reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asks about the lack of disclosure regarding a Democratic donor funding the case. Speaker 1 denies any political motive and admits to forgetting about the donor during their deposition.

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 asks if Moderna uses its profits to help people injured by their vaccine. Speaker 1 responds that indemnities are a government policy matter and cannot comment. Speaker 0 clarifies if Moderna is unwilling to take responsibility for the safety of their vaccine. Speaker 1 emphasizes their commitment to vaccine safety but reiterates that indemnities are a matter for policymakers. Speaker 0 questions the moral obligation of Moderna to assist vaccine victims, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 assuming the answer is zero and thanking them.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa in 2008 while legislation affecting credit card companies was being discussed. Speaker 1 questions the point of the question and denies any conflict of interest. Speaker 0 insists on whether it was appropriate for a speaker to accept such a deal, but Speaker 1 dismisses it as a false premise. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, and Speaker 1 confirms that they would act upon an investment.

Speaker 0 argues that because it’s classified as a vaccine, they don’t have to worry about being sued. Speaker 1 counters that there is immunity from liability dependent on there having been no fraud, and asserts that there clearly was fraud, so in light of that... Speaker 0 expresses surprise at known caveats to liability. Speaker 1 confirms the caveats and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0 asks how fraud is defined in this context, noting that drugs were sold with many studies but only one was good. Speaker 1 responds, “Let's try this one,” and discusses safety testing: the insufficient amount of safety testing before release was done with mRNA vaccines produced in a process that did not involve DNA. The product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids, with massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter (simian virus 40). The point is that safety testing was performed on one process, but people were injected with something different that had other components not tested, which Speaker 1 calls fraudulent. Speaker 0 asks for an explanation of the SV40 issue. Speaker 1 explains production methods: techniques to generate product using a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, allowing vats to grow the product before coating in lipid nanoparticle, with bacteria doing the work. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for residual DNA contamination. In this case, not only was quality control poor, but there was a much more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. As a result, vials given to Kevin McKernan, containing material actually injected into people, showed DNA contamination across the board. Speaker 1 states that leftover DNA includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is carcinogenic. This promoter is left over in vials from shots actually injected into people, implying that the claims about the potential for mRNA shots to integrate into the genome were incorrect. Speaker 1 asserts that there is DNA in the vials, not just some old DNA, and that it includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. Therefore, Speaker 1 concludes, this seems to be clear fraud: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing conducted with a product produced by a different process.

The speaker questions the lack of transparency regarding the sharing of royalties by officials at the CDC, NIH, and FDA who are responsible for approving drugs and vaccines. They mention that Congress needs to enforce full disclosure to eliminate conflicts of interest. The speaker reveals that NIH researchers have received significant amounts of money, but the details are not disclosed. They also highlight their unsuccessful attempts to obtain nonclassified records of NIH grants. The lack of action from the Department of Justice and Democrats further complicates the situation.

Speaker 0 asks how much USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the implicit accusation and says they don't have the specific details of USAID funding at their fingertips. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is stating for certain that no USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute. Speaker 1 says they are happy to take questions from those in the audience who treat every person respectfully, and calls on someone else. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 is denying. Speaker 0 says it's a non-denial denial.

Speaker 0 states that permanent residents in the U.S. are mandated to be up to date on CDC-recommended vaccines, but this is not mandated for those entering the country illegally. Speaker 0 claims that measles cases in New Orleans are coming from people entering the country from elsewhere. Speaker 0 asks if the federal government should mandate that those becoming U.S. citizens be up to date on their immunizations. Speaker 1 states they are strongly pro-vaccine, an advisor to a vaccine company, and supports the CDC vaccine schedule.

