TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 reports that the largest oncologic safety assessment of the COVID shots was just published in OncoTarget, a major cancer journal. They say the article was hit with cyberattacks just before publication, preventing online posting, and that the FBI was contacted. The piece then appeared in PubMed, but is described as having gone down again after another cyberattack on the journal. The core findings, as claimed, are that the researchers collected all of the cancer evidence associated with the COVID shots and found over three hundred confirmed vaccine-related cancer cases documented in peer-reviewed literature. This number is described as not representing the total seen in real-world data, but rather the count of cases identified by scientists within peer-reviewed sources, thereby supporting the claim that the phenomenon is real. The cancers span every type imaginable, with lymphoma accounting for about forty percent of the cases. Two large population-level studies are highlighted, totaling about ten million people. These studies reportedly show a major increased risk of multiple cancers in vaccinated populations compared to unvaccinated populations, with up to seven types of cancers increased. A military dataset consisting of around 1.2 million people is cited, in which lymphoma was reported to have increased drastically in 2021 among military members who were mandated to receive the shots. The summary characterizes the paper as so damning that it is presented as evidence that these shots are carcinogenic, and attributes the cyberattacks and other online disruptions to efforts to suppress these findings. The speaker emphasizes the sequence of cyber warfare activity around publication, the breadth of cancer types reported, and the notable increases in cancer incidence in large vaccinated populations, including a significant rise in lymphoma within the military cohort.

Speaker 0 argues that to determine whether smoking causes lung cancer, you must compare smokers to non-smokers. They recount a sequence of flawed study designs that would falsely conclude no link: comparing two smokers with different consumption levels and finding the same cancer rates; comparing different cigarette brands among smokers and again finding no difference; comparing people in different towns who all smoke and finding no difference. The point is that all these comparisons fail because they do not include a non-smoker control group; thus they cannot establish causation. They then contrast this with vaccine studies, asserting that studies claiming vaccines don’t cause chronic diseases or autism do not compare vaccinated to unvaccinated children. Instead, such studies compare vaccinated children to other vaccinated children, with variations in vaccines received (e.g., MMR, DTaP, multiple vaccines in one visit) and with differing aluminum exposures (e.g., four milligrams vs two milligrams). They emphasize that these studies never examine the actual outcome of interest by comparing vaccinated against unvaccinated children. The speaker maintains that this flaw in vaccine studies mirrors the earlier tobacco example. The essential argument is that the only way to determine causation is to compare the exposure group (vaccinated children) to an appropriate control group (unvaccinated children). They reference the Henry Ford trial as an example of an unvaccinated-versus-vaccinated comparison, but note that no one has published or accessible data from it. They call for someone brave enough to conduct and publish a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study to settle the issue. Finally, they challenge proponents of vaccination to conduct such a study to prove their position, insisting that if vaccines are truly safe and non-causal for chronic diseases or autism, the study should be done and the data published to demonstrate that the claim is correct. The overall message is a insistence on direct, unambiguous vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated comparisons to establish causality, highlighting perceived gaps in current vaccine research and urging transparent data publication.

The speaker asks if there has been a study comparing the health outcomes of children following the CDC vaccination schedule and those who are unvaccinated. The other speaker says they are not aware of such a study and suggests it may be considered bad malpractice not to vaccinate a child. They discuss the possibility of a retrospective study using the Vaccine Safety Datalink, but note the need to control for confounders. The speaker presents an exhibit showing higher rates of health conditions in vaccinated children and suggests the need for larger studies to confirm or refute these findings. The other speaker agrees.

