Transcript · English → Serbian
English → Serbian transcript
Па, значи, мислим, као, користећи Hep-B, на пример, зар не?
Да.
Ми, ми, ми, знаш, ти си погледао податке клиничког испитивања на сајту FDA, и то просто
делује невероватно.
Како су могли да лиценцирају овај производ на основу овог смешног клиничког испитивања?
И помислиш, у реду, он мора да зна нешто.
Пет дана, само пет дана, 147 деце, нема шансе.
Пет дана праћења безбедности после инјекције, 147 деце, без контроле, и ти то лиценцираш
у сасвим новој технологији, првој вакцини
на свету заснованој на рекомбинантној ДНК технологији.
На томе су је лиценцирали за децу, за милионе беба.
Да.
Свака, свака беба у Америци првог дана живота.
Па помислиш, не, не може бити.
Ма дај.
Не може бити.
I pretpostavljaš da će, kad sediš naspram svetskog vodećeg vakcinologa, on
reći ti: 'ne, ne, savetniče, nisi u pravu, ili ti nešto nedostaje, ili postoji neka
druga gomila, znaš, podataka iz kliničkih ispitivanja koja postoje, ali on nije imao nijednu od
toga.
A zapravo, kao što znaš, dali smo mu drugu šansu nakon iskaza pod zakletvom, izdali smo mu sudski poziv
da dostavi sve podatke koji podržavaju bezbednost svih vakcina, podatke iz kliničkih ispitivanja
podatke o bezbednosti nakon primene, podatke o bezbednosti sastojaka, sve to.
I umesto da odgovori: 'evo brda naučnih dokaza', odgovorio je tako što je angažovao
advokata i pokrenuo postupak na drugom sudu da obori tu sudsku pozivnicu, i nikada nije proizveo nijedan
dokument.
I očigledno, u skoro osam godina koje su prošle, dok smo i dalje pritiskali FDA da dobijemo te
Iz dokumenata, znamo zašto on ne može da podrži bezbednost vakcina.
Niko ne može.
Mislim, razmisli o tome, zar ne?
Jer je ovo Dr. Stanley Plotkin, najveći autoritet na svetu.
Nije kao da mora da ide kući i radi domaći zadatak.
Može da pozove Paula Offita.
Može da pozove sve te stručnjake.
Može da pozove svakog, može da pozove Pfizer i, znaš, Sanofi i GlaxoSmithKline, koji
s kojima stalno radi, kaže: "hej, imam problem."
Moramo sada da pokažemo naše naučne dokaze.
Zato želim vaš najbolji tim.
Ovo je naš trenutak.
Želim da vaš najbolji tim složi tu gromadu tako da bude razumljiva.
I da srušimo ovog advokata, da srušimo ovu neprofitnu organizaciju, da srušimo, mislim, to je
ono što biste uradili da kažete: "Moram da uđem u drugi sud i ja..."
Moramo ovo odmah zaustaviti.
Neverovatno je da je to vaš odgovor.
Da, pa, pokušao je, kao što smo, znate, tokom godina objavljivali u ICANN pravnim ažuriranjima.
Šta je uradio posle tog svedočenja?
U redu, hajde da pobrojimo.
Hajde da pobrojimo stvari koje je pokušao da uradi.
Prvo, krenuo je u tiradu pokušavajući da natera FDA da izmeni uputstvo u pakovanju kako bi uključilo
više podataka o kliničkim ispitivanjima.
Da li su to uradili?
Ne, zato što ne možeš, ne možeš tamo da staviš ono što ne postoji.
Tačno.
Drugo, uspeo je da natera CDC da izmeni.
Hteo je da izmene informacione listove o vakcinama.
Ne možeš ubaciti podatke koji ne postoje, ali možeš izbaciti neke stvari.
I tako je, na primer, dobio izmene u informacionom listu o vakcini koji CDC objavljuje.
