TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In a Phase one trial, a normal volunteer tests the safety of a potential vaccine. This process has been completed at a record speed. However, it will still take a few months to confirm its initial safety. The next step is a Phase two trial, involving hundreds or even thousands of people, which will take an additional 6 to 8 months to determine if the vaccine is effective. Overall, it will take around a year to a year and a half to know if the vaccine can be used. Another important aspect is ensuring that the vaccine does not worsen the infection. This can only be determined through extended studies involving individuals at risk. Previous cases have shown that vaccines that initially appeared safe actually made the situation worse. Therefore, caution is necessary before administering the vaccine.

Long-term impacts of vaccines need to be considered, as they can have injuries with extended diagnostic horizons and incubation periods. For instance, the DTP vaccine caused brain injuries or death in 1 in every 300 children, leading to its discontinuation in the US. However, it is still administered to 161 million African children annually. Bill Gates claimed it saved 30 million lives, but when asked for data, he couldn't provide any. Independent studies in Africa revealed that vaccinated girls were dying at a rate 10 times higher than unvaccinated girls, from unexpected causes like anemia, malaria, and respiratory diseases. The vaccine had protected against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, but compromised their immune systems, leaving them vulnerable to other illnesses.

Some batches of the vaccine may have serious side effects or be degraded. The batch number can be checked to see what to expect. Documentation shows that certain batches have more serious adverse effects. Even the best batches from Pfizer and Moderna had a high rate of serious adverse events in the short term, around 1800.

A recent study involving 99 million COVID vaccine recipients found increased risks of neurological and heart disorders, described as rare but significant. For example, the risk of brain swelling increased by 378%, myocarditis by 610%, and Guillain Barre syndrome by 286%. The cumulative risk of these adverse events raises questions about the overall safety of vaccines, especially considering the CDC's childhood vaccination schedule, which includes 72 doses without long-term safety trials. Each vaccine has a list of potential side effects, many serious, yet they are often labeled as rare. Historical data shows a rise in chronic illnesses among vaccinated children, suggesting a troubling trend. The notion that vaccine injuries are non-existent is misleading, as many children are experiencing adverse effects. It’s crucial to recognize and evaluate these risks comprehensively.

There is a new mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but there is no evidence to support its effectiveness or safety in human trials. Additionally, several studies from different countries suggest that these vaccines may actually increase the risk of contracting COVID-19 over time. This is concerning and not a typical outcome.

In some cases, vaccines can have an unintended effect called enhancement. This has been observed with certain vaccines like dengue and respiratory syncytial virus. When these vaccines don't provide a strong immune response and a person is later exposed to the disease, it can actually worsen the symptoms. This is a concern that we want to avoid.

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.

We need comprehensive double-blind, long-term placebo studies to properly evaluate vaccines. Vaccines work by tricking the immune system into thinking it has encountered a disease, which raises concerns given the rising autoimmune diseases we see today. Our immune systems appear confused, attacking our own bodies. While some may question whether environmental factors like air, food, or water are to blame, it's crucial to note that vaccines are specifically designed to manipulate the immune response. Unlike past vaccination schedules, children today receive numerous vaccines—up to 72 times—far exceeding what previous generations experienced. This trend is negatively impacting the health of our children, and we must address this issue urgently.

Vaccines are crucial for saving lives, including those for smallpox and measles. However, the COVID vaccine has presented some challenges. Patients who received the vaccine and later contracted COVID experienced more cardiovascular complications. Additionally, booster shots caused severe vasculitic reactions, and it is unclear whether this is due to the vaccine being injected directly into the vein or if it is a result of the patient's antibodies reacting to the booster. Investigations are ongoing, and it is important to provide patients with informed choices regarding this situation. We are in need of further research and guidance to address these concerns.

Vaccinated individuals may still get COVID, but are less likely to experience severe effects like ICU admission or death. Vaccines were introduced late in the pandemic, after the virus had become milder and treatment had improved. Studies show misclassification bias in reporting vaccinated vs. unvaccinated hospitalizations. Some reports indicate higher rates of hospitalization and death among the vaccinated. Risk of COVID increases with each vaccine dose. Post-vaccine deaths are concerning.