Speaker 0 expresses that publishing the material would effectively end his career. Speaker 1 questions what in the data could make the outcomes catastrophic for his career. Speaker 2 notes the study as a “bombshell.” The study included 18,468 subjects, of whom 1,957 were fully unvaccinated. When comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated groups, there was an increased risk of several chronic health conditions in the vaccinated group. Specifically, the vaccinated were over four times more likely to have an asthma diagnosis, with an adjusted figure of 4.29 times (range 3.26 to 5.65 across analyses). Speaker 4 adds that the study also found a threefold increase in atopic diseases, which are a subset of allergic diseases. The researchers reported almost a sixfold risk for autoimmune disease, listing autoimmune conditions such as thrombocytopenic purpura, rheumatoid arthritis, SLE (systemic lupus erythematosus), multiple sclerosis, and Guillain–Barré syndrome. They note there are over 80 different autoimmune diseases, and the data showed a sixfold increase in autoimmunity among the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. Speaker 3 highlights neurodevelopmental disorders, noting a five-and-a-half times increased risk. The discussion emphasizes that the immune system is intimately connected with brain development and functioning, suggesting that when the immune system is triggered by illness or vaccination, neuropsychiatric symptoms may arise due to brain inflammation and immune processes in the brain. Speaker 2 reports two point nine two times the amount of motor disabilities and four point four seven times the amount of speech disorders in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated, along with a threefold rate of developmental delay. The data also show, consistent with allergy and autoimmunity findings, six times more acute and chronic ear infections in the vaccinated group. Speaker 3 notes that in several health conditions, analysis could not be performed because there were none in the unvaccinated group, and the methods required nonzero counts in both groups. For example, there were two hundred sixty-two children who had ADHD in the vaccinated group, while the unvaccinated group had zero cases of ADHD. The same pattern is described for other conditions: zero cases of brain dysfunction, diabetes, behavioral problems, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, ticks, and other psychological disabilities in the unvaccinated group.

The speaker claims that in Pfizer's initial vaccine trial with 20,000 vaccinated and 20,000 unvaccinated participants, the vaccinated group had 23% more deaths from all causes than the placebo group after six months. The speaker states that the claim of 100% vaccine efficacy was based on the fact that two people in the placebo group died from COVID versus one person in the vaccine group. The speaker asserts that people believed the vaccine would prevent them from getting COVID, which they now realize is false.

Speaker 0 argues that the original study relied heavily on statistical modeling, rather than presenting basic raw proportions. When they examined the raw proportions, they found that every single one of the 22 chronic disease categories was proportionally higher in the vaccinated group, including cancer. The speaker notes that the study claimed there was no difference in cancer, treating cancer as a control, but asserts there was a difference in cancer when looking at raw data. They claim that for rare outcomes, the modeling used in the study is not very reliable, and no basic proportional analysis was performed by the original authors. However, when they conducted such an analysis themselves, they found cancer was fifty-four percent higher in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated children. The speaker concludes that there is biological plausibility behind these findings.

Speaker 0 argues that a critical missing piece in autism research is vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies, and notes there are six good studies to rely on. They claim these studies have been systematically suppressed and ignored by the mainstream media and the medical establishment. The summary of specific study claims is as follows: - Two studies by Gallier and Goodman show that the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine significantly increases autism risk. - Three studies by Anthony Mawson confirmed that vaccination increases the odds of developing autism by at least 4.2-fold. - Preterm birth coupled with vaccination increases the odds of neurodevelopmental disability by more than 12-fold compared to preterm birth without vaccination. - A study by Hooker and Miller published in 2021 found that vaccination increases autism risk five-fold. - Vaccination in the absence of breastfeeding increases autism risk 12.5-fold. - Vaccination in addition to cesarean birth increases autism risk 18.7-fold. The speaker states that after conducting a systematic review of a thousand studies, their belief is that the autism and chronic disease epidemics are primarily caused by toxicants, mostly from vaccines and about a dozen additional toxicants.

The speaker claims SV40 in literature turns on cancer genes. They further claim the spike protein impairs tumor suppressor systems P53 and BRCA, promoting cancer and inhibiting the ability to fight it. The speaker suggests cancer rates are up, and the question is how much is due to vaccines. They state that repeated shots every six months increase the chances of getting loaded with synthetic genetic material that will cause harm, including heart disease, neurologic disease, blood clotting, immunologic problems, and cancer.

The speaker claims epidemiological studies are easily manipulated and that proper studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated groups are lacking, except for a CDC study in 1999. This CDC study, led by Thomas Verstraten, allegedly compared children who received the hepatitis vaccine within the first thirty days of life to those vaccinated later or not at all. The speaker asserts the study found a 1,135% elevated risk of autism in vaccinated children, which "shocked" researchers. The speaker alleges the CDC then kept the study secret and manipulated it through five iterations to bury the link.

