reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker asks if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. They request a clear yes or no answer and the data to be shared with the committee. The response states that they did not have prior knowledge of stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market and had to rely on scientific research. Another speaker expresses outrage, claiming that people were pressured to get vaccinated based on the false belief that it would protect others.

Had it been the unvaccinated, it had two point five times the rate of chronic disease. Two hundred fifty percent increase rate is what that means. Six times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders. If they'd have shown that that was the unvaccinated group, Jimmy, you know they would have rushed this thing onto the market. They would have rushed it to publication. We've received a cease and desist letter from Henry Ford Health accusing us of defamation, saying the data is not good science. Marcus Zurbos, world-renowned virologist and head of the study, also led the Moderna vaccine trial for Henry Ford. He says it's a good study and would publish it as it is, but he's worried about losing his job. Why has that study never been done? Why has our government not said, look, compare vaccinated and unvaccinated; the vaccinated are healthier, with no autoimmune or neurological disorders.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They wanted a clear yes or no answer and requested the data to be shared with the committee. In response, it was stated that no, they did not have knowledge about stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market. They had to act quickly.

Speaker 0 argues that to determine whether smoking causes lung cancer, you must compare smokers to non-smokers. They recount a sequence of flawed study designs that would falsely conclude no link: comparing two smokers with different consumption levels and finding the same cancer rates; comparing different cigarette brands among smokers and again finding no difference; comparing people in different towns who all smoke and finding no difference. The point is that all these comparisons fail because they do not include a non-smoker control group; thus they cannot establish causation. They then contrast this with vaccine studies, asserting that studies claiming vaccines don’t cause chronic diseases or autism do not compare vaccinated to unvaccinated children. Instead, such studies compare vaccinated children to other vaccinated children, with variations in vaccines received (e.g., MMR, DTaP, multiple vaccines in one visit) and with differing aluminum exposures (e.g., four milligrams vs two milligrams). They emphasize that these studies never examine the actual outcome of interest by comparing vaccinated against unvaccinated children. The speaker maintains that this flaw in vaccine studies mirrors the earlier tobacco example. The essential argument is that the only way to determine causation is to compare the exposure group (vaccinated children) to an appropriate control group (unvaccinated children). They reference the Henry Ford trial as an example of an unvaccinated-versus-vaccinated comparison, but note that no one has published or accessible data from it. They call for someone brave enough to conduct and publish a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study to settle the issue. Finally, they challenge proponents of vaccination to conduct such a study to prove their position, insisting that if vaccines are truly safe and non-causal for chronic diseases or autism, the study should be done and the data published to demonstrate that the claim is correct. The overall message is a insistence on direct, unambiguous vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated comparisons to establish causality, highlighting perceived gaps in current vaccine research and urging transparent data publication.

During a discussion, the speaker expresses surprise that there is a lack of information on vaccinated hospitalizations, ICU visits, and deaths at a national level. The other speaker agrees, acknowledging the challenges in data collection and the importance of providing complete information to the public. The first speaker then mentions the extensive paperwork they have to fill out for patients but notes that data on vaccinated patients and the effectiveness of hospitalizations, ICUs, and deaths was not collected. The second speaker clarifies that while they were looking at that information for vaccine effectiveness studies, they did not receive aggregated data on vaccination and hospitalizations. They emphasize the need for accurate data reporting.

The speaker asks if there has been a study comparing the health outcomes of children following the CDC vaccination schedule and those who are unvaccinated. The other speaker says they are not aware of such a study and suggests it may be considered bad malpractice not to vaccinate a child. They discuss the possibility of a retrospective study using the Vaccine Safety Datalink, but note the need to control for confounders. The speaker presents an exhibit showing higher rates of health conditions in vaccinated children and suggests the need for larger studies to confirm or refute these findings. The other speaker agrees.