Monash University has just received a grant from Moderna to produce 100,000,000 doses of messenger RNA vaccine. The speaker questions what arms they are going to go into, and what they are going to have tagged, and what message they will have. They note that Monash has just come out with the RSV data. The speaker recalls a lesson from the 1970s: you steer away from trying to produce an RSV vaccine because you get immune enhanced disease. Many should have told them this; they didn’t cancel things, they put it on pause. So they paused, putting RSV messenger RNA into the arms of infants. The speaker states that twelve point five percent, one in eight, of these kids nearly died from overwhelming RSV infection. Twelve point five percent. The speaker suggests it’s a bit like they can’t control the dose and they shouldn’t have been doing it in the first place.

Two years ago, most people would have refused gene or cell therapy, but the pandemic has changed perceptions of innovation. The COVID vaccine is not a traditional vaccine as it doesn't provide immunity or prevent transmission. The Pfizer vaccine wasn't tested for transmission prevention before its release due to the urgency. Vaccinated individuals can still get COVID-19. Countries with rapid mass vaccination have seen increased infections and deaths. A study from the Cleveland Clinic suggests that the more shots received, the higher the risk of getting COVID. Vaccination puts evolutionary pressure on the virus, leading to mutations. Epidemiological analysis shows a significant number of deaths related to the vaccines, with dangerous mechanisms of action and consistency with other fatal conditions. Temporal relation is also evident, with many deaths occurring shortly after vaccination.

The transcript argues that more dangerous SARS-CoV-2 variants could arise by creating biological niches for variants and through VADES, with the speaker stating that “viral immune escape threatens to play a catastrophic role in the COVID mass vaccinated world.” It describes the virus as originally relatively harmless with a very low death percentage for healthy young people, potentially evolving into a seasonal virus with an even lower death percentage. However, it is claimed that mass vaccination could disturb this natural progression and cause resistant, and potentially more dangerous and more contagious variants by creating biological niches for those variants. The speaker asserts a correlation between the rise of variants and the increase of vaccinations, stating that “the rise of variants correlates with the increase of vaccinations.” In this context, viral immune escape is mentioned, and antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) is noted as a phenomenon that can worsen disease; the speaker notes that ADE is known to be an issue with coronaviruses and was an issue in animal trials for SARS vaccines, and is associated with SARS and severe COVID itself. The claim is made that as more vaccines and different vaccine types are administered, and as more COVID variants succeed, the ADE risk increases. According to the speaker, given these considerations, the worldwide mass vaccination agenda is described as a “haste and rush agenda,” very dangerous and destined to become a failure. The speaker questions whether “the mass vaccination induced immune escape COVID killing waves and vades” are coming for the COVID vaccinated. To illustrate the situation, the transcript cites a series of record-high stretcher occupancy values in Quebec, across several dates in 2024: 07/08/2024 – 2,319; 07/08/2024 – 2,370; 08/06/2024 – 2,384; 08/27/2024 – 2,395; 08/24/24 – 2,412; 09/03/2024 – 2,444. The source cited is Sourcetumia.org, with a request to “please like and follow.”

We couldn't find any prelicensing safety trials for the 72 vaccines doses that are recommended for American children. Unlike other medications, vaccines were exempt from conducting safety trials that compare health outcomes between a placebo group and a vaccine group. This lack of safety trials is concerning considering the widespread use of these vaccines.

There are three basic vaccine technologies, none of which are safe. The three technologies are live attenuated vaccines, killed-virus/virus-fragment vaccines with adjuvants, and mRNA vaccines. Live attenuated vaccines can cause one person a tiny mild infection while another may suffer a more serious one, and they can evolve and spread; though not supposed to be contagious, they can produce contagious effects. For example, the polio vaccine, live attenuated, has created many polio cases, an intolerable downside. The killed-virus approach doesn't reliably stimulate immunity unless an adjuvant is used; adjuvants are nonspecific and can trigger widespread immune activation. The mRNA approach is unsafe because it moves haphazardly through the body, causing cells to produce foreign antigens, which the immune system may attack as virally infected, potentially deadly in the heart, and tissue destruction elsewhere. In sum, three technologies, none fundamentally safe, with severe downsides.

Concerns have arisen regarding the safety of coronavirus vaccines, particularly due to observations made during their development. Laboratory animals exhibited immune pathology similar to issues seen with respiratory virus vaccines in the 1960s, notably with the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine, which resulted in adverse effects and even deaths in some cases. This phenomenon, known as paradoxical immune enhancement, occurs when vaccinated individuals experience worse outcomes upon exposure to the virus. The RSV vaccine setbacks halted its development for decades, but efforts are being renewed. The potential for similar issues with coronavirus vaccines has raised alarms among researchers, highlighting the need for caution and further understanding of these immune responses.

