TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Vaccines don't cause autism. The science is clear. Vaccines don't cause autism. Vaccines do not cause autism. I do not deny that we need to do more about autism, but it has nothing to do with vaccines. We have thoroughly debunked any association between autism and these vaccines. Robert, it is nearly consensus in the scientific community that there's no link there. To deny a mountain of scientific evidence, which has already taught us that the combination of measles, mumps, rubella, or MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism, Vimerosal, an ethylmercury containing preservative that wasn't a number of vaccines doesn't cause autism, and that too many vaccines given too soon, if you will, doesn't also cause autism. We know that the schedule is safe. Are there peer reviewed scientific reports that indicate a link between No. Between vaccines and autism? No. Not only is there not a peer reviewed work, this is probably the most studied public health issue involving children. Vaccines are really the one thing we have looked at as causing autism. The Institutes of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control have repeatedly investigated this. Vaccines do not cause autism. We don't need more research. At some point, enough is enough. It's fine to continue to collect data, but at some point, you have to take note for an answer. We're not sure what causes autism, but we know that vaccines do not. Mountains of evidence. No, you know, this has been looked at extensively. Nothing's been more studied in the world than this connection between vaccines and autism. We'd heard it. We've heard it for decades. You know, actually almost a century now, if you want to get into it. This has been the battle cry of the pharmaceutical industry and every shill that works for them. But whether you know it or not all the way back in 2020 for those of you that were watching then we actually disproved this myth right then. Debunked it with a lawsuit where we went at the CDC and said really if the head of your page on the CDC website says vaccines plural meaning all vaccines do not cause us to do we have that original website. This is what it said: vaccines do not cause autism. There it is. All vaccines doesn't say one of them or two of them all vaccines by the plural s at the end of vaccines. If vaccines do not cause autism will you please provide us with all of the evidence and studies that show that vaccines don't cause autism. Send us that evidence. Well they didn't and we sued them and we went to court. Back in 2020, we won the case. Here it looks like in the document. They gave us the list. It's actually 20 studies. 20 total studies make up the entire list of what they look to when they say that these childhood vaccines, the five, and the cumulative effects of them given in the first six months of life, do not cause autism. The first one is an MMR study. The second one an MMR and a DTaP study. The next ones are MMR, these four are MMR and Thimerosal studies. Then the next all the way through to 20 are all just Thimerosal studies. Lastly, we have one antigen study. Of the 20 studies, the first MMR studies are not in the first six months of life; Thimerosal studies show none of the vaccines in the first six months of life had Thimerosal. There was only one study relevant to the first six months of life, the IOM review of the DTaP vaccine, and it said there are no studies that prove or disprove the association with autism. Therefore, that was the only one that was relevant to the first six months of life, and it proved that they had no answers. And so for everyone that's ever sent Mountain of Evidence, that's been a lie. We won in court. It's a lie. You can take that to the bank. And actually just months after winning that lawsuit, that was in May, by August they pulled down the statement vaccines do not cause autism. We celebrated it but five months later it went back up and we've been stuck there with this propaganda statement that have no basis in science up until last night when this happened to the website. Let's see the new page. Here it is. It now says autism and vaccines and right under that it has the key points. So we read those key points. The claim vaccines do not cause autism is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism, meaning those vaccines in the first six months of life. Meaning the IOM lawsuit that proved that. Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities. HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links. It does have an explanatory statement I want to read right now. It says this about why you will still see it with an asterisk the header vaccines do not cause autism has not been completely removed due to an agreement with the chair of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that it would remain on the CDC website. Apparently, this was that backroom deal that was made with Senator Cassidy, of course, when Robert Kennedy Jr. was up there. But now you can see on the page it is clear we are making the statement or it's being made by the CDC that this is not a scientific statement and so ultimately this is a massive change. I tweeted out about it today and to every parent of an autistic child that's been out there. For every one of you that did interviews, whether in the film Vaxxed or when we toured the nation and for everyone that's ever been gaslit, the days of gaslighting are over. We are now moving into science-based, evidence-based statements on the CDC website. It's a beautiful day.