Speaker 0 asks about the truth of vaccination incentives and whether pediatricians are financially motivated by vaccination rates. Speaker 1 responds that HMOs directly incentivize vaccines, noting that HMOs buy and sell vaccines and that vaccines are big business for them. The incentive amounts cited are typically $200 to $600 per fully vaccinated patient, provided a certain percentage of a practice is fully vaccinated. Some pediatricians can make upwards of $1,000,000 or more a year from these incentives. The speaker also mentions stories of pediatricians firing patients who won’t get vaccinated, indicating that such firing occurs. Speaker 1 adds that they hear the same stories repeatedly, including claims about misinformation given at birth and regarding vaccines: that not giving vitamin K at birth will cause the baby to bleed out before reaching the car, and that not receiving the HPV vaccine will lead to dying of cancer. They state that these are stories told to parents and question how such misinformation can persist.

The speaker claims that when the rotavirus vaccine was approved, four out of five board members had direct financial interests in it, working for the companies that made the vaccine or receiving grants to do clinical trials on it. One board member, Paul Offit, allegedly voted to add the rotavirus vaccine to the schedule while he had a rotavirus vaccine in development. The speaker says that because it's now on the schedule, his developing vaccine is virtually guaranteed to get on the schedule. The rotavirus vaccine that Offit voted on was withdrawn within a year because it was causing intussusception in kids. Offit's vaccine then replaced it. The speaker states that Offit and his business partners sold that vaccine to Merck for $186,000,000. The speaker says that Offit told Newsweek that he won the lottery and that it's been said of him that he voted himself rich.

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.

Government regulators are influenced by big pharma, with FDA employees receiving royalties from approved vaccines and drugs. FDA's budget heavily relies on pharmaceutical industries, leading to agency capture. For instance, NIH owns half of the Moderna vaccine, with high-level deputies under Fauci receiving $150,000 annually from it indefinitely. This conflict of interest is not widely discussed in mainstream media, as speaking out can lead to censorship.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while serving as Speaker of the House. Speaker 1 defends the decision, stating there was no conflict of interest. Speaker 0 presses for clarification, but Speaker 1 maintains there was no wrongdoing.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about whether they sought an ethics opinion regarding the financial benefit their son-in-law receives from a company involved in teaching critical race theory. Speaker 1 avoids directly answering the question, stating that the memorandum they are discussing has no predictable effect on critical race theory. Speaker 0 persists in asking if critical race theory being taught in more schools would result in more money for their son-in-law, but Speaker 1 continues to deflect and refuses to give a clear answer. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 stating they would seek an ethics opinion if there was a conflict of interest, but the question remains unanswered.

Speaker 0 questions the truth and asks if pediatricians are incentivized by the percentage of vaccinated patients. Speaker 1 notes that Dr. Paul Thomas has made a good video on the topic, and that many other pediatricians have followed, suggesting a possible need for a better answer from Dr. Hooker. Speaker 0 states that pediatricians are typically incentivized directly by HMOs, which buy and sell vaccines, making vaccines a big business for HMOs. The incentivization is described as typically anywhere from $200 to $600 per fully vaccinated patient, as long as a certain percentage of the practice is fully vaccinated. Some pediatricians can reportedly make upwards of $1,000,000 or more a year just from these incentives. Speaker 0 also reports hearing stories of pediatricians firing patients who refuse vaccination, asserting that such firing occurs. Speaker 1 confirms that the story of firing patients for vaccine refusal is heard repeatedly, and adds that there are also lies told to parents. Examples given include claims that vitamin K at birth is necessary to prevent the baby from bleeding out before leaving the car, and that not receiving the HPV vaccine will result in death from cancer. The speaker says that these stories have been told over and over again by parents. Speaker 1 then asks how such lying can be allowed to go on, expressing frustration with what they perceive as misinformation being spread to parents.

