TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims that the flu vaccine's purpose has shifted from preventing the flu to only lessening symptoms. A Cleveland Clinic study allegedly found the flu vaccine had a negative efficacy of 26.9% last winter. According to the speaker, this means that individuals who received the flu vaccine were 26.9% more likely to contract influenza. The speaker notes the study doesn't detail the pharmaceutical industry's profits from the vaccine or list its side effects. They state the side effects would be less than an mRNA vaccine, as it is a dead virus vaccine. The speaker reiterates that taking the flu shot allegedly makes one almost 27% more likely to get sick than not taking it.

Pfizer reported its vaccine shows 95% efficacy, but this refers to relative risk reduction, not overall risk reduction. In Pfizer's trial, 8 out of 18,198 vaccinated people developed COVID-19. In the unvaccinated group, 162 people contracted it, meaning the risk without the vaccine was 0.88%, reduced to 0.04% with the vaccine. The absolute risk reduction is 0.84%. The 95% figure refers to the relative difference between 0.88% and 0.04%. Relative risk reduction is considered misleading, and the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead. The question is raised how many people would have taken the vaccine knowing it offered less than 1% benefit. In Canada, any potentially serious risk must be disclosed.

Calling a product safe and effective requires the absence of danger signals. Current vaccines show danger signals 20 times worse than previous ones over 30 years, making them 600 times more dangerous. These vaccines are also ineffective, increasing the risk of getting COVID. Politicians must face the reality and understand the data presented by Jessica Rose and others. Thank you. Translation: Describing a product as safe and effective hinges on the absence of danger signals. The current vaccines exhibit danger signals that are 20 times worse than those seen in the past 30 years, making them 600 times more dangerous. Additionally, these vaccines are ineffective and increase the likelihood of contracting COVID. It is crucial for politicians to acknowledge the facts and comprehend the information presented by Jessica Rose and other experts. Thank you.

The speaker claims adverse events from the vaccine rollout were covered up and dismissed as rare and coincidental. They state that regulators approved the vaccines based on relative risk data (95%), which they describe as misleading, while the absolute risk reduction was only 0.84%, meaning 120 people had to be vaccinated to prevent one infection. The speaker alleges that Pfizer has 31 convictions, including withholding data, presenting false data, and bribing clinicians and regulators. They claim over 100 doctors have written to various health organizations, including the NHS and MHRA, about the vaccine program, but received only one response. The speaker concludes that science is dead because discussion, analysis, and debate are no longer allowed, and decisions are being made without scientific basis.

The speaker discusses the risks and safety of vaccines, emphasizing the importance of measuring the risk when vaccinating healthy individuals. They mention that vaccines were initially intended for vulnerable populations, but now young people are being vaccinated despite having minimal risk. The speaker criticizes the idea of vaccinating to protect the vaccinated and highlights the statistics of COVID-19 deaths, with the majority being elderly individuals. They express concern about the dilution of responsibility and the manipulation techniques used to instill fear and control the population. The speaker encourages people to question and challenge the narrative, while promoting solidarity and avoiding division.

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 Dutch paper reveals a 36% higher risk of serious adverse events in the Pfizer vaccine group compared to the placebo. Despite this, the public was misled about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. Adverse reactions like stroke and heart attack were downplayed, making it difficult to link them to the vaccines. The truth is slowly coming to light, exposing the deception by big pharma, governments, and the media. Those responsible may face consequences in the future.

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.

The speaker discusses polio and vaccines by tracing how the disease is perceived versus the data. Polio is described as “the worst disease in world history, not actually, but that's the spin,” and similarly framed as “completely eliminated by mass vaccination, not actually, but that's the spin.” Looking at polio globally, with eight billion people on Earth, the speaker asks how many people died last year from polio, answering “Zero.” The number who had paralysis from polio is stated as “Five hundred and sixty, and ninety seven percent of them was vaccine strain or vaccine induced poliomyelitis.” The speaker notes that opponents claim this is due to vaccination, but then raises the question of how that accounts for more than a billion people on Earth who never had the polio vaccine, asserting they have the exact same death rate. The argument is extended to measles, with the claim that the death rate is the same whether or not one is vaccinated, and similarly for other diseases. The speaker emphasizes a specific approach used in a book: “the only way to do it, I think, compare the product, are they all the same? The diseases, are they all the same?” This leads to the central question of how to handle risk for one’s children. A quick final point compares vaccine decisions to everyday risk decisions. Parents weigh disease risk and vaccine risk when deciding whether their kids should engage in activities such as football, which could involve a head injury; riding a bicycle at night, which could lead to injury; or sleeping over at someone’s house. The speaker argues that all of these are risk decisions quite similar to the vaccine and disease decision because you have to weigh the disease and weigh the vaccine. Yet, the speaker notes, there has never been a mandate for football, and there has never been a mandate that children not ride bikes at night in their neighborhood, or that they not sleep over at someone’s house if they don’t feel good about it in their particular neighborhood.