The discussion around vaccines is often oversimplified, leading to distrust in government recommendations. For instance, the hepatitis B vaccine is given to newborns, despite the disease primarily spreading through drug use and sexual contact. This raises questions about the necessity of immediate vaccination. While vaccines are generally beneficial, there should be room for individual choice and discussion. The COVID vaccine presents similar complexities, especially regarding its necessity for healthy children. It’s crucial to have open debates about vaccine safety and efficacy, rather than adhering strictly to consensus. Science evolves, and we should remain open-minded about potential links between vaccines and conditions like autism and schizophrenia, as we still lack definitive answers. Ultimately, it’s about following the science without preconceived notions.

Dr. Menares and an interlocutor debate the science behind pediatric COVID vaccination and routine immunizations, focusing on transmission, hospitalization, and risk. - The interlocutor asks whether the COVID vaccine prevents transmission. Speaker 1 answer: the vaccine can reduce viral load in individuals who are infected, and with reduced viral load, there is reduced transmission. The interlocutor reframes, insisting that the vaccine does not prevent transmission and notes decreasing effectiveness over time, citing Omicron data showing around 16% reduction when there is a reduction. - On hospitalization for children 18 and under: Speaker 0 asserts the vaccine does not reduce hospitalization for 18-year-olds; statistics are inconclusive due to small numbers of hospitalizations in that age group (approximately 76 million people aged 18 in the country, with 183 deaths and a few thousand hospitalizations in 2020–2021; numbers have since dropped). The argument emphasizes a need to discuss the issue. - On death for children 18 and under: Speaker 0 says the vaccine does not reduce the death rate; claims there is no statistical evidence that it reduces deaths. Speaker 1 responds with a more cautious stance: “It can,” but Speaker 0 counters, calling that an insufficient answer. - The discussion references the vaccine approval process and ongoing debates in vaccine committees. The interlocutor states that when the vaccine was approved for six months and older, the discussion acknowledged no proof of reduction in hospitalization or death. The argument asserts that the justification for vaccination is based on antibody generation rather than clear hospitalization/death data. The interlocutor contends that immunology measurements (antibody production) do not necessarily justify vaccination frequency. - The core debate centers on what the science supports for vaccinating six-month-olds and the benefits versus risks. The interlocutor argues there is no hospitalization or death benefit for vaccination in this age group, and notes a known risk of myocarditis in younger populations, estimated somewhere between six and ten per ten thousand, which the interlocutor claims is greater than the risk of hospitalization or death being measurable. - The exchange then shifts to changing the childhood vaccine schedule, particularly the hepatitis B vaccine given to newborns when the mother is not hepatitis B positive. The interlocutor asks for the medical or scientific reason to give a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn with an uninfected mother, arguing that the discussion should focus on whether to change the schedule rather than declaring all vaccines as good or bad. - Speaker 1 says they agreed with considering the science and would not pre-commit to approving all ACIP recommendations without the science. Speaker 0 disagrees, asserting their position that the debate should center on the medical rationale for these specific vaccines and schedules, not on a blanket endorsement of vaccines. - Throughout, the dialogue emphasizes examining the medical reasons and evidence for specific vaccines and schedules, rather than broad generalizations about vaccines.

RFK Jr. continues to falsely claim that vaccines cause autism, and he's made childhood vaccines a major target. This is dangerous and will lead to the death of children. When RFK Jr. says we have more chronic diseases in children than ever before, he's citing the instance of autism spectrum disorder. There are many interesting causes of autism spectrum disorder, like the infant microbiome, genetics, or medicines that pregnant people take during their pregnancy. But by focusing on childhood vaccines, he's focusing on the one thing that doesn't cause autism. Vaccines are really the safest, best-tested things that we give to children, and that's what is making America healthy. To focus on vaccines as a target and claim that they're causing harm when they're not is only a detriment to America's children.

The speaker discusses the complexity of vaccines and the correlation with autism rates. They compare the number of vaccines in the US to other countries and question why certain vaccines are not widely used. They criticize limited studies on vaccine safety and call for more thorough research. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the details and not dismissing concerns about vaccine safety. The speaker expresses frustration with those who do not thoroughly investigate the issue. Ultimately, the focus is on finding ways to help children without causing unnecessary conflict.

