TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

"Just laid out the facts and that, hey, we don't the the fact is that this vaccine does not apply to eighty percent of the people." "But if you know the status, then you don't need to get that vaccine." "But that's, like, eighty percent of the people, so that's a lot less revenue." "Merck was like, we're not really making a lot of money." "We will put this or not Congress, but the FDA was like, oh, we're gonna put this on the childhood schedule so then it more could" "get the World Health Organization," "so it went global." "Would you rather create a drug that's only used when you get sick and you need it?" "Or one for everybody to quote unquote prevent that sickness?" "Therapy is gonna apply to what? One percent, half a percent of people." "Now you have 90% of the people."

Biotech companies use a strategy involving shelf offerings to raise cash. They create hype around potential outbreaks, like Monkeypox, to boost stock prices. Companies like Inovio claim to have a vaccine solution quickly, leading to a surge in stock value. Eventually, the bubble bursts when the threat is not as severe as expected, causing stock prices to plummet. Despite this, executives still benefit financially from the raised capital.

On October 6, 2021, I met with my manager, Conwell Gill, a principal scientist at Pfizer. We discussed the ethics of giving people experimental booster shots for money. mRNA vaccines have been around for 50 years but never made it to clinical use due to side effects. Pfizer and Moderna used the emergency of the pandemic to push through their vaccines. Pfizer collaborated with Beyond Tech on mRNA technology for COVID-19. Everything was new and rushed due to the pandemic. There was no time to think, only to act.

Pfizer is reportedly considering mutating the COVID virus to develop new vaccines, a topic discussed internally but not disclosed to the public. The process involves infecting monkeys with the virus to create mutations, which raises ethical concerns. While some argue this resembles gain-of-function research, Pfizer claims it is a different approach called directed evolution. The goal is to anticipate new variants and create vaccines in advance, potentially turning COVID into a profitable venture for the company. Concerns about the moral implications of such actions and the influence of government officials in the pharmaceutical industry were also raised, suggesting a troubling relationship between regulators and companies like Pfizer. The situation remains controversial, with ongoing discussions about transparency and public health risks.

The video discusses the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) process and the controversy surrounding the use of Ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. It highlights the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies and the geopolitical implications of widespread access to a cheap and widely available medicine like Ivermectin. The video also questions the safety claims made by Merck, the company that holds the expired patent for Ivermectin. It emphasizes the need for critical evaluation of articles and information that may be influenced by financial motives.

We are discussing regulation and the use of CRISPR to reduce mosquito populations and combat malaria. We are working with African countries on necessary trials. It will take time to get approvals, but the potential to eliminate disease locally is promising. Malaria is transmitted by mosquitoes, and we are demonstrating this by releasing some in the auditorium. Everyone should understand the impact, not just the poor.

There was a recent FDA rejection of an MDMA-based therapy for PTSD, a program that had achieved, on its own terms, two successful phase three studies. The speaker notes that the trials were designed exactly as the FDA told them to design, but the episode is tied to the rise of advisory committees—FDA panels of so-called experts who opine on data and recommendations. The FDA is not bound by their recommendations, but they often follow them, sometimes not. In the speaker’s view, the FDA uses these advisory committees as a cover for what they actually want to do, a dynamic the speaker has observed across years in biotech as an investor and company builder. He has sat in eight-hour advisory committee sessions in Maryland, taking detailed notes, and while he didn’t attend the most recent one, he believes it smelled like the briefing documents provided to the committee were used to guide the outcome. He suspects the advisory committee recommended against approval, and the FDA then moved to that outcome. The speaker argues this is a travesty for PTSD patients who have very few options. He focuses on the reasoning the FDA gave for denying approval: the trial was functionally unblinded. Typically, trials use placebo and active drug arms with participants unaware of which treatment they receive, to ensure that observed effects are not merely placebo. The FDA claimed that patients knew whether they were on the MDMA-based therapy because some experienced euphoria, a side effect of the treatment. Therefore, the therapy could appear to work due to unblinding and a placebo effect, rather than a true therapeutic benefit. The speaker emphasizes that the possibility of euphoria being part of the drug’s mechanism—and thus related to its therapeutic effect—was ignored in their assessment, and that this unblinding was, in his view, anticipated by the FDA before agreeing to the phase three protocol, which also added tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in development costs. The speaker criticizes the public record, including biotech press coverage, for focusing on “trial irregularities” or an unblinding issue rather than on the broader cost-benefit and mechanistic considerations. He asserts that the public is left with the notion that there were unblinding issues, not recognizing that the unblinding related to the drug’s therapeutic properties was anticipated and approved by the FDA. He concludes that the episode reveals how the bureaucratic machinery operates, with advisory committees and briefing documents shaping outcomes in a way that aligns with the FDA’s underlying aims.