The speaker claims that this is not conspiracy theory and cites a BMJ publication by Retzaf Levy, which describes a process in vaccine development: vaccines were trialed under one formulation, but when the decision was made to deploy them globally, the process was changed and the product injected to the rest of the world. The speaker asserts that changing the process requires new trials, yet the EMA asked for an additional trial of 250 people after the process change, and that data was never delivered. This is described as a “bait and switch,” asserted as crucial for understanding why trial data is of zero consequence to what’s seen in the field, implying that real-world outcomes do not match trial data and that the numbers from trials are a caricature of field performance. The speaker claims Pfizer had early data indicating what would happen and acted on that by acquiring cancer companies: $43,000,000,000 into the acquisition of C Gen and $2,260,000,000 to acquire Trillium Therapeutics. Trillium is described as focused on blood cancers with the CD147 marker (CD Adaptor 147) on them, a marker claimed to be known to be involved in COVID. The implication is that Pfizer is building an investment portfolio in cancer companies that would benefit from the consequences the speaker alleges they caused. In summary, the vaccines on the market are said to be not the same formulation as what was tested in clinical trials, labeling this a “bait and switch” and a fraud, and asserting that vaccine effectiveness numbers are not reliable because the products differ from trial formulations and because those numbers decay over time. The speaker alleges significant DNA contamination, stating that 10 out of 11 studies have found this, with the remaining studies allegedly constrained by financial conflicts. The claim is that consensus among real studies supports DNA contamination, with several studies through peer review, which the speaker notes is difficult for those papers to pass through peer review. It is claimed that five peer-reviewed studies not originally examining contamination found DNA in blood and tissue upon sleuthing. The speaker asserts that cancer is on the rise and that several papers report cancer post-vaccination, including neoplasms at the site of injection. The claim is that this situation cannot be dismissed as coincidence and is described as “liability free” and often mandated. The speaker posits that this may be the largest carcinogenic hit to the human population, with vaccines on childhood schedules and given to pregnant women, stating that “this has gone absolutely off the rails.”

There's concern about increased cancer risk after Covid vaccines, noting lack of UK data comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated. A study from Italy reported increased incidence of cancers six months after Covid vaccinations. The source is Experimental and Clinical Sciences Journal, peer reviewed. The paper states: "People that had vaccinated with at least one dose, their chances of getting colorectal cancer the hazard ratio was one point three four. In other words thirty four percent more likely to get it." This is at a six month follow-up. It also claims: "Breast cancer fifty four percent more likely to get breast cancer in the vaccinated group." "Bladder cancer sixty two percent more likely to get it than the unvaccinated group."

All vaccines, including COVID vaccines, are causing harm to children. There has never been a study comparing fully vaccinated kids following the CDC schedule to unvaccinated kids. The difference in health outcomes between these two groups is dramatic, with unvaccinated kids being consistently healthier. A 10-year study by Dr. Paul Thomas, which was retracted unethically, showed that vaccinated kids were more likely to get the diseases they were vaccinated against. A study by the control group with over 1,000 unvaccinated people also revealed significantly better health outcomes compared to fully vaccinated individuals. Despite promises, the CDC has never conducted a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. No vaccine is safe or effective, and no study has been able to prove otherwise.

The speaker cites two population studies on COVID-19 vaccines and cancer risk, claiming they show massive increases in multiple cancers. The first study, from Italy, followed 300,000 Italians for about 30 months and reported about a 23 percent increased risk of overall cancer hospitalizations, with increases of about 40 to 60 percent in breast cancer hospitalizations, colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, and leukemia/lymphoma. A new study from South Korea, involving over eight million Koreans, purportedly corroborates the Italian data and expands on it. It reports about a 26 percent increase in overall cancer risk and increases across six major types of cancer, including gastric, thyroid, colorectal, and breast cancer, as well as other cancers described as very rare. The speaker frames these findings as an absolute disaster and claims they confirm that the vaccines have unleashed a turbo cancer epidemic. They state that the datasets corroborate these results and that the observed effects can be explained by gene expression chaos documented in other studies, along with genomic integration observed in stage four cancer patients. The speaker characterizes the situation as a disaster that needs immediate acknowledgment.

The speaker claims that the CDC commissioned six epidemiological studies using fraudulent techniques, instead of comparing health outcomes between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. According to the speaker, a 1999 CDC study led by Thomas Verstraten compared children who received the hepatitis vaccine within their first thirty days of life to those vaccinated later or not at all. This study allegedly found a 1,135% elevated risk of autism among vaccinated children. The speaker states that the CDC kept the study secret and manipulated it to bury the link by removing older children and stratifying the data. The speaker asserts that over 100 external studies indicate a link between vaccines and autism.

The speaker discusses data from the VAERS database, highlighting a significant increase in cancer-related conditions following COVID vaccination compared to other vaccines. They mention the overexpression of PD L1, a molecule linked to cancer, post-vaccination. PD L1 can suppress immune response, potentially increasing cancer risk. The speaker emphasizes the concerning implications of this finding.

