TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Over 1.6 million adverse event reports have been filed to VAERS for COVID-19 vaccines, with a significant increase in 2021. The underreporting factor is estimated to be around 31 for severe events like hospitalizations and death. The speaker believes the mRNA platform was used to gather data for future gene therapy applications.

Several individuals have reported adverse reactions after receiving COVID-19 vaccines. Some experienced paralysis, while others suffered from blood clots, heart issues, or neurological disorders. The CDC and FDA have launched investigations into these cases. Despite these incidents, health authorities maintain that adverse reactions are rare, and the vaccines have been effective in preventing severe illness and death. However, some individuals feel that their concerns are being dismissed or ignored. Long-term effects and the safety of vaccines remain topics of discussion. Families affected by adverse reactions are seeking compensation and calling for more transparency and open dialogue on the subject.

The symposium covers the potential safety and threat of “replicating” vaccines, especially LepriCon (leprecon) vaccines, in the context of Covid-19 vaccines and genome‑editing concepts. The speakers present a chain of claims and concerns, some drawing on reports and others presenting theories about how these next‑generation vaccines could behave in humans and populations. Key points and claims presented - Emerging mechanisms and risks: The panel notes that blood vessel inflammation and thrombosis mechanisms are increasingly observed, including in vaccine contexts, with examples from individuals who needed limb amputation and others who developed severe vascular events after vaccination. One case involved a 70‑year‑old man who, after a third dose, developed embolic events necessitating shoulder joint surgery, and another where a 60‑year‑old man developed acute limb ischemia and died; both are presented as suggesting a serious vascular mechanism linked to vaccination, though causal connections are not established. - Replicating/vector vaccines and their concerns:荒川博士 and others discuss LepiCon vaccines as vaccines that replicate inside the body. The concept involves “replicating viral vectors” where the genome can mutate and evolve during replication. The green‑highlighted segment in a slide (the antigen gene) plus a blue/orange segment (replicating gene cassette) is used to describe how LepriCon vaccines are designed to carry viral genes and replicate, with the assertion that replication, mutation, and recombination can occur, potentially generating new variants inside the host. - Differences from conventional vaccines: The discussion contrasts LepriCon vaccines with standard mRNA vaccines. In conventional mRNA vaccines, messenger RNA is delivered and translated into antigen proteins, then degraded; in LepriCon vaccines, replicating RNA/DNA can persist and continue producing antigen, with mutation and recombination possible. The panel emphasizes that LepriCon vaccines use replicating/copying mechanisms and that the genetic material can be copied in ways that differ from natural human biology, potentially creating unpredictable variants. - Central dogma and exceptions: The speakers reference the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) but note exceptions in viruses, including RNA viruses that can reverse‑transcribe to DNA (retroviruses) and RNA viruses that replicate RNA directly. They discuss how LepriCon vaccines would rely on replicative processes that do not follow the usual linear flow and why this could complicate predictions about safety and behavior in humans. - Potential for unintended spread and environmental impact: A major concern raised is that self‑replicating vectors could spread beyond the vaccinated individual, via exosomes or other intercellular transport, creating secondary infections or non‑target spread. Exosomes could ferry replicating genetic material, raising fears of new infection chains or “outbreaks” stemming from the vaccine itself, and even suggesting the possibility of vaccination‑induced spread akin to an attenuated or modified pathogen. - Safety signals and immunology concerns: The discussion touches on immune system risks, including immune dysregulation, autoimmune phenomena, and unexpected inflammatory responses. IGG4‑related disease is highlighted as a potential adverse outcome post‑vaccination, with descriptions of glandular and systemic involvement and the idea that high IGG4 levels could have immunosuppressive effects that alter responses to infection or vaccination. The panel notes observed increases in certain immunoglobulin subclasses after multiple LepriCon doses and discusses the possibility of immune tolerance or enhanced immune responses that could be harmful. - Historical and theoretical context: References are made to past epidemics and speculative pandemics caused by misused or dangerous vaccine platforms, drawing on central molecular biology concepts and historical anecdotes about how vaccines can be designed and misused. The discussion frames LepriCon vaccines as a high‑risk platform that could, in theory, generate recombinants, escape mutations, or cause unintended immune and inflammatory consequences. - Clinical and regulatory implications: The speakers call for caution, arguing that more evidence is needed before approving or widespread use of LepriCon vaccines. They emphasize the need for long‑term observation and transparent communication about risks, and criticize the potential for insufficient understanding among healthcare workers and the public. They also urge that any future vaccine development should consider the possibility of genome editing, recombination, and exosome‑mediated spread, and stress the importance of not underestimating possible adverse effects. - Real‑world observations and skepticism about hype: Several speakers underscore that the danger is not merely hypothetical; there are reports of adverse events, including stroke‑like conditions, inflammatory diseases, and immune dysregulation in vaccinated individuals. They stress that the evolution and mutation of replicating vaccines could outpace current surveillance methods, and that “information manipulation” or lack of transparent reporting could mislead the public about risks. - Final reflections and call to action: The concluding messages advocate recognizing the potential failures of messenger RNA vaccines and acknowledging that both conventional and replicating platforms may carry risks. The speakers urge ongoing critical analysis, cautious progression, and robust verification of claims through transparent, independent investigation. They close with thanks to the organizers and a hope that the discussion may contribute to broader public awareness and informed decision‑making. Notable emphasis and unique considerations - The core concern centers on LepriCon vaccines’ replication, mutation, and potential to spread beyond the vaccinated person; exosome transport and genomic/cellular integration are highlighted as mechanisms that could generate new risks not present with non‑replicating vaccines. - The discussion stresses that IGG4 responses could become alarmingly high after certain doses, potentially leading to immunosuppressive effects or autoimmune phenomena, and presents IGG4‑related disease as a potential complication to monitor. - The speakers insist that safety and transparency are paramount, and that misinformation or optimistic narratives about rapid vaccine development could lead to harm if new platforms are adopted without comprehensive evaluation. Overall, the symposium foregrounds cautious scrutiny of replicating vaccine platforms, frames potential biological and regulatory risks, and calls for careful, evidence‑based assessment before broader deployment.