Speaker 0: Take the shot and protect yourself and the people around you. We all feel a chill when we hear that. Mrs. van der Hof from the RIVM, you’ve researched the effects of vaccination. If you look under the line, has it had any usefulness? Speaker 1: It has certainly been useful. In fact, from our research, but also from many other studies, people who were vaccinated had a lower chance of dying from COVID, and we see that effect with every shot that’s given. We also studied whether there is a higher chance of dying from diseases other than COVID shortly after vaccination, to see whether there is vaccine harm, and we do not find that either, which is also in line with what is found internationally. Speaker 0: Okay, because that is the story you hear at the dinner table. Earlier this week someone said, I see so many people dying, there must be something. Speaker 1: Yes. Well, there are certainly people who have died due to the vaccination. We cannot deny that. That has been investigated; we find that in the Netherlands through Lareb, and we find that internationally as well. You just have to weigh the very small chance that you become ill or die from a vaccination against the chance that you become very ill or die from COVID. And the balance tips toward vaccination. Speaker 0: Yes, vaccination protects more than it harms, you just said. Also, have you studied the chance of death due to vaccination? Speaker 1: Well, we looked at people who were vaccinated and whether within 2 months after vaccination they had an increased chance of dying from anything other than COVID. If there were an indication there, we would see it, and we absolutely do not find that. Speaker 0: No, that is simply not found. Okay. Mrs. Van der Broek, and the pandemic was a priority.

The speaker argues that looking up “FDA licensed vaccines” and reviewing “6.1” in vaccine inserts on the FDA website shows that placebo trials “never” occurred, including for childhood vaccines. The speaker claims that these placebo trial details are contained in insert text that was “wrapped around a vaccine” but allegedly not shown to people due to lack of “informed consent,” and that experts may cite studies that the speaker says did not exist. The speaker further alleges that Tony Fauci lied about “six foot distancing,” and that “everyone at the CDC and the regulatory agencies” lied. The speaker also claims that Robert Kennedy Jr. stated that COVID vaccine efficacy claims about stopping transmission were lied about, referencing Rachel Maddow’s claim that if you take the vaccine “it stops with you,” and the speaker asserts “the virus stops with you bull crap” and “it does. And you heard that here,” followed by a claim that it “does not” based on what “we know.” The speaker says that FDA “has already admitted” these points and emphasizes a call to “start asking people to show their work” and to “see the evidence,” saying “Do not trust experts any longer” because “we’ve been lied to long enough.” The speaker expresses hope that a documentary will not be the last made and claims they do interviews by giving their opinions directly and not worrying about being edited “to make me look crazy,” arguing that audiences will decide for themselves. The speaker then discusses the “vaxxed versus unvaxxed” study, saying they worked to build a relationship with someone who wanted to “prove me wrong.” The speaker claims they took a risk and promised to trust whatever the study shows if it is published, and asserts that the study results will show “how bad it is when you do this study the right way.” The speaker claims the CDC has “done this study a thousand times” trying to prove vaccinated people are healthier and that it “can’t” be done, and that doing it “the right way” will reveal worse outcomes. Finally, the speaker frames the “inconvenient” study as inconvenient for panels, for the pharmaceutical industry that allegedly owns television stations, and for CDC and HHS leadership, concluding that they “aren’t going to take it anymore” and claiming “evidence like they have never, ever had before.”

The speaker questions why there hasn't been research done to show that natural immunity protects against recurrent infection. They mention that studies have shown that individuals with natural immunity have antibodies, T cells, and B cells that are considered adequate for protection. The speaker also mentions that the CDC has access to patient data. However, the other speaker responds by stating that their current stance is that everyone who has been previously infected should still be vaccinated, without directly addressing the question.

I wouldn't label myself as anti-vaccine, but after watching your interviews and the guests you host, I'm disappointed. I believe you are anti-science and not pro-vaccine. Supporting vaccines like MMR or pertussis doesn't change the fact that denying the science behind the COVID vaccine makes you anti-vaccine. Rejecting COVID vaccine science equates to being anti-science.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My predecessor believed that aerosol and vaccinations contributed to autism. I read an article claiming that African children were autism-free until vaccinations were introduced. Has the CDC conducted studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children? We have conducted several studies on thimerosal and autism, but not specifically comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children. What steps has the CDC taken regarding the research integrity of Dr. Thorson, who has been indicted for misconduct? Dr. Thorson was just one investigator among many, and the body of evidence on vaccines and autism is extensive. Why is thimerosal only in multidose vials? It was removed from single-dose vials for specific reasons. I’ve seen data showing the U.S. has a high vaccination rate but ranks poorly in mortality rates compared to countries with fewer vaccinations. Do you see any correlation?