Speaker 0 asks if anyone on the vaccine committee has received money from vaccine manufacturers. Speaker 1 responds by saying that according to regulations, individuals who receive royalties are not obligated to disclose them, even on their financial statements, as per the Bayh Dole Act.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they personally administered any COVID-19 vaccinations and informs them they may be personally liable and prosecuted under the Nuremberg Code. Speaker 0 claims COVID was a hoax and the shots are for depopulation, having killed or permanently disabled millions. Speaker 1 states the company is liable, not them, because they made sure beforehand that the company would take responsibility and support them administering the shots.

Speaker 0 questions if anyone was forced to get vaccinated, specifically referring to a comment made by Dr. Kuat. Speaker 1 confirms that they made the comment and states their belief that nobody was forced to receive the vaccine. They explain that mandates and requirements are determined by governments and health authorities, and that individuals were given the choice to get vaccinated or not. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that many Australians would disagree with Speaker 1's statement.

This interview may seem unusual due to anticipated social media reactions, so let's clarify some key points upfront to avoid baseless accusations. Have you ever received funding or gratuities from Pfizer or any vaccine-producing drug company? No. It's important to address this since such claims often arise, regardless of their truth. Have you ever received funding or gratuities from Pfizer or any vaccine-producing drug company? No.

Speaker 0: They argue that because the vaccine is classified as such, they don’t have to worry about being sued. They claim immunity from liability is dependent on there being no fraud, and there clearly was fraud. Speaker 1: They say there is fraud. They note that immunity from liability depends on fraud, and in light of that, it matters. They explain that there was fraud. Speaker 0: Expresses surprise and asks for caveats about fraud. Acknowledges there were caveats. Speaker 1: Confirms there is fraud and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0: Asks how fraud is defined, noting that drugs were sold with multiple studies and only one was good. Speaker 1: Responds with a point about safety testing for the mRNA vaccines. States that the insufficient safety testing was done before release, and that the product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids. There is massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter from simian virus 40. The point is that safety testing for one drug was completed, but people were injected with something different that had other components that were not tested, which is described as fraudulent. Speaker 0: Requests an explanation of the SV40 issue for the audience. Speaker 1: Describes production techniques used to generate the product. Explains that a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, was used to produce the product in vats, with bacteria performing the production, later coated in lipid nanoparticle. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for DNA contamination, with limits that cannot be exceeded. In this case, the problem isn’t only poor quality control but that there was a more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. Consequently, leftover material in vials injected into people contained DNA contamination across the board. Kevin McKernan tested vials, finding DNA contamination in the samples. Speaker 1: Explains that the DNA left over includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is known to be carcinogenic. Since this promoter is left in the vials from injections given to people, it challenges the claim that the mRNA shots could not integrate into the genome. While acknowledging that there are cellular processes such as reverse transcription, the speaker asserts that even the claim of “no DNA” is false because there is DNA in the vials, specifically DNA with the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. The speaker concludes that this appears to be fraud: injecting a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was conducted with a product produced by a different process. Speaker 0: Reiterates the conclusion: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was done with something produced by a different process.

The speaker questions whether anyone on the vaccine committee has received money from vaccine manufacturers. They ask if this information can be disclosed. The other speaker responds by stating that according to regulations, individuals who receive royalties are not obligated to disclose them, as per the Bayh Dole Act.

The discussion centers on Robert Kennedy's potential conflicts of interest as Secretary of HHS regarding lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies. One party questions Kennedy's commitment to not financially benefit from lawsuits while in office and for four years afterward. Kennedy states he will comply with ethical guidelines but refuses to agree not to sue drug companies. Concerns are raised about his ability to influence vaccine policies and lawsuits, potentially benefiting financially. Kennedy insists he supports vaccines and the childhood vaccination schedule, emphasizing the need for good science. A committee member defends Kennedy, stating he has gone through the necessary ethics review process. The conversation highlights the tension between regulatory responsibilities and personal financial interests.

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: Is it a conflict of interest? I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting it's okay for a speaker to accept a favorable stock deal? We did not. Translation: The speaker questions if it is a conflict of interest and denies accepting a preferential stock deal.

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.