17-year-old Alexander Kabugie is participating in a phase 2 safety trial, receiving an MPOX vaccine approved by the FDA for high-risk adults. The vaccine targets orthopoxviruses, including mpox and smallpox. In 2022, an mpox outbreak affected over 30,000 people in the U.S., causing 38 deaths. While adolescent infection risk is currently low, another outbreak could change this. Teenagers and children were infected through intimate/sexual contact or household contact. If approved, the vaccine wouldn't be part of the standard schedule but used for prevention or treatment for those at risk. It could be administered as pre-exposure or post-exposure prophylaxis, meaning it can be given to someone in contact with an infected individual to prevent infection. Alexander's mother is pleased he's receiving this protection.

Pfizer is considering mutating the COVID virus to create new vaccines, but they don't want the public to know. They are conducting experiments on live monkeys to study the virus and its mutations. Pfizer believes that by controlling the mutations in their labs, they can develop vaccines for new variants before they even emerge in nature. This would be a lucrative business model for them. The pharmaceutical industry has a revolving door with government officials, which benefits the industry but is bad for everyone else. The comments made by Pfizer's Jordan Walker show a lack of moral compass and a disregard for public health. Pfizer believes it has successfully captured the regulatory apparatus and can bypass laws. This is an ongoing story that needs attention.

The speakers discuss the politicization of Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that also shows potential in stopping viral replication. They mention its success in treating yellow fever and winning the Nobel Prize. They express confusion over why a drug would be demonized and politicized. The conversation touches on the motivations behind this, including the desire to create a monopoly for vaccines and the Emergency Use Authorization Act. They highlight the affordability and accessibility of Ivermectin, which can be manufactured by anyone and costs only 7¢ per dose. The speakers also mention the discouragement and suppression of alternative treatments like monoclonal antibodies.

On August 30, the FDA gave extended clearance for the smallpox vaccine, AMCAM 2000, for use against monkeypox. The speaker shares information from the AMCAM 2000 vaccine insert, noting it lists adverse effects including encephalitis and myocarditis. The insert also states that death can occur in unvaccinated individuals who have contact with vaccinated individuals. The AMCAM 2000 insert says that vaccinated individuals should quarantine for four weeks after injection. During this time, they should avoid handling babies, being around pregnant women, swimming, using public restrooms, or having close contact with unvaccinated individuals, especially those with eczema or autoimmune issues. The insert also states that the AMCAM 2000 smallpox vaccine may spread the smallpox virus to other people.

There is a belief that this virus came from Africa, as if it's just bad luck after we just got out of a pandemic. But people like Bill Gates predicted a smallpox pandemic just six months ago. It's incomprehensible how they knew. The monkeypox is now appearing on multiple continents simultaneously, not just isolated cases in Denmark or an outbreak in Brazil. It's happening in Europe, North America, and Africa. There is also a group called G7 organizing a simulation against smallpox right now. What are the chances?

In 2018, remdesivir was considered unethical for Ebola clinical trials in Africa due to a 53% kill rate, higher than Ebola's typical mortality. Despite this, it was chosen to treat COVID in April and May 2020, with Anthony Fauci and Deborah Burke advocating for its use despite the World Health Organization's ethical concerns. The speaker claims that a conflict of interest exists because the same entities that financially benefit from promoting certain products are declaring the pandemic. These entities are allegedly linked to the Eugenics office at Carnegie Mellon in 1913 and the establishment of the World Health Organization in 1953. The speaker expresses concern about the influence of eugenics on these decisions.

The probiotic industry understands the loss of bifidobacterium in cancer and aging populations, but cannot claim probiotics improve longevity due to FDA regulations requiring clinical trials. Doctors also face scrutiny for promoting products without sufficient data. The speaker conducts clinical trials, involving the FDA when bringing products to market, such as ivermectin, doxycycline, and zinc for COVID. Data showed no deaths during treatment, suggesting its effectiveness. Despite a product's market approval with a 20% success rate, the speaker emphasizes the need to address the remaining 80% of patients. Innovation and discussion among doctors are crucial, but social media is now essential for educating doctors and the public due to the high cost of publishing data.

Kendall asks for an explanation of the process by which the MMR vaccine causes autism, referencing the movie Vaxxed. Speaker 2 responds that they are currently researching those questions, as parents and physicians have reported children developing autism immediately after the MMR vaccine. The speaker claims studies that should have been done long ago were not. Instead, the speaker alleges that captured researchers at the CDC, mainly people who work for the pharmaceutical industry, produced bad epidemiological studies. The speaker asserts that these studies deliberately avoided comparing health outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups. Speaker 0 states that this is one of the things they are studying now with gold standard science. Speaker 2 confirms they are doing gold standard science, which includes replication. They are allocating about 20% of their budget to replicating studies. Speaker 0 explains replication as an independent group repeating a study with the same parameters and data sets to achieve the same result. Speaker 2 agrees.