Za MMR vakcinu se nekada govorilo da jedna od stvari koje može da izazove, što nije povezano, može
izazvati je, citiram, oštećenje mozga.
Stajalo je upravo tim rečima.
To mu se nije svidelo u njegovom iskazu.
Uspeo je da to uklone.
Video je to, pa je otišao, otišao je i izbacio to odatle, to je uklonjeno.
Takođe je, verujem, bio ključan u tome da WHO potom proglasi sumnjičavost prema vakcinama
jednom od globalnih pretnji — da će svako ko se usudi da dovede u pitanje njegova uverenja,
ubitiće nas sve.
Tako je.
Takođe je osnovao, i smatram to jednom od najvećih časti u mom životu, čitavu biblioteku
u Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, posebno da se bavi ljudima poput mene,
ako si vakcinolog i naiđeš na advokata koji je
Pošto će vas ispitivati o bezbednosti vakcina, napravio je čitavu online biblioteku da vam pomogne
Da se pripremite za to saslušanje.
Ali reći ću vam šta ta biblioteka zapravo radi.
To je dar čovečanstvu na sledeći način.
Da, apsolutno.
Jer ako je to najbolje što imaju, ako je to najbolja nauka koju poseduju.
To im je Everest.
To im je Everest.
Evo je.
Čoveče.
Tačno pokazuje zašto bi svi trebalo da budu kritično, pa čak i prestravljeno zabrinuti zbog bezbednosti vakcina.
Prvo, ne obrađuje neka od najvažnijih pitanja o bezbednosti vakcina
u potpunosti.
I drugo, kad pogledate studije koje tamo navodi, znate, odvojite vreme da ih pročitate
i da ih dobro pogledate.
To je, znate, pseudo-nauka, to bi joj čak bio kompliment.
Mislim, jednostavno ne potkrepljuje bezbednost vakcina.
Па, да, урадио је.
То су била његова настојања.
Могао је једноставно да одговори на тај судски позив, али јесте, могао је једноставно да достави
стварне доказе, али није.
Покушао је практично да изврши светско прикривање.
Још једна последња ствар коју је урадио — то смо открили и у ICAN-овом правном извештају.
Организовао је оно што је требало да буде поверљив састанак у Енглеској, где
довео је водеће светске вакцинологе да разговарају о безбедности вакцина и о томе шта би они могли да
ураде.
И добили смо га само зато што смо поднели FOIA захтев CDC-у, и имамо га, и он је направио грешку што је
послао мејлом дневни ред и неке од тих информација неким људима унутар CDC-а.
Тако смо успели да добијемо копије тога.
Вау.
Други немају појма да се ово догодило.
U svakom slučaju, kad pregledaš dnevni red i ono što su pokušavali
da reše — po meni, to nije bio pokušaj da se prouči bezbednost vakcina.
To je bio pokušaj da se potvrdi da su vakcine bezbedne.
I čak ni taj pokušaj nije baš uspeo.
Dakle, on — mislim, on — znaš — veruj mu na reč.
U članku koji je objavio u časopisu American Academy of Pediatrics, takođe o toj izjavi pod zakletvom,
on govori — i u internim mejlovima — o traumatičnom iskustvu koje je imao sa jednim advokatom.
Ne voli da izgovori moje ime, već kaže 'neki advokat'.
End of transcript · 1,002 words · machine translated
Original transcript (English)
Like, so, I mean, like, using Hep-B, for example, right? Yeah. We, we, we, you know, you looked at the clinical trial data on the FDA website, and it just seems incredible. How could it be they licensed this product based on this ridiculous clinical trial?
And you're thinking, okay, he's got to know something. Five days, only five days long, 147 kids, there's no way. Five days of safety monitor after injection, 147 kids, no control, and you license that in a brand new technology, the very first recombinant DNA technology vaccine in the world ever.
That's what they licensed it on for children, for millions of babies. Yeah. Every, every baby in America on the first day of life. So you've got to go, nah, it can't be. Come on.