The CDC triggered a comprehensive review of all databases after seeing a signal in one small database regarding potential safety issues with the booster. However, no safety concerns were found in the review of all databases in existence. The speaker mentioned that their own investigation in Europe, Israel, and the US also found no safety issues. They have a team collaborating with scientific institutions to constantly review and analyze data, and no signals of safety concerns have been found.

Speaker 0 is pleased about vaccination effectiveness in preventing severe COVID and long-term effects. They mention rare side effects from vaccines and emphasize the importance of ongoing monitoring. Speaker 1 questions the safety of products on the market without complete testing. The TGA lacks data on adverse events due to underreporting, leading to audience frustration.

You need to know the risk profile for products like the COVID vaccine. Many discuss adverse effects, but we lack sufficient data, which is unacceptable. Our surveillance system doesn't work. In 2010, the CDC had the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, meant to detect injuries. However, a CDC study revealed it captures less than 1% of vaccine injuries. This is inexcusable. Congress, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Academy of Sciences have repeatedly directed the CDC to develop a better vaccine surveillance system. We will require it and address it immediately.

There have been no concerning long-term side effects of the vaccine so far. The vaccine has only been in use for about a year, and we haven't seen any alarming issues with other vaccines that have been used for a long time. While we can't say for certain what might happen after several years, there is no scientific reason to believe that problems would suddenly arise. Although the vaccine is new, we have no plausible reason to expect any issues in the future.

Two elderly people who recently received the COVID-19 vaccine have died, but there is no evidence to suggest any concern. Reporting adverse events is crucial for detecting unexpected or severe issues. In the United States, 3,362 deaths have been reported after COVID-19 vaccinations, but this does not necessarily mean the vaccine caused these events. Similar deaths have been reported globally, but there is no indication that the vaccine is causing them. It is important for the public to understand that many reports will emerge after vaccination, but the vaccines are considered safe.

The speaker addresses concerns about the long-term negative impact of the vaccine. They explain that the RNA in the vaccine is identical to the RNA in our cells, which does not cause long-term adverse events. The RNA is quickly degraded and eliminated from the body. The lipid nanoparticles in the vaccine also disappear within 24 to 48 hours. The speaker emphasizes that none of the vaccine components remain in the body after a week. They debunk the myth that the mRNA integrates or mutates DNA, stating that it has no effect on DNA. They mention that 90% of adverse events to vaccines occur within the first 6 weeks, and so far, no unusual adverse events have been observed among the 15 million people who have received the vaccine. The only serious adverse reaction is anaphylaxis, which occurs in about 1 in 100,000 people. The speaker concludes by highlighting the extremely low odds of experiencing an adverse event from the vaccine.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain why the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination but does not provide a clear explanation. Speaker 0 insists on understanding the mechanism and questions why the vaccine is considered safe without addressing the risks. Speaker 2 intervenes, suggesting that Speaker 1 will address the question later. Speaker 1 talks about the benefit-risk ratio and the global recommendation of health authorities. Speaker 0 reiterates the question, to which Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. Speaker 2 confirms this agreement.

The CDC planned to analyze VAERS data for COVID-19 vaccine safety signals using Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), where a score above two would trigger further inquiry. ICANN requested the PRR results via FOIA and found "incredibly concerning results," with some harms having PRRs of 30, 50, or 100. The CDC then switched to Empirical Bayesian (EB) analysis by the FDA. ICANN requested this data via FOIA, leading to two federal lawsuits before the data was released. This data was also "very concerning." Both the PRR analysis and the EB data are available on the ICANN website. The speaker encourages independent scientists to analyze and publish on the data, which confirms "incredibly concerning reports of harm from the COVID-19 vaccine." The speaker claims federal health officials hid this data from the public.