Some medicines may have side effects, so safety testing is necessary. This includes genetically modified organisms that are injected into children's arms directly into the vein.

There are allegations that AIDS was intentionally spread in African countries through vaccines. Research facilities were set up to inject people with a solution to prevent AIDS, but instead, they were injecting people with AIDS. These facilities were financed by foreign governments. Additionally, there have been cases where HIV vaccines actually increased the likelihood of infection, showing that a vaccine that seemed safe initially could have negative effects.

Vaccines can sometimes have unexpected effects. In some cases, vaccinating someone against a disease can actually make them more susceptible to the infection. This has happened before with vaccines like the respiratory syncytial virus vaccine in children and an HIV vaccine that was tested a few years ago. So, it's important to carefully evaluate the safety of vaccines before administering them.

The panel discusses replication (replicon) vaccines and their potential dangers, focusing on how they differ from conventional messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines and what new risks might emerge as this technology develops. Key points and concerns raised - Replicon vaccines concept and fundamental differences - Replicon vaccines use replication-capable genetic material, so the embedded genetic information not only makes antigen proteins but also multiplies inside the cell. They are described as having both constitutive function (the ability to make proteins) and, crucially, the capacity to replicate, which distinguishes them from traditional, non-replicating mRNA vaccines. - It is explained that replication introduces additional mutation and recombination opportunities, because the RNA genome is copied more than once, and the process can produce variants that differ from the original design. - Central dogma exceptions and viral biology - The speakers explain that while the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) generally governs biology, some viruses violate this, with RNA viruses that replicate via RNA-dependent replication and even some reverse-transcribing retroviruses that convert RNA to DNA and integrate into genomes. This context is used to frame why replicon vaccines could behave unpredictably. - Potential risks of replication and spread - A core concern is that the replicon approach might allow the vaccine genome to spread beyond the initial target cells, potentially reaching other cells and tissues, or even spreading to other people via exosomes or other means. Exosomes can transport DNA, RNA, and proteins between cells; thus, the replicon genome could in theory be disseminated. - The possibility of homologous or heterologous recombination between replicon genomes and wild-type viruses could yield new variants. The panel emphasizes the difficulty of controlling such recombination in a living system. - Specific material and design considerations - The use of viral components like spike protein genes in replicon vaccines raises concerns about how these proteins might mutate or recombine during replication, potentially altering antigen presentation or safety. - A concern is raised about the lack of repair mechanisms in RNA replication (as opposed to DNA replication), which could make error rates higher and lead to unpredictable changes. - The panel notes that current replicon vaccine designs (including those using alphavirus backbones) inherently carry high mutation and recombination risk, and that the replicating systems may encounter unpredictable evolutionary dynamics inside the human body. - Safety signals and clinical anecdotes - The speakers cite cases of adverse events temporally associated with vaccines, including vascular inflammation and thrombosis, stroke-like events, and myocarditis, to illustrate that immune responses to vaccines can be complex and occasionally severe. They emphasize that such observations do not establish causality, but argue they warrant careful scrutiny. - There are references to cases of acute vascular and neural complications following repeated vaccination, and to broader immune dysregulation phenomena, including IGG4-related disease and immune dysregulation syndromes that can involve multiple organs. - One example concerns a patient who developed sudden limb problems after the third dose, requiring surgery; another describes myocardial involvement after multiple doses and subsequent inflammatory sequelae. - DNA contamination and analytical findings - Kevin McKernan’s analysis of certain Japanese CoronaVac vaccines is cited: both DNA contamination and the presence of SV40 promoter elements were detected in some vaccine lots, with DNA amounts exceeding some regulatory benchmarks in at least one case. The concern is that DNA contamination, or the presence of promoter sequences, could influence integration or expression in unintended ways. - It is noted that vaccines using lipid nanoparticles can potentially deliver nucleic acids into cells; in the presence of exons or promoter sequences, there could be unintended cellular uptake and expression. - Implications for public health and policy - The panel underscores the need for caution, thorough investigation, and long-term observation of any replication-based vaccine platform before broad deployment. There is a call to evaluate risks, monitor long-term outcomes, and consider the possibility that replication-competent constructs could drive unforeseen evolutionary dynamics within hosts or communities. - There is contention about how information is communicated to the public, with particular emphasis on avoiding misinformation while ensuring that scientific uncertainties are transparently discussed. - Broader scientific context and forward-looking stance - The speakers discuss how the field’s approach to gene-based vaccines is evolving rapidly, and they stress that the compatibility of replicon systems with human biology is not yet fully understood. - They frame their discussion as not merely about current vaccines but about the trajectory of vaccine platforms: if replication-based or self-dispersing systems prove too risky or unpredictable, the prudent path might be to favor conventional, non-replicating strategies until safety, efficacy, and containment of unintended spread are more firmly established. Closing and takeaways - The session closes with emphasis on careful evaluation of replicon vaccines, awareness that viral genetics can behave differently in humans than in theory, and a call for continued discussion, independent verification, and transparent communication as the technology develops. - Throughout, speakers acknowledge the complexity of immune responses to vaccines, the potential for unexpected adverse events, and the importance of safeguarding public health while advancing vaccine science.