It cannot be. And you're assuming when you're sitting across from the world's leading vaccinologist, he's going to tell you, no, no counselor, you're wrong, or you're missing, or there's some other mountain of, you know, clinical trial data that exists, but he didn't have any of that.
And in fact, as you know, we gave him a second chance after the deposition, we subpoenaed him to provide all the data to support the safety of all the vaccines, the clinical trial data, post-selection safety data, ingredient safety, all of it. And instead of responding with, here's the mountain of science, he responded by getting a lawyer and moving in a separate court to squash that subpoena has never produced a
single document. And obviously in the almost eight years since, as we've continued to press the FDA, get those documents, we know why he can't support vaccine safety. Nobody can. I mean, think about that, right?
Because this is Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the greatest authority in the world. It's not like he has to go home and do the homework. He can call up Paul Offit. He can call up all these experts. He can call every, he can call Pfizer and, you know, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline, who
he works with all the time, says, hey, I got an issue. We've got to show our science now. So I want your best team. This is our moment. I want your best team to put that mountain together in a way that's understandable.
And let's flatten this lawyer, let's flatten this non-profit, let's flatten, I mean, that's what you would have done to say, I'm getting, I got to get into a different court and I got to shut this down right away. It's amazing that that's your response. Yeah, well, he did try, as we've, you know, over the years put out in ICANN legal updates.
What did he do after that deposition? OK, let's let's count. Let's count the things he tried to do. One, he went on a tirade trying to get the FDA to amend the package interest to include more clinical trial data.
Did they do it? No, because you can't you can't put in there what doesn't exist. Right. Two, he got the CDC to amend. He wanted them to amend the vaccine information statements.
Now, you can't put in data that doesn't exist, but you can take stuff out. And so what he got, for example, the vaccine information statement that the CDC puts out for the MMR vaccine used to say that one of the things it can cause, not related, can cause is, quote, brain damage. It said that those exact words.
He didn't like that in his deposition. He got them to remove that. He saw that and then he went, he went and he got that out of there, that removed. He is also instrumental in, I believe, in getting the WHO to then declare vaccine hesitancy one of the global threats that anybody who dares question his beliefs, you're going to
get us all killed. That's right. He also went and created, and I consider this one of the honors of my life, a whole library at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia specifically to address folks like me, that if you're going to, you're a vaccinologist and you're going to encounter a lawyer who's
going to question you about vaccine safety, he created this entire online library to help you prepare for that deposition. But I'll tell you what that library actually does. It's a gift to humanity in the following way. Yeah, absolutely.
Because if that's the best they have, if that's the best science they have. That's their Everest. That's their Everest. Here it is. Oh man.
It shows exactly why everybody should be critically and petrified concerned about vaccine safety. First of all, it fails to address some of the most key vaccine safety concerns just entirely. And two, when you look at the studies it does cite there, you know, take the time to read them and look at them.
It's, you know, junk sciences, it would be giving it a compliment. I mean, it just doesn't support vaccine safety. So, so yeah, he did. Those were his efforts. He could have just responded to that subpoena, but he did, he could have just provided the
actual evidence, but he didn't. He went and tried to do basically a worldwide coverup. One final thing he did, and we've revealed this in an ICAN legal update too. He arranged a, what's supposed to have been a confidential meeting over in England where he flew in like the world's leading vaccinologists to talk about vaccine safety and what they
could do. And we only got it because we FOIA'd the CDC and we have, and he made the mistake of emailing the agenda and some of that information to some folks within the CDC. So we were able to get copies of it. Wow.
Others have no idea this thing happened. Anyways, when you look through the agenda and you look through what they were trying to address, to me, that wasn't an attempt to study vaccine safety. That was an attempt to validate vaccines are safe. And even that effort didn't really work out.
So he, I mean, he, you know, take him at his word. In the article he published in the American Academy of Pediatrics, also about that deposition, he talks about, and in internal emails, a traumatic experience he had with a lawyer. He doesn't like to say my name, but a lawyer.