I raised concerns about investing NIH resources to re-examine the link between the measles vaccine and autism, given the extensive existing research and limited resources. It's impossible to prove a negative, and re-plowing already examined ground distracts from addressing unknown causes or solutions to the chronic disease crisis. We risk children dying from preventable diseases if we keep pretending this link is an issue. I agree that we need to address the rise in autism. While I believe the literature shows no connection between the MMR vaccine and autism, distrust in medicine exists post-pandemic. Providing good data is key to addressing concerns, but I'm unsure what constitutes "good data" when it already exists. The focus should be on pressing childhood health problems like diabetes and obesity, which should be the priorities of the NIH director.

Mr. Becerra, the speaker questions his knowledge of an Israeli study involving 2.5 million patients. The study reportedly found that the vaccinated group was seven times more likely to get infected with COVID compared to those who had recovered from the virus naturally. The speaker criticizes Mr. Becerra for insulting Americans who have had COVID and made their own decision about their immunity. He accuses Mr. Becerra of arrogance and authoritarianism, highlighting his lack of medical or scientific background. The speaker argues that numerous scientific studies demonstrate robust and long-lasting immunity after COVID infection. He urges Mr. Becerra to apologize for being dishonest about naturally acquired immunity and expresses a shared desire to increase vaccination rates and reduce hesitancy.

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

Kendall asks for an explanation of the process by which the MMR vaccine causes autism, referencing the movie Vaxxed. Speaker 2 responds that they are currently researching those questions, as parents and physicians have reported children developing autism immediately after the MMR vaccine. The speaker claims studies that should have been done long ago were not. Instead, the speaker alleges that captured researchers at the CDC, mainly people who work for the pharmaceutical industry, produced bad epidemiological studies. The speaker asserts that these studies deliberately avoided comparing health outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups. Speaker 0 states that this is one of the things they are studying now with gold standard science. Speaker 2 confirms they are doing gold standard science, which includes replication. They are allocating about 20% of their budget to replicating studies. Speaker 0 explains replication as an independent group repeating a study with the same parameters and data sets to achieve the same result. Speaker 2 agrees.

The Pfizer COVID vaccine was not tested for its ability to stop the transmission of the virus before it entered the market. The speaker acknowledges that they had to work quickly to understand the situation and move at the speed of science.

I spoke with a congressperson who mentioned getting Guillain Barre from a flu vaccine. When discussing vaccination, it's crucial to address concerns and focus on the benefits, data, and safety of the COVID vaccine. Listening to people's worries is essential.

Speaker 0 states that “there’s 25% of Americans who believe that they know somebody who was killed by a COVID vaccine,” emphasizing “killed” and “killed,” and repeating that the figure is “25% of Americans.” Speaker 0 then says “52% of Americans believe that the vaccines are causing injuries, including death,” and repeats “52%.” Speaker 0 continues by discussing clinical trial studies and what has or has not been released. Speaker 0 says that “if you look at the clinical trial studies, the actual studies that were done that were released of the Pfizer vaccine,” “Moderna has not released it.” Speaker 0 then specifies the Pfizer trial numbers: “If you look at the Pfizer vaccine, there were 22,000 people in the placebo group, 22,000 people who got the actual vaccine.” Speaker 0 presents an outcome claim tied to those groups, saying: “And the people who got the vaccine had a 23% higher death rate from all causes at the end of that study.” Speaker 0 frames a question regarding whether the higher death rate could be related to the disease itself. Speaker 0 says: “But that could not be the disease itself?” and then asks, “No, well... Because we know that...” Speaker 0 then brings up a logical implication, saying: “If it is, then the vaccine doesn't work, does it?” Speaker 0 responds to this with a partial back-and-forth, stating: “Well, it's certainly... Well, no, no, that's not, that's...” ending mid-thought. Overall, the transcript centers on Speaker 0’s reported survey-style figures (25% believing they know someone killed by a COVID vaccine; 52% believing vaccines cause injuries including death) and Speaker 0’s discussion of Pfizer clinical trial study details (placebo group size of 22,000; vaccine group size of 22,000; a claimed 23% higher death rate from all causes for those who received the vaccine at the end of the study), alongside Speaker 0’s statement that Moderna has not released the corresponding clinical trial studies. The transcript also includes a question-and-response exchange about whether the observed death-rate difference could be due to the disease itself and what that would imply.