Vaccinating birds with a leaky vaccine, one that doesn't provide sterilizing immunity, turns the flocks into mutation factories, teaching the organism how to mutate. This destabilizes the organism and makes it more likely to jump to animals. The speaker claims that all agency heads from NIH, CDC, and FDA advised against bird vaccination because it is dangerous for human beings.

Repeated vaccinations can weaken the immune system by building tolerance and shifting protection away from viruses and cancer. This antigen exposure from vaccines can lead to a loss of protection against other viruses and cancer. It is important to note that there has never been a vaccine that requires people to take it every six months indefinitely, which raises concerns.

In a study, it was found that the risk of contracting COVID-19 increased with the number of vaccine doses received. Compared to those who were not vaccinated, individuals who received one dose were 1.7 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19. The risk increased to 2.6 times for those who received two doses, 3.1 times for those with three doses, and 3.8 times for those with more than three doses. The study showed a clear correlation between the number of vaccines received and the risk of testing positive for COVID-19. The results were highly significant, with a P value of 0.001, indicating a 99% likelihood of being a genuine result.

We observed potential safety issues with coronavirus vaccines similar to past respiratory virus vaccines. In the 1960s, some children had adverse reactions, even deaths, due to immune enhancement when exposed to the virus after vaccination. This led to the abandonment of the RSV vaccine program for decades. The same immune pathology was seen in laboratory animals during coronavirus vaccine development, raising concerns about safety.

Speaker 0 discusses this year's flu shot and mentions that flu season is longer than usual. He references headlines about flu vaccine links to higher infections, citing a Cleveland Clinic study involving their employees and the influenza vaccine during this respiratory viral season. In the study, 53,402 employees were observed; 43,857 (82.1%) had received the influenza vaccine by study end. Influenza occurred in 1,079 individuals (2.02%). The cumulative incidence of influenza was similar for vaccinated and unvaccinated groups early on, but over time the cumulative incidence increased more rapidly among the vaccinated. The study includes an adjusted analysis controlling for age, sex, clinical nursing job, employment location, and reports that the risk of influenza was significantly higher for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated, yielding a calculated vaccine effectiveness of -26.9%. In other words, the data suggested a 26.9% greater chance of contracting the flu or other respiratory virus for the vaccinated group. The conclusion presented is that influenza vaccination of working-age adults was associated with a higher risk of influenza during the 2024-2025 season, suggesting the vaccine did not have the intended protective effect. Speaker 1 adds commentary, noting that the Cleveland Clinic study admits they effectively coerced over 80% of their staff to get the flu shot, implying these individuals are not biased against the vaccine and would be expected to defend it. They argue this makes the bias the opposite of what some might assume and suggest that the study should prompt reconsideration of vaccination. Speaker 1 then pivots to an appeal: they encourage viewers to sign up for their email list at thehighwire.com or ICANN, promising to deliver the study and related evidence in their inbox. They urge viewers to take the Cleveland Clinic document to their doctor and ask, “Should I get this year's flu shot?” If the doctor says yes, Speaker 1 counsels firing the doctor and presenting the document as a reason, claiming doctors may be unaware of the study. They emphasize firing doctors who do not know the study and assert that this week they wish to see doctors fired across the country if they cannot defend the use of the vaccine in light of the study. Speaker 1 concludes with a personal admonition to avoid doctors who, in their view, are not making informed decisions about health and the future of children. Speaker 0 revisits the broader context, noting that a flu vaccine with low effectiveness is not surprising since strains are guessed before the season and production is ramped up accordingly. He references Canadian headlines about low or no protection this year, and remarks that negative efficacy, such as -26.9%, is particularly noteworthy.