Vaccines have a place, but the population has been scared into accepting them. It's frustrating that vaccines are being promoted as gene therapy to children who are not at risk. It's ethically questionable to recommend something dangerous to a certain group to protect the elderly. Personally, as a 70-year-old, I don't want young people getting vaccinated for my sake. If something happened to them, I would feel guilty.

I believe in safe vaccines, robust science, and independent regulators. The problem with vaccines is that they have become profitable, leading to an increase in the number of vaccines given to children. In 1986, a law was passed that protects vaccine companies from being sued, removing their incentive to make vaccines safer. The four companies that make all 72 mandated vaccines have a history of wrongdoing. There is a body of science that supports my position, but I won't go into it here. The few studies that exist are flawed and written by industry and the CDC. The Institute of Medicine has criticized the CDC for not properly studying the link between autism and vaccines. Big tech companies like Facebook are censoring vaccine information. I am not anti-vaccine, but I advocate for safe vaccines.

I made it clear that my children were immunized with childhood vaccines. Public health failed to explain that COVID vaccines are different. Childhood vaccines, like for many diseases, provide immunity after one dose by giving children the disease without the deadly consequences. The COVID vaccine wasn't designed to prevent infection. Vaccine hesitancy has doubled since COVID, and we need to address these concerns. The mRNA vaccine should have been prioritized for those at high risk of severe disease, as the science and data indicated. We should have protected the elderly and those with comorbidities first. It went into young people before the elderly and nursing homes. We need to align public health actions with science and data. When we don't, we fracture trust with the American people.

We are vaccinating infants against risks that don't exist. There has to be a quantifiable risk that we're trying to prevent. We introduce a synthetic vaccine to their little immune system before they've even had breast milk, causing a reaction to a disease that they don't have and weren't exposed to in the first few days of life. This is why we have skyrocketing rates of autism, attention deficit disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. When I graduated high school in 1988, I didn't know a single autistic child. Now, my 16-year-old daughter knows 10.

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.

Why did the number of vaccines triple after 1989? Are all of them necessary, or is it about profit? The US gives twice as many shots as other Western countries. Parents should educate themselves, and decide what is absolutely necessary. Do we need the chicken pox vaccine, or the hepatitis B shot on the second day of life? We can't assume public health officials always have our best interests at heart. Parents need to make educated decisions and look at the information. Space out vaccines, delay them, and clean out the toxins. Why wouldn't doctors want to learn more about preventing disease? The AAP and medical schools are financed by drug companies, and vaccines are the fastest-growing part of the pharmaceutical industry, a 13 billion dollar business. We're asking them to take a loss for the good of our children, which is a tough sell.

Vaccines may work for some in preventing diseases like measles, but they can also cause problems. Informed consent is important, so people should know all the possibilities, without influence from incentivized doctors. Some doctors may receive kickbacks for administering the full vaccine schedule. The number of vaccines is high; for example, 72 doses of 17 vaccines between birth and age 18. Many states mandate children receive 29 doses of nine vaccines to attend kindergarten, and multiple doses of 13 vaccines for daycare enrollment. The Hepatitis B vaccine, given on day one, is questioned, especially since it's for a sexually transmitted disease. The COVID vaccine is also considered unnecessary. Tetanus was misrepresented as dangerous. It is claimed that tetanus is not dangerous, and can be prevented by washing out an open wound.

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.

Vaccines have a place, but the population has been terrorized with propaganda. It's frustrating that vaccines are being promoted as gene therapy with unknown risks for children who are at low risk. It's not ethically or morally acceptable to recommend something dangerous to them to protect the elderly. As a 70-year-old, I don't want young people getting vaccinated for my sake, and I would feel guilty if something happened to them.

The childhood vaccine schedule is managed by a vaccine advisory group with CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics representation. Changes would come to my desk for review, but this committee is very influential in vaccine policy. Regarding the hepatitis B vaccine, I'm surprised it's given to day-old babies based on limited safety data from a study with only a five-day review period and no placebo group. The FDA likely extrapolated adult data, but I don't think this establishes safety for newborns. I would prefer to see this vaccine given to older children. I disagree with the heavy-handed approach to vaccines, as it increases hesitancy and distrust. Doctors should educate, not badger or threaten, people about vaccines. I'm not a big advocate for one-year-olds getting the hepatitis B vaccine unless the mother is hepatitis B positive and the baby is at high risk.