I cannot understand how anyone can recommend the mRNA vaccination and sleep well at night. They seem afraid to admit they were wrong. I want to give you a chance to address your colleagues, fellow pathologists, and medical professionals. My advice is to always question what so-called experts say. You don't need top scientists, you need experienced doctors who think critically. In the past, people died from the flu without it being turned into a pandemic or locking people away.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They requested a clear yes or no answer and asked for the data to be shared with the committee. The speaker then stated that they did not have knowledge about stopping immunization before the vaccine entered the market.

Speaker 0 asked about the visibility of the medium to long-term effects of the vaccine in three to five years. Speaker 1 responded that they cannot predict how things will be in three to five years, but mentioned that 92-93% of the population will be vaccinated. Speaker 0 expressed confusion, and Speaker 1 clarified that 92-93% is the current vaccination rate. Speaker 0 raised concerns about potential side effects, but Speaker 1 reassured them that if there are any, the majority of the population would be affected. Speaker 0 remained unconvinced and expressed hesitation about getting vaccinated.

When we discussed vaccines, you mentioned a lack of post-approval safety monitoring, which suggests you may not be aware of the ongoing safety measures in place. Are you aware of the monitoring conducted by Health and Human Services after vaccine approval? I know about the VAERS system, which captures less than 1% of vaccine injuries. Are you familiar with the FDA's post-approval monitoring? I’m aware of two systems. What about the Vaccine Safety Data Link? Yes, I know about that. And the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project? As I mentioned... Are you aware of v-safe? I know those systems have issues, and I can explain. It's essential to ensure we have gold standard science without conflicts of interest. The measures I listed are crucial for ensuring vaccine safety and effectiveness, supported by extensive studies and independent reviews. Dismissing this undermines the value of vaccines.

The speaker questions the source of the claim that 20 million lives have been saved. They ask for data and studies to support this number. The response is indirect and the meeting is about to end when the speaker jumps back in to clarify that the 20 million lives saved refers to all vaccines, not just mRNA vaccines. The speaker is unable to ask for further clarification. They find it suspicious that this number is being thrown around without proper explanation. They suggest that these numbers are made up.

Speaker 0 argues that, when re-examining the data from the original study, the raw numbers reveal a different pattern than what the study’s modeling suggested. Specifically, they state that, in the raw proportions, every single one of the 22 chronic disease categories was proportionally higher in the vaccinated group. This includes cancer, which the study reportedly treated as a control condition and claimed there was no difference for. According to Speaker 0, the study’s use of cancer as a control is at odds with the raw data they observed. They claim that there was a difference in cancer outcomes, contrary to the study’s implication of no difference. They emphasize that, with rare outcomes, the modeling employed in the original analysis is not very reliable, and as a result, the study did not perform any basic proportional analysis. Speaker 0 states that when they performed a basic proportional analysis themselves, cancer was fifty-four percent higher in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated children. They mention that this result is “explained biologically” and assert that there is biological plausibility behind it. Key points: - Raw proportions show all 22 chronic disease categories higher in the vaccinated group, including cancer. - The original study used cancer as a control and claimed no difference, which Speaker 0 disputes based on the raw data. - Modeling for rare outcomes is described as not very reliable. - A basic proportional analysis by Speaker 0 indicates cancer is 54% higher in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated. - A biological explanation or plausibility is asserted for the observed cancer difference in the vaccinated group.

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.