The speaker hired an expert to analyze data from 2,700 variably vaccinated and 560 unvaccinated patients in their practice, age-matched for comparison. The speaker claims the data, available at doctorsandscience.com, reveals significant differences in health outcomes. According to the speaker's slides, unvaccinated children had lower rates of asthma, allergic rhinitis, eczema, sinusitis, gastroenteritis, respiratory infections, otitis media, conjunctivitis, other infections, breathing issues, and behavioral issues like ADD/ADHD. The speaker states there were no cases of ADD/ADHD in unvaccinated patients over 10 years. The speaker suggests vaccines shift the immune system towards allergy and autoimmunity, leading to more infections. The speaker argues that the association between vaccines and negative health outcomes is not coincidental, citing multiple studies and mechanisms of action, including aluminum and immune activation from too many vaccines too soon. The speaker states that the medical board revoked their license in response to this study.

Two early population studies examining COVID-19 vaccines and cancer risk reported substantial increases in various cancers. The first study, conducted in Italy, followed about 300,000 individuals for roughly 30 months and found: - About a 23% increased risk of overall cancer hospitalizations. - Increases of about 40% to 60% in hospitalizations for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, and for leukemia/lymphoma. A newer study from South Korea, encompassing over eight million people, examined cancer risks after vaccination and corroborated the Italian findings while expanding on them. It reported: - About a 26% increase in overall cancer risk. - Increases across six major cancer types, including gastric (stomach), thyroid, colorectal, and breast cancers, as well as other cancers described as very rare. The speakers characterize these results as an absolute disaster and claim that the data corroborate all experimental evidence. They state that these findings confirm that the vaccines have unleashed a turbo cancer epidemic. Further explanations offered include: - The datasets corroborate the observed cancer increases. - The authors suggest these increases can be explained by “gene expression chaos” documented in their other studies. - They also cite “genomic integration” seen in stage four cancer patients as part of the mechanism behind the observed cancer risks. The overall message presented is that there is a widespread, vaccine-associated rise in cancer incidence, supported by the Italian and Korean population data, and reinforced by their cited molecular and genomic observations. The speakers conclude that this situation is a disaster that must be acknowledged immediately.

The speaker claims to have identified 13 mechanisms by which mRNA vaccines can induce or promote cancer, asserting that even one is sufficient to warrant an immediate ban. They attribute the rise in "turbo cancers" in young people to these vaccines, despite media outlets citing diet or environmental factors. The speaker alleges government censorship prevents open discussion about vaccine risks, with editors and producers reportedly discouraged from publishing anything that might undermine public confidence in vaccines. They argue the vaccines are ineffective and dangerous, particularly for young people, and that statistical modeling supporting their use is flawed. The speaker highlights an article in the Mail on Sunday where they and James Royal asserted a causal link between the vaccines and cancer, citing cases of relapsed and new stage four cancers. They criticize the medical community for not routinely collecting patients' vaccine histories and dismissing any potential association. The speaker believes the risk of cancer increases exponentially with each vaccine dose.

The speaker claims to have identified 13 mechanisms by which mRNA vaccines can induce or promote cancer, asserting that even one is sufficient to warrant an immediate ban. They attribute the rise of "turbo cancers" in young people to the vaccines, despite media outlets citing diet or environmental factors. The speaker alleges government censorship prevents open discussion about vaccine risks, with editors and producers reportedly considering it a crime to undermine public confidence in them. They state the vaccines are ineffective and dangerous, with benefits existing only in statistical models. They criticize COVID modeling for being consistently inaccurate and exaggerating the severity of the pandemic. The speaker highlights a Mail on Sunday article where they and James Royal argued that the vaccines cause cancer, citing relapsed cancers and new stage four cancers in healthy individuals. They conducted a survey revealing that they were the only doctor asking patients about their vaccine history, while other doctors deny any association between the vaccines and cancer.

The speaker analyzed office visits, stratifying patients by the number of vaccines received. The study included over 500 unvaccinated and over 3,700 vaccinated individuals. The data revealed that more vaccines correlated with worse health outcomes over a ten-and-a-half-year period. Specifically, the speaker claims that increased vaccination was associated with higher rates of infections, ADD/ADHD, neurodevelopmental issues, eczema, allergies, and anemia. According to the speaker, these negative correlations were observed when comparing vaccinated individuals to the unvaccinated group. The speaker states that within five days of the data being available online, the Oregon Medical Board suspended their license on December 3, 2020, citing them as a threat.