Speaker 0: "the major problem in our government right now is that it's one with corporations." "corporate corruption collusion with the government" drives a lot of content. "it's easier for big pharma to do their thing if people aren't really talking about it." "they... try to make it a cultural issue." "vaccines to me is not really a cultural issue. It's a scientific medical situation." "It's insane." They discuss: "Does a newborn really need hepatitis b? What are these adjuvants in these vaccines like aluminum? Do we need these things? Are there safer alternatives?" "If you just say that, then all of a sudden, you're an anti vaxxer. That's a pejorative that's placed on you, and now you're a crazy kook, and you're not trustworthy." "If there's people out there to demonize you, that means you are pushing against something that there's a barrier that they don't want you to cross." "It's almost like China's social."

Centralized authority in medicine is a catastrophe. Work with a board-certified physician who listens to your needs and values; find a new one if they are dismissive. Vaccines are generally advisable, potentially in a staggered fashion, but some, like the COVID and hepatitis B vaccines, may not be necessary. Mandating healthcare is contrary to how it should be done; the physician-patient relationship should be the primary unit. Medicines are dangerous and have risks, including vaccines. The risk-reward should be carefully considered before taking them.

My son, born in 1991, has Asperger's, and I've heard from many parents of children with similar conditions. Since 1989, the vaccine schedule increased significantly, exposing children to much higher levels of mercury than deemed safe. For instance, newborns receive a hepatitis B shot that would require a child weighing 275 pounds to safely absorb under EPA guidelines. In 1988, 1 in 2,500 American children had autism; now it's 1 in 166, with many also facing learning and neurological disorders. Despite the alarming trends, the federal government claims there's no solid science linking vaccines to these issues. While we can't definitively prove a connection now, I believe future research will reveal a link between vaccines and autism.

"Senator: 'We discovered is that Anthony Fauci was destroying federal records. He was encouraging other people to destroy federal records. That is a crime.' He testified to the house a year ago and said he wasn't doing that. 'That's a crime to perjure himself.' 'We will bring him back. I've asked him to come and testify this fall. If he doesn't come voluntarily, we will subpoena him.' 'The question is, is he immune because of the pardon? I think that that needs to be challenged in court.' 'I have encouraged the Trump administration that they should prosecute this case and challenge the auto pen. I don't think the auto pen is sufficient.' 'There were so many pardons that I'm not sure Biden was aware of all the people he did pardon.' 'There is not a direct link from the person running the auto pen to the president. The person that was running the auto pen never spoke with the president.' 'And I think a president's signature on something so as important as legislation or a pardon is absolutely required.'" "Susan Monarez will testify before the senate HELP committee tomorrow. This will be her first appearance since being ousted from the role. She will be joined by Deb Aury, a former chief medical officer and deputy director who was one of four CDC officials who resigned after Monarez was ousted." "The chair with the president of Moderna ... I asked him about the expectation that he'll be getting a lot less revenue from the vaccine for COVID perhaps this time around. The scientific evidence shows that the risks of taking the COVID vaccine for children exceeds the benefits, and the scientific evidence is abundant on this. There's a study out of Israel that showed that about six to eight kids 20 that are healthy will get an inflammation of the heart that is very dangerous, and that risk exceeds the benefits of a vaccine. Every kid at six months needs to get a COVID vaccination, and that defies the scientific evidence and shows me that she's not objective. It's the same with the hepatitis B vaccine. Unless the mom has hepatitis B vaccine, disease, there is no indication for the vaccine at birth, and we need to readdress that."

