vaccines is incomplete or lacking. This leads to the claim that “they've created this mess for themselves.” Despite the frustration, the speaker emphasizes the moral weight of deception, stating, “it's really tough to lie. I mean, lying gets you into real trouble.”

The discussion centers on COVID-19 misinformation and the roles of public figures and disinformation spreaders. Speaker 0 questions whether doctor Fauci is involved in a plot to kill millions. Speaker 1 says he cannot confirm involvement but asserts Fauci is not an innocent bystander and is aware of his actions; he doesn’t have the information to determine the extent of Fauci’s involvement. Speaker 2 identifies Dr. Dirashid Bhattar as one of the top spreaders of COVID-19 disinformation on social media, citing the Center for Countering Digital Hate, noting Bhattar once had more than a million followers. The dialogue includes several false or debunked claims attributed to Bhattar. Speaker 1 states that “More people are dying from the COVID vaccine than from COVID,” a claim Speaker 2 labels as not true, along with Bhattar’s assertion that “the Red Cross won’t accept blood from people who have had the COVID vaccine,” and his claim that “most who took COVID vaccines will be dead by 2025.” Bhattar’s broader theory is that COVID was a planned operation, politically motivated as part of a secret global plot to depopulate the earth. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 believes the pandemic was planned; Speaker 1 responds affirmatively but says he has no idea who is behind it. Speaker 2 warns that praising or repeating Bhattar’s views is dangerous, noting Bhattar’s use of false or twisted information to distrust vaccines. The conversation touches on whether the COVID vaccine works; Speaker 1 says the vaccine is “very effective at what it was designed for perhaps,” but “not preventing death.” Speaker 0 challenges this, and Speaker 2 counters that Bhattar doubles down on vaccines being more dangerous than the virus, even in the face of data. A numerical claim is raised: “6,340,000,000 doses of this vaccine have been given,” with implications if the claim were true. Speaker 1 says vaccines are designed with ingredients published and that each vaccine appears to be different, though he concedes not being a vaccine developer. Speaker 2 notes Bhattar has been removed from Facebook and Instagram for disinformation but remains active on Twitter, Telegram, and his own site. Speaker 0 references a September 5 retweet of a photo suggesting AstraZeneca was made in 2018; Speaker 1 acknowledges it could have been fake and questions why Bhattar would share such content. A combined exchange discusses questioning agencies and the consequences of misinformation, with Speaker 0 accusing Bhattar of contributing to a mass misinformation problem and Speaker 1 acknowledging the existence of a large follower base that has received false information. The dialogue closes with a mention of a statement from North Carolina’s Board of Medicine prior to COVID, implying regulatory context or action.

People ultimately have the choice to not get vaccinated. A nurse who chooses not to get vaccinated may be unable to continue working at their current facility.

Speaker 1 states that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They claim that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 asserts this is not an opinion, but can be verified by anyone reviewing package inserts and clinical trial documents on the FDA website.

The speaker finds it difficult to find someone who hasn't been damaged by the vaccine, and even senior consultant colleagues haven't connected their ailments to the vaccine. The speaker claims the vaccine causes autoimmune diseases, of which there are 131 types, all reportedly linked to the vaccine. Individually, these appear as coincidences, but collectively, a high percentage of vaccinated people suffer from one or more autoimmune conditions. The speaker is annoyed by their GP practice constantly pushing boosters, even knowing their views, suggesting they are incentivized by payment. The speaker believes that if the practice adhered to "first do no harm," they would refuse to administer the vaccines.

Welcome to this talk. Now let me give you the bottom line on this video so you can decide if you want to watch. A large study at the Cleveland Clinic found out that the flu vaccine, the influenza vaccine over last winter, wasn't that effective. In fact, it had a negative efficacy of twenty six point nine percent. In other words, if you took this flu vaccine, you were twenty six point nine percent more likely more likely to get influenza. Now unfortunately the paper doesn't give us details on how much money the pharmaceutical industry made from selling this vaccine with negative efficacy.