"Did you know then that the mRNA vaccine was dangerous? Absolutely. How did you know? So this is 2021. If you read anybody who had looked at the actual data that had been released or understood what they were assessing, they were only assessing suppression of symptoms." "And there were tremendous and they were using what's called relative risk instead of absolute risk in order to deem these products safe." "So when you look at absolute risk, you wanna know how much in percent. So do do you have a three percent chance of getting something after taking the shot and you had a thirty percent chance before taking it? That's absolute relative is before you took the shot, you had a two percent risk, and now you have a one percent risk, and they say that's a 50% improvement. That's how you make statistics lie."

The speaker claims the assertion that red meat causes cancer was based on a vote, not science. The speaker's guest, a former WHO panel member, states the panel used observational studies to show association, not causation. Of 800 studies examined, 780 were allegedly not used. Of the 18 studies that were considered, only half showed a risk. The guest concludes there is no valid demonstration of cause and effect. The speaker suggests this raises concerns about how global health policy is made.

The speakers present a series of emphatic claims about COVID-19 vaccines, emphasizing their effectiveness, transmission-blocking ability, and regulatory implications for public behavior and policy. The core messages include: - The vaccine can stop the spread of these diseases and people will be okay; you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations. - Vaccines are highly, highly effective. - Vaccinated people do not carry the virus and don’t get sick. - They are really, really good against variants. - Vaccination is not only about individual protection but also reducing transmission to others and helping society return to normal. - The vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. - Guidance to get vaccinated: get your first shot, and when due for your second, get your second shot. - The key goal is to stop transmission and raise immunity levels so there is almost no infection. - For vaccinated individuals who are exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them, and cannot use that person to spread to others. - When people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected. - If you are vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the ICU, and you’re not going to die. - A vaccinated person cannot be used as a host to go get more people. - If you are fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask. - Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or practicing physical distancing. - A critique is offered about misinformation: companies and personalities are making money by peddling lies and allowing misinformation that can kill their own customers and supporters; it is described as wrong and immoral. - Financial comparison is made: there has been over a 20-to-1 return (implying a large gain), and a counterfactual calculation suggests that if money had been invested in the S&P 500 with reinvested dividends, the result would be about $17,000,000,000, but the speaker claims people think it’s $200,000,000,000. Overall, the transcript presents a tightly framed, high-confidence portrayal of vaccines as highly effective at preventing infection, transmission, hospitalization, and death, while advocating vaccination as a path to normalcy and criticizing misinformation, alongside a financial remark about two-way returns and investment comparisons.

Despite it being treated as an obligation to do so, physicians reportedly do not know these facts. The speaker expresses strong frustration about the situation. The speaker cites a famous medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, describing a study of vaccine researchers and stating that “the 12.6 percent user rate” was reported, and that the paper claimed there was no problem with the vaccine based on that figure. Using that paper as a basis, the San Fujikawa Society or a similarly named organization promoted vaccination for pregnant women. However, the actual content of the data is described as follows: of 827 people, 700 were in the late stage of pregnancy, and 127 were in the early stage (first trimester). For the subgroup limited to those under 20 weeks’ gestation, i.e., the 127 individuals, the reported miscarriage rate was 82 percent. From this, the speaker argues that the vaccine is dangerous, given the result for the early-stage group. It is claimed that the data were hidden or obscured, and that the later report combined the late-pregnancy group of 700 with the early-pregnancy group of 127 to produce a 12.6 percent miscarriage rate, which was then published. The speaker concludes that even a major medical journal could be influenced by external financial pressures, resulting in biased reporting that supports the other side’s interests.

Pfizer reported its vaccine has 95% efficacy, but this refers to relative risk reduction, not overall risk reduction. In the Pfizer trial, the unvaccinated group had a 0.88% risk of contracting COVID-19, while the vaccinated group had a 0.04% risk. The absolute risk reduction offered by the Pfizer vaccine is 0.84%. The 95% figure represents the relative difference between 0.88% and 0.04%. Relative risk reduction can be misleading, and the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead. It is important to consider how many people would have chosen to take the vaccines had they understood the less than 1% benefit. In Canada, any potentially serious risk must be disclosed.