"There is not one longitudinal safety study on hepatitis b against unvaccinated kids versus vaccinated kids, inert placebo, does not exist." "The two studies that are cited most often, one is for MMR." "Hep B is not involved." "They're like, we did a huge study about this. No autism." "And I'm not suggesting there's a link. I'm simply saying that huge study is only MMR." "The other study they love to talk about involves thimerosal." "Not everything else about the hepatitis B vaccine." "There the there the reality is it's not settled science. Just it's okay." "Vaccines have like, we could but to even say that, anti vaxxer."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the hepatitis B vaccine agenda and controversy around its use for newborns. Speaker 1 describes an upcoming September meeting where hepatitis B vaccine is on the agenda, predicting an effort to change the birth dose so that children wouldn’t receive it at birth. They say that if a mother has good prenatal care and known hepatitis B status, that may not matter, but if a mother does not attend prenatal care, the child would have only one opportunity to receive the vaccine. Speaker 0 reacts strongly, arguing that the person promoting the vaccine is inappropriately chosen to advocate for it. They state that the vaccine “was made for people who partake in promiscuous sex with multiple partners or share heroin needles,” and disclaim any direct accusation about the person’s needle-sharing, while asserting that this individual fits a certain group. They question why this person should mandate a hepatitis B vaccine for their child, insisting that in the United States people should be allowed to live freely, but not have the government or advocates push a vaccine tied to a particular lifestyle onto a newborn. Speaker 0 contends that the day-one vaccination would not provide long-lasting protection, especially if the person’s argument is framed as addressing a disease tied to sexual activity. They point out that the majority of pregnant individuals in America are not hepatitis B positive (citing a statistic they recall), and ask why their child should receive an injection for a sexually transmitted infection on day one of life. Speaker 0 challenges religious leaders who support the vaccination program, asking what they would say to families who do not plan for their child to engage in the behaviors associated with hepatitis B transmission. They question the alignment with religious beliefs, asking believers of various faiths whether they intend for their child to share heroin needles. They suggest a paradox in relating the injection to the condition of being created in the image and likeness of God, and conclude with a provocative remark about losing sight of religious or moral principles. Throughout, the speakers frame the hepatitis B vaccination strategy as an ideological fight over who should decide what is injected into newborns, juxtaposing public health goals with concerns about personal freedom, lifestyle, and religious beliefs.

I made it clear that my children received childhood immunizations. The issue is we failed to communicate that COVID vaccines differ significantly from childhood vaccines, which typically provide lasting immunity after one dose. The COVID vaccine was not designed to prevent infection. Vaccine hesitancy has doubled since COVID, and we must address this. The mRNA vaccines should have prioritized individuals at high risk for severe disease, aligning with the scientific data. We should have protected the elderly and those in nursing homes first. Prioritizing young people in hospitals before the elderly was not following the science. Public health actions must align with scientific data to maintain the trust of the American people.

Will you assure mothers that the measles and hepatitis B vaccines do not cause autism? If the data supports it, I will. The vaccine discussion is oversimplified. Parents are concerned about giving a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn when the disease is primarily transmitted through drug use and sex. I vaccinated my children but chose to delay the hepatitis B vaccine until school age. There needs to be an honest debate about vaccines, especially regarding COVID-19, where risks differ significantly between age groups. Healthy children are at minimal risk from COVID. We should remain open-minded about vaccine safety and autism, as we don't fully understand its causes. Science evolves, and we must be humble in our conclusions. The rationale for immediate vaccination against hepatitis B exists, but if a mother's status is known, vaccination can be delayed.

No children died from COVID in 2020, so there is no need for them to be vaccinated. The government's role in this situation cannot be denied, and many Americans are outraged and angered by the lack of accountability. The worst thing to happen to our country and the world, in my opinion, is the ongoing vaccine mandates.

If your kids were young now, would you vaccinate them for measles and mumps? No, I had measles as a child, and it was common. In the early 1900s, about 10,000 Americans died from it, mostly malnourished children. Healthy kids rarely die from measles, and studies show childhood measles can lead to better health later on. Regarding Samoa, I didn't convince anyone not to vaccinate; the prime minister had already banned it after vaccine-related deaths. No one died from measles there; it was due to a bad vaccine. I still believe vaccines cause autism. A CDC study showed a 150% increased risk of autism in children who received the hepatitis B vaccine early. Many studies, which I reference in my book, link vaccines to neurological injuries. The CDC's claims against this are propaganda influenced by the pharmaceutical industry.