This study looked at the population of South Korea and there were over 8,000,000 people who were vaccinated there and they drew from that population as well as several 100,000 who were not vaccinated for the comparison control group. They did a multivariate analysis where they found other variables associated with cancer and canceled those out. They eliminated any people who had had cancer or suspicion of cancer previously, so all these folks had never had cancer and they followed them for one full year from the time of their most recent injection or one full year from a picked reference date for the control group. What they found was quite astonishing because overall at twelve months, there was a substantially higher number of cancers found in the vaccinated group, and this comprised six different cancers that had a higher risk. You can see this on the forest plot that I’ll have up on screen, that this included thyroid cancer, gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer. All of those were elevated in the vaccinated group and the prostate and lung cancer were more than a fifty percent increase. This new technology is very risky and we can't say conclusively that it caused cancer, but certainly this is a very alarming finding and needs more research to back it up.

Speaker 0 argues that getting the vaccine for pertussis (whooping cough) makes it more likely to contract the disease than if one does not get the vaccine, claiming it increases lifetime risk of pertussis multiple times. They state that the most damning evidence is the comparison of death risk: from pertussis, the death risk is “less than two million,” whereas from the vaccine, the death risk is “more than one in seventy six thousand.” They interpret this as “30 times more likely that the vaccine will kill you than the disease.” Based on this information, Speaker 0 states that they would not risk their baby’s life with a “dangerous product” and prefer natural approaches to immune protection. They claim there are things that can be done naturally to boost a child’s immune system so they can fight off any infection, not just pertussis, and not just whooping cough, but everything. They describe a preference for “natural immunity,” calling it the innate, god-given immunity and the bodies and immune systems as “beautiful, amazing” compared to relying on a product they describe as unsafe and lacking safety testing. In sum, Speaker 0 presents a comparison of disease risk versus vaccine risk, emphasizing that death from the vaccine is framed as significantly higher than death from the disease, and they advocate foregoing vaccination in favor of natural immunity.

"This study was based on actual medical records." "What these researchers found was that vaccinated children had four point two nine times the rate of asthma, three point zero three times the rate of atopic disease, five point nine six times the rate of autoimmune disease, and five point five three times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders, which included three point two eight times the rate of developmental delay, and four point four seven times the rate of speech disorder." "After ten years, seventeen percent of the unvaccinated children had a chronic health issue, while fifty seven percent of the vaccinated children had at least one chronic health issue." "The only real problem with this study and why it didn't get submitted for publication is that its findings did not fit the belief and policy that vaccines are safe." "We can protect children from infectious disease, and we can protect children from vaccine harms."

Speaker 1 states that less than one percent of the public is totally unvaccinated. The Amish are given as an example of a largely unvaccinated group. Speaker 1 claims it is very rare to find an autistic child in the Amish community, and that ADD, autoimmune disease, PANDA PANS, and epilepsy are also rare. Speaker 1 asserts the U.S. government has studied the Amish for decades, but has not released a report. Speaker 1 believes the reason for this is that the report would show that not following government guidelines leads to better health outcomes. Speaker 1 concludes that the report would be devastating to the narrative and would show that the CDC has been harming the public for decades by burying data.

Speaker 0 states that death rates from the vaccine are extraordinarily high, claiming there have been more deaths in eight months than in all the billions of vaccines combined over the last thirty years for this one vaccine, totaling seventeen thousand recorded deaths in the United States, and asserts the death rate is much higher, “probably 40 times.” The speaker says the risk from the vaccine is completely untenable and that if people knew the truth they would not be taking this vaccine, and that the benefits after six months are apparently zero or even subzero. Speaker 0 references British data, claiming that people who are vaccinated are actually more likely in many age categories to get COVID than people who are unvaccinated, and asserts this outcome was predicted. The speaker alleges that Pfizer knew this would happen, citing their clinical trial, which they say was only six months long; at the end of that period, they claim twenty people died in the vaccine group and fourteen in the placebo group of all-cause mortality. They further claim there were five heart attacks in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo group, concluding that the chance of dying of a heart attack when vaccinated is five hundred percent greater than if one is unvaccinated. Speaker 0 contends that Pfizer knew they were going to kill a lot of people and proceeded to do so anyway. They insist that people need access to those studies to understand what they describe as deceptive, criminal deception that has supposedly been imposed upon them.