The speaker, recently retired from a local hospital, claims widespread disbelief in flu shots among colleagues due to data issues, stating "the efficacy and I won't give you data. You created the data. Ten percent one year, eighteen percent the next, forty percent at best." They describe the flu vaccine given to children aged two to eight for nearly four years as ineffective, with a claimed three percent efficacy at times. The speaker contrasts this with their hospital experience, where doctors, nurses, medical assistants, patient care, and lab staff did not believe in the flu shot, until mandates and recommendations arrived. They express relief at retirement, saying their soul was sick about what they witnessed, and that conflicts of interest prevented them from speaking out while employed. They recount working on high-volume ER days with about 300 flu cases daily and claim they never contracted the flu, attributing this to personal practices: washing hands, taking vitamin D, and using a berry syrup. The speaker criticizes the shift from physicians and nurses to pharmacists administering the vaccine, accuses the system of bribing people with Target gift cards and marketing the vaccine as free, and denounces scare tactics. They observe an increase in vaccination across generations, noting "some of you are my age," with their generation having seven shots, their daughter ten, her son around sixty, and their new grandson expected to receive seventy-two vaccines, expressing shock at this escalation. The speaker references Robert F. Kennedy Jr., saying he fights for them and goes to court for kids who suffered, noting that Kennedy's family started Special Olympics. They claim that in Kennedy’s view, autism linked to vaccines is evident since there were no autistic kids in the past four decades, and allege that vaccines have caused autism. They describe watching a perfectly healthy two-year-old become a "severe autistic child" after vaccination, expressing certainty that autism exists because of vaccines. They forecast their 10-year-old grandson becoming an adult who, at age 40, would be walking in the mall with a diaper and a helmet. The speaker ends by thanking studies they claim are not done and reiterates their stance against vaccines, including autism implications, as presented in the narrative.

The speaker discusses the vaccination policy in the UK and mentions that two doses are necessary for effectiveness. They highlight a specific problem in the Landes region where there is a cluster of cases in a nursing home. While most residents are vaccinated, there are four or five unvaccinated staff members. The speaker emphasizes the importance of vaccination for both nursing home staff and hospital personnel, mentioning a similar issue in Italy where 22 people were excluded for refusing vaccination. They conclude by stating that choosing these professions means accepting the obligation to get vaccinated.

Speaker 0 discusses this year's flu shot and mentions that flu season is longer than usual. He references headlines about flu vaccine links to higher infections, citing a Cleveland Clinic study involving their employees and the influenza vaccine during this respiratory viral season. In the study, 53,402 employees were observed; 43,857 (82.1%) had received the influenza vaccine by study end. Influenza occurred in 1,079 individuals (2.02%). The cumulative incidence of influenza was similar for vaccinated and unvaccinated groups early on, but over time the cumulative incidence increased more rapidly among the vaccinated. The study includes an adjusted analysis controlling for age, sex, clinical nursing job, employment location, and reports that the risk of influenza was significantly higher for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated, yielding a calculated vaccine effectiveness of -26.9%. In other words, the data suggested a 26.9% greater chance of contracting the flu or other respiratory virus for the vaccinated group. The conclusion presented is that influenza vaccination of working-age adults was associated with a higher risk of influenza during the 2024-2025 season, suggesting the vaccine did not have the intended protective effect. Speaker 1 adds commentary, noting that the Cleveland Clinic study admits they effectively coerced over 80% of their staff to get the flu shot, implying these individuals are not biased against the vaccine and would be expected to defend it. They argue this makes the bias the opposite of what some might assume and suggest that the study should prompt reconsideration of vaccination. Speaker 1 then pivots to an appeal: they encourage viewers to sign up for their email list at thehighwire.com or ICANN, promising to deliver the study and related evidence in their inbox. They urge viewers to take the Cleveland Clinic document to their doctor and ask, “Should I get this year's flu shot?” If the doctor says yes, Speaker 1 counsels firing the doctor and presenting the document as a reason, claiming doctors may be unaware of the study. They emphasize firing doctors who do not know the study and assert that this week they wish to see doctors fired across the country if they cannot defend the use of the vaccine in light of the study. Speaker 1 concludes with a personal admonition to avoid doctors who, in their view, are not making informed decisions about health and the future of children. Speaker 0 revisits the broader context, noting that a flu vaccine with low effectiveness is not surprising since strains are guessed before the season and production is ramped up accordingly. He references Canadian headlines about low or no protection this year, and remarks that negative efficacy, such as -26.9%, is particularly noteworthy.

First speaker: The question is about how many people are totally unvaccinated, and whether this is mainly among parents who stepped up. The claim is that it’s a very small percentage because many people blindly followed the vaccination recommendations for children. Second speaker: It’s less than one percent of the public who are unvaccinated. The Amish are given as a perfect example of a large group that is largely unvaccinated. The speaker asserts that you won’t find an autistic child who was unvaccinated, and that such chronic diseases as ADD, autoimmune diseases, PANDA/PANS, and epilepsy are very rare in the Amish community. The speaker claims that the US government has studied the Amish for decades, but there has never been a public report. The reason given is that such a report would show that not following the guidelines leads to healthier outcomes, and therefore there would be a disclosure that would be devastating to the narrative. According to the speaker, there is no public report because it would reveal that the CDC has been harming the public for decades and is bearing all the data privately.