reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Members of the German Bundestag will vote on five proposals regarding a general vaccination mandate. However, it is important to consider the following points. The Covid-19 vaccines are not safe, as the Paul Ehrlich Institute has received more relevant side effect reports in the past twelve months than for all other vaccines in the last twenty years combined. Additionally, these vaccines no longer provide significant self-protection or protection against the Omicron variant. Therefore, they are only beneficial for certain high-risk patients. Overall, this means that a vaccination mandate is unnecessary, inappropriate, and unconstitutional. Every patient should have the right to freely decide for or against vaccination after receiving individual counseling.

The speaker expressed concerns about the technological challenges related to mandating vaccinations. They believed that such mandates are discriminatory and urged businesses not to consider implementing them. The speaker also mentioned their gratitude towards the Spectator and talk radio for allowing them to clarify their stance. They expressed appreciation for Professor Carol Sikora, who quoted them and praised their eloquent handling of the issue. The speaker emphasized that they have no plans for a vaccine.

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.

I apologize, but I don't know in which life. Personally, I only see people being forced, mostly at least. A health and vaccine pass is required to eat a sandwich or play football. I won't talk about the obligation for healthcare professionals. The only legal criterion to impose a requirement on a population is if the vaccine prevents viral transmission. If it only provides personal protection against severe forms, assuming that protection is proven, it is legally impossible. Regarding children, the European Medicines Agency deferred the requirement to present study results for pediatric use. Yet, it is still authorized. How can a product be authorized when study results are not in the hands of the agency? Thank you, Mr. Mlyle. Madame.

The speaker discusses the possibility of the World Health Organization enforcing mandatory vaccinations, which would result in the organization having access to personal data for the rest of people's lives. Despite governments claiming that vaccination is voluntary, the speaker believes that behind the scenes, they are building the infrastructure for mandatory vaccinations. The speaker questions the actions of the Ministry of Health, vaccine safety control, and the media, suggesting that they may be compromised. They express concern about the lack of warnings and the untested nature of the vaccines. The speaker also criticizes the media for not providing important information and functioning as a propaganda tool. They believe that most people are unaware of what is happening due to the media's focus on trivial stories.

Starting Saturday, Berlin will enforce a mandatory FFP2 mask policy in all areas, including the German Bundestag. The speaker emphasizes the importance of protecting people in the Bundestag and expects the same from everyone else. They mention that some factions in the Bundestag oppose the measures, but it is necessary to control the pandemic. The speaker supports the actions taken by the parliamentary president.

Speaker 0 questions understanding of vaccine causing myocarditis, mentioning Pfizer's awareness. Speaker 1 doubts if vaccine was tested for stopping transmission before market release. Speaker 0 believes vaccination was optional, not forced.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of technology and digital infrastructure in managing vaccinations. They highlight the need for data on who has been vaccinated and who hasn't, especially considering future vaccines may require multiple shots. A proper digital infrastructure is crucial for healthcare in general and particularly during a pandemic. However, the speaker notes that most countries lack this infrastructure.

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.

Vaccination will always be a choice, and there will not be a two-tier society. The idea of a vaccination passport should be approached with caution, as it may create implicit pressure. Companies or organizations cannot enforce vaccination. There should be no indirect vaccination requirement, and no disadvantages or advantages for those who choose not to vaccinate or have already been vaccinated. People should never feel compelled to prove their vaccination status, and it should be legally impossible to use it as a requirement. Voluntary means voluntary, and it should not become mandatory through other means.

There is a debate about implementing a vaccine mandate, but the speakers have different opinions. Speaker 0 is against it, while Speaker 1 believes it cannot be enforced. Speaker 2 thinks it is proportionate, but Speaker 3 emphasizes the need to increase vaccine willingness without mandating it. Speaker 4 mentions the right to refuse vaccination and the government's promise against a mandate. Speaker 2 reiterates that there will be no vaccine mandate, and Speaker 0 insists on the need for one. However, Speaker 2 clarifies that not using the vaccine won't result in losing basic rights. They believe a solution leading to a vaccine mandate will be found.

Sending police to enforce vaccination can backfire in some communities. It's a difficult task that is not taken lightly. It can be done, but it's not an easy process.

Speaker 0: I ask all citizens to hold on a little longer. But until everyone is vaccinated, there will be no easing of restrictions, that is not the path we are aiming for. Speaker 1: Yesterday, you said that as long as not everyone can be offered a vaccine, there will be no new freedoms, we are talking about old freedoms. How do you plan to keep the vaccinated, let's say, in check, so that they don't start traveling, meeting up, or partying again? How long do you intend to enforce this strictly? Speaker 0: Well, I was asked about the wrong word, which I have already used, privileges, you didn't mention that. Because we must not get used to the normal life, as we know it with other freedoms, that life is no longer normal. That's where we want to go back to. These are fundamental rights that everyone has. But at the moment, even if someone is vaccinated, it is not clear whether they can still infect other people. And as long as that is not clarified, we cannot have any special measures or rights in addition to the normal rights for which the wave of lawsuits is demanding, and they are right. Look, there are now many lawsuits from people who want to be vaccinated in the highest priority group. There are lawsuits about the fairness of the measures. There will be lawsuits about the question of rights for the vaccinated, that is part of the rule of law and as politicians, we must argue why we are doing something, why we are not doing something. I believe that if we have been able to offer vaccination to a large number of people later on, and then some people say, we don't have mandatory vaccination, now I don't want to be vaccinated, then maybe we have to make such distinctions and say, okay, if you don't want it, then you may not be able to do certain things. Speaker 1: Chancellor, you explicitly mentioned the 21st of September yesterday. By then, there should be a vaccination offer for everyone. That is, if you look at the calendar, five days before the federal election. That date was not a coincidence, right? Speaker 0: Look, that is the meteorological beginning of autumn.