The speakers express concern that only a small percentage of adverse reactions to vaccines are reported. Despite this, they assure viewers that the COVID vaccine is safe. They highlight that prior to the COVID vaccine rollout, an average of 1500 adverse event reports were received each year for all vaccines in New Zealand, resulting in one or fewer reported deaths annually.

The head of the vaccine program, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, discusses the need for more post-authorization vaccine safety studies. He acknowledges the lack of proper safety studies before licensing vaccines and calls for more research to understand adverse reactions. Plotkin emphasizes the importance of identifying biological mechanisms of adverse reactions to develop safer vaccines. He highlights the slow progress in vaccine safety science and the need for adequate funding to address public concerns about vaccine safety. Ultimately, he urges for more comprehensive safety studies to ensure the safety of vaccines.

The speaker discusses the reliability of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is used by the CDC to test vaccine safety. They explain that VAERS is a poor system because it relies on voluntary reporting from doctors, who often do not see the connection between a vaccine and adverse events. The speaker suggests that a machine counting system would be more effective. Despite its limitations, VAERS has reported more deaths and injuries from vaccines since 1986 than any other vaccine in history, making it the most dangerous vaccine according to CDC's measure.

It is possible to understand what is happening with vaccines without a statistics degree. VAERS was in place during the rollout of many vaccines, including measles, rubella, and COVID. One speaker had not heard federal officials reference VAERS. The idea with VAERS seems to be that people are complaining and should be quiet. The technology in these shots was brand new and never deployed before at scale, and the trials were a joke. It is hard to get up-to-date cancer numbers. While one speaker does not see a lot of cancer in their practice, friends at MD Anderson say they have never seen anything like the young people coming in with very advanced tumors. That is what we have to be worried about now.

The speaker asks Pfizer and Moderna to explain how the COVID-19 vaccine causes myocarditis. The response from the doctors is that the exact mechanism is still being studied, but myocarditis is generally an autoimmune response that can occur after COVID-19 or other infections. The speaker questions if other organs could also be affected by the vaccine, but the doctors explain that ongoing surveillance is in place to monitor potential risks. The speaker expresses concern about the lack of initial disclosure of these risks. The doctors emphasize the importance of preventing COVID-19 and state that the reported rate of myocarditis is around 2-3 per 100,000 doses. The speaker argues that if it can happen to the heart, it could happen to other organs. The conversation ends due to time constraints.

We are vaccinating millions, and while there are reports of deaths following vaccinations, there is no evidence that the vaccine causes these deaths. Adverse reactions must be reported, but many go unreported, potentially skewing data. For instance, only 5% of adverse reactions may reach the monitoring database. There have been serious cases, including hospitalizations, that are not being documented properly. Despite the numbers, experts assert that the vaccine is safe and effective. It's crucial for the public to understand that while adverse events will occur, they are often coincidental. The vaccine remains vital for public health, and getting vaccinated is strongly encouraged.

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.

Speaker 0 asks if people are not afraid of the side effects of the Covid vaccine. Speaker 1 responds that they are more afraid of long-term effects of Covid itself than the vaccine's side effects. They mention that billions of people have been vaccinated with no major side effects reported. Speaker 1 also addresses the concern that women are more affected by vaccine side effects, stating that there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. They mention not having any information from the COVAS (the organization responsible for scientific surveillance) or any published studies on this matter.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain the process of how the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination. Speaker 0 insists on an explanation of the mechanism, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. Speaker 1 emphasizes that all medicines have benefits and side effects and refers to the benefit-risk ratio. Speaker 0 continues to press for an explanation of the biochemical pathway, but Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. The transcript ends with Speaker 2 confirming Speaker 1's agreement to give a further response.

Speaker 0 assures that reported side effects of the vaccine are expected and not concerning. They urge people to report any unusual reactions. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of transparency and unbiased investigation into outbreaks following vaccination. They question the accuracy of recording underlying causes of death related to COVID-19. Speaker 0 dismisses these concerns, stating that spreading doubts about vaccine safety during a pandemic is dangerous and undermines public health. Speaker 1 finds the minister's response concerning and ends the conversation.

The speakers express concern about the limited reporting of adverse reactions to vaccines. They mention a report suggesting that only 5% of adverse reactions are recorded in the database. Despite this, they assure viewers that the COVID vaccine is safe. They highlight that prior to the COVID vaccine rollout, the average number of adverse event reports for all vaccines in New Zealand was 1500 per year, with one or fewer deaths reported annually.

The speaker discusses the strange situation regarding the pharmacovigilance system's early awareness of menstrual side effects from the vaccine. Despite this, the European Medicines Agency initially concluded that it was not significant, but recently revised their diagnosis. It is peculiar that while the pharmacovigilance system alerted early based on feedback from vaccinated individuals, it took a considerable amount of time for the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety to accept it as a probable side effect.