The speaker argues that an irrational, unbridled enthusiasm for new possibilities leads to a sacrifice of safety. This enthusiasm, in their view, has adversely affected precautionary considerations and risk assessment. They reference presenting autopsy findings related to deaths following COVID-19 vaccination at the American Society of Microbiology, an event attended by thousands of microbiologists, vaccinologists, and immunologists. In conversations with attendees, the speaker was surprised by what they describe as a scientific seduction surrounding messenger RNA technology. The core concern expressed is that this eagerness to embrace mRNA platforms is accompanied by a neglect of safety considerations. The speaker asserts that there will be a cataclysmic recognition that messenger RNA technology represents an unsafe platform. They emphasize that, as they understand it, there is no way to break down certain aspects of the technology they refer to as “pseudourogenated messenger RNA,” noting this within the context of their work in research laboratories. The statement implies a belief that the degradation or metabolic processing of this form of RNA poses unresolved issues. A central, striking claim presented is that circulating messenger RNA from Pfizer or Moderna has been found in their patients’ bloodstream three years after vaccination, and that this RNA is intact. The speaker underscores this as evidence tied to their observations and research experiences, asserting the persistence of the RNA in the circulatory system over an extended period. Overall, the message conveys a perspective that rapid adoption and optimism around mRNA vaccines and technologies have overshadowed safety considerations, and it anticipates a future realization of safety concerns associated with these platforms. The speaker ties their warnings to concrete experiences at a major scientific conference and to specific, long-term biomarkers observed in patients, presenting a narrative of ongoing research findings and anticipated paradigm shifts in how the safety of mRNA vaccines is perceived.

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.

Speaker 0 explains a common manipulation in presenting statistics, distinguishing absolute risk from relative risk. Absolute risk is defined as the real chance of something happening. Relative risk compares two small numbers to make one seem much larger, often used to fear-mmonger. The example given is a jar with 10,000 marbles, one red marble. The chance of picking the red marble is one in ten thousand—that is the absolute risk. If there is a second jar with two red marbles, the relative risk comparison would say you have a 100% more chance of getting a red marble in this jar than in the first jar. Even though the absolute probabilities are both very small, the relative risk makes the difference appear dramatic. Relative risk is described as a favorite tool of fearmongers because it makes a tiny number sound huge, whereas absolute risk shows the real-world odds. The speaker then applies this distinction to headlines. They cite a headline claiming you are “eight hundred and forty times more likely to get sick from raw milk than from pasteurized milk.” This is a relative risk number and is technically true, but the absolute risk of getting sick from raw milk is about one in thirteen thousand for the people who drink it, which is less than one one-hundredth of one percent. The same framing tactic is said to have been used with COVID vaccines. Regarding vaccines, the Pfizer vaccine is described as “ninety-five percent effective,” a number that was widely publicized. The speaker notes that this figure is the relative risk reduction. When examining the actual trial data, the absolute risk reduction—the real difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups—was about 0.8 percent, less than one percent. The speaker emphasizes that the shot “lowers your actual risk by less than one percent,” but this was not the framing chosen; instead, the larger, scarier-sounding percentage was presented. The argument is that people made significant life decisions based on that framing. The overall message is that statistics can be technically true yet misleading, influencing public opinion in areas like food safety or medicine. The recommended approach when encountering scary or amazing numbers in headlines is to ask whether the figure refers to relative risk or absolute risk. The speaker concludes: relative risk sells headlines; absolute risk tells the truth.

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.

The speaker claims the risk of death from whooping cough is less than one in 2.3 million, while the risk of death from the vaccine is greater than one in 76,000. They state the vaccine is killing far more children than the disease itself, estimating potentially 20 to 40 times more deaths from the vaccine. Another speaker emphasizes that any vaccine, specifically DTaP, carries the risk of death for a child.

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.

The speaker questions the source of the claim that 20 million lives have been saved. They ask for data and studies to support this number. The response is indirect and the meeting is about to end when the speaker jumps back in to clarify that the 20 million lives saved refers to all vaccines, not just mRNA vaccines. The speaker is unable to ask for further clarification. They find it suspicious that this number is being thrown around without proper explanation. They suggest that these numbers are made up.

The speaker claims that data from the New Zealand Ministry of Health shows vaccines have killed 675,000 people in America and 13 million worldwide. This contradicts the FDA and CDC's safety claims. The data, from one-third of New Zealand's vaccination records, allegedly proves vaccines are not safe. Gaslighting is mentioned as a tactic to mislead people about the data's true meaning.

Speaker 0 argues that, when re-examining the data from the original study, the raw numbers reveal a different pattern than what the study’s modeling suggested. Specifically, they state that, in the raw proportions, every single one of the 22 chronic disease categories was proportionally higher in the vaccinated group. This includes cancer, which the study reportedly treated as a control condition and claimed there was no difference for. According to Speaker 0, the study’s use of cancer as a control is at odds with the raw data they observed. They claim that there was a difference in cancer outcomes, contrary to the study’s implication of no difference. They emphasize that, with rare outcomes, the modeling employed in the original analysis is not very reliable, and as a result, the study did not perform any basic proportional analysis. Speaker 0 states that when they performed a basic proportional analysis themselves, cancer was fifty-four percent higher in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated children. They mention that this result is “explained biologically” and assert that there is biological plausibility behind it. Key points: - Raw proportions show all 22 chronic disease categories higher in the vaccinated group, including cancer. - The original study used cancer as a control and claimed no difference, which Speaker 0 disputes based on the raw data. - Modeling for rare outcomes is described as not very reliable. - A basic proportional analysis by Speaker 0 indicates cancer is 54% higher in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated. - A biological explanation or plausibility is asserted for the observed cancer difference in the vaccinated group.