From what we learned, Lisa discusses the mediation of COVID vaccines. It seems that there is a vaccine available, and it is highly effective.

The speaker discusses the challenge of achieving population immunity against the virus. They explain that continually vaccinating the entire population every few months is not feasible, so the virus needs to circulate and update people's immunity. However, it is uncertain if Germany can afford to allow the virus to circulate due to the vaccine gap. This is the main obstacle, and it is difficult to predict the outcome. The speaker mentions that some studies show the effectiveness of second and third doses in preventing severe illness, but it is challenging to estimate the number of vaccinated individuals and the extent of the vaccine gap. They conclude that while the virus needs to circulate eventually, it may not be the right time for Germany yet, unlike in other countries.

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.

Speaker 0 expresses shame in being German and accuses others of betraying the country. Speaker 1 argues that there is no such thing as a nation or knowledge, and therefore no betrayal of the nation. Speaker 2 asks Speaker 1 about their knowledge on a specific topic. Speaker 1 reiterates their support for mandatory vaccination. Speaker 2 reminds Speaker 1 of their promise of no mandatory vaccination. Speaker 1 defends their stance, stating that it is about public health and being truthful. Speaker 2 argues that being liberal often leads to political downfall. Speaker 1 clarifies that they support mandatory vaccination but believe it should be proportionate. Speaker 2 calls for mandatory vaccination in Germany. Speaker 1 assures that there will be no forced vaccination or violation of rights. They believe a solution will be found through a process that may lead to mandatory vaccination.

Speaker 0: Mandatory vaccination is nonsense. No one in Germany will be forced to get vaccinated against their will. The idea that those who choose not to get vaccinated should lose their basic rights is also absurd and malicious. Let's remember the experiences we've had in Germany and reject such claims. Personally, I am open to technological and medical advancements. If German authorities approve a vaccine, I would be one of the first to get vaccinated. However, I will also advocate for the freedom of those who choose not to, as they should not be forced into it.

Speaker 0 questions if it was Dr. Puert who made the comment that no one was forced to have the vaccination. Dr. Puert confirms that it was indeed him who made the comment. Speaker 0 then challenges Dr. Puert's statement, mentioning that during COVID-19 in Australia, people, including nurses and doctors, were required to get vaccinated to keep their jobs. Dr. Puert maintains his belief that nobody was forced to get vaccinated, stating that mandates or requirements are determined by governments and health authorities. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that many Australians would not agree with Dr. Puert's perspective.

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.

In the exchange, Speaker 1 advocates that a solution to vaccination uptake may require some form of mandatory vaccination, noting that federal officials resist that term. Speaker 2 adds that once people feel legally empowered, educational institutions will require vaccination, with colleges, universities, and employers like Amazon and Facebook signaling that anyone wanting to study or work there must be vaccinated. He asserts that making life difficult for people will cause them to drop ideological objections and get vaccinated. Speaker 0 challenges whether all objections to COVID vaccinations are “ideological bullshit,” insisting that is not what was being referred to and arguing that the claim about making it hard for people to live was made in a broader context about education, travel, work, and overall life, and that she takes offense at the interpretation. Speaker 0 then references Miss Allison Williams, who testified before the committee about losing her job after seeking an exemption from ESPN’s vaccine mandate. Williams’ case involved recommendations from bureaucrats and a fertility expert, highlighting that she and her husband, who were pursuing pregnancy with medical guidance, should not have been forced to vaccinate. Speaker 0 contends she was fired because “you made it hard” as described in the statement, preventing her from working, living, and making health decisions with her healthcare professional, thereby impacting American society’s ability to flourish and self-determine certain rights—stating that America should take offense at this. The dialogue shifts to Doctor Fauci. The speaker addresses him directly, calling him “doctor of fear” and stating that Americans do not hate science but hate having their freedoms taken. The speaker accuses Fauci of inspiring and creating fear through mass mandates, school closures, and vaccine mandates, claiming these policies have destroyed the American people’s trust in public health institutions and will have ripple effects for generations. It is asserted that fear has manifested in areas such as education and the economy, and the speaker concludes by separating their stance from science, saying, “I disagree with you because I disagree with fear.” The exchange ends with Speaker 0 yielding.

We should discuss how to promote and possibly require vaccination in the European Union. This is an important topic that needs attention.

The speaker asked about the long-term effects of the vaccine, but the response was unclear. The speaker mentioned that the effects at one year are known, but not at three to five years. They also mentioned that 93% of the population will be vaccinated. The speaker seemed unsure and mentioned feeling pressured at work.

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.

I support mandatory vaccines for everyone. It's about looking out for each other. People talk about freedom, but we need to protect each other. Just like we did with polio.