Speaker 0 argues that the AIDS virus, like COVID and monkeypox, was manufactured for a specific reason, and claims that all of these were produced by the United States government. They state that AZT, “the total numbers of [people] … killed by taking a drug that was known at the time that was going to actually have that kind of an effect,” contributed to mass deaths, and that buyers clubs emerged as a form of a black market to obtain treatments. They compare this to the situation with COVID, noting that obtaining ivermectin felt like buying on the black market, despite ivermectin having won a health Nobel prize years ago, and they describe the ongoing insanity of government actors who have not yet been held accountable. They reference history involving Ted Kennedy and his uncle, suggesting a broader pattern of government activity linked to disease manufacturing and drug development that purportedly does not help, paralleling the vaccines “that we have now learned.” The speaker shares a personal update about a friend who recently underwent surgery and is now facing extubation after three bypasses, describing him as a healthy man who should not be having these problems, and likening his situation to other cases they know of. The speaker claims to know “about six” people who were fully vaccinated due to job or other requirements and who have since died, using these experiences to illustrate perceived consequences of vaccination programs. They pivot to Anthony Fauci, asserting that Fauci’s involvement in government actions spans “twenty five, thirty five years,” and claims Fauci has been involved in nefarious acts that have resulted in the deaths of many people. They reference Bobby Kennedy describing the creation of a drug that allegedly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men through AIDS. The speaker concludes with a pointed remark about AIDS and gay people, insisting that “nobody deserves that kind of a fate,” emphasizing that the tragedies described apply to all affected groups, and reiterating the belief that the government and officials have engaged in harmful, deadly activities related to disease and treatment.

A prototype vaccine is being deployed to the public without actually preventing transmission, which is keeping the disease more dangerous than necessary. This is a concerning public health response. The problem is that even if we acknowledge this issue, we don't know how to change it. People tend to believe that public health authorities are doing the right thing because the alternative seems hopeless. It's difficult to discredit them without sounding like they are deliberately harming public health. People find it hard to accept that medical officials in charge of our lives may have bad motivations.

In 2018, remdesivir had a high kill rate in Africa, making it unsuitable for Ebola trials. Yet, in 2020, it became the top choice for treating COVID-19. Despite objections from the World Health Organization, Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx endorsed its use. The issue lies in allowing those with financial interests to dictate pandemic responses, potentially influenced by eugenics ideologies.

Monoclonal antibodies worked very well and quickly, and were initially readily available. The speaker believes the government intentionally made them harder to get to encourage people to take the COVID shot. The speaker started using ivermectin when monoclonal antibodies became difficult to obtain. In March, the government put out information on the FDA's website about why people should not take ivermectin for COVID. Simultaneously, the government launched COVID-nineteen Community Core on 04/01/2021, an $11,500,000,000 slush fund for propaganda.

Speaker 1 notes that ivermectin has broken through to the public sphere beyond COVID and is now discussed for many diseases. Speaker 0 asks where ivermectin stands in the scientific and medical community today and what other use cases exist for the medicine. Speaker 1 responds that thousands of doctors follow their data; 18,000 GI doctors see their data when they publish or present at the American College of Gastroenterology. Word-of-mouth in the medical community is a major form of marketing, with one doctor speaking to another. Referencing the COVID era, Speaker 1 mentions corruption and retractions, then describes ivermectin as having created a healthcare revolution where doctors have lined up to work to see other benefits of ivermectin without needing to ask permission to treat patients. A whole branch of healthcare is moving away from the same institute that Speaker 1 helped create drugs to market with his sisters. He says a group of doctors who had sponsored or helped pharma are turning away from pharma and exploring other methods to treat patients. He states his job is to unite doctors to see the truth, while bringing pharma back to being righteous and stopping data manipulation and scientist censorship. Speaker 1 references his book, Let’s Talk SH.T, acknowledging he could be wrong and challenging others to prove him wrong and reproduce the data to retract the hypothesis or paper. He emphasizes that the scientific process should be followed, especially when everything was done by the book and as well as he could. He adds that the research was not funded by others; it was funded by his savings. He created the microbiome research foundation with the goal of raising money to study kids with autism and to push an IND to the FDA, which cost about $600,000 to obtain FDA approval. He clarifies that no external party paid for this work, and he continues to struggle to raise funds to treat poor autistic kids who cannot afford expensive stool testing, drugs, and vitamins; they need help and everyone should step in to assist these kids. Speaker 1 concludes that their focus is fixing autism, with the aim of later addressing Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and cancer.

A year ago, the speaker requested data from Emma, including clinical trials from medical companies before they sought marketing authorization for their products. Regarding Pfizer, the speaker notes that the company submitted a clinical trial that started on January 14, 2020. The speaker questioned a Pfizer representative about how Pfizer started testing a vaccine in January 2020, just days after the Chinese government released DNA data about the virus in December 2019, but the representative declined to answer. The speaker also mentions that Moderna submitted trials dating back to 2017. The speaker asked the CEO of Moderna how it was possible to submit vaccine tests years before the virus was discovered in December 2019. The speaker states that these are legitimate questions that people are asking, but unfortunately, the companies are declining to answer.

The FDA issues emergency use authorization for medical products when there are no approved alternatives. The effectiveness of Ivermectin as a treatment is questioned, as it would have affected the authorization of vaccines. Powerful forces with financial interests oppose Ivermectin, as it threatens global vaccination policies. Pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna have made significant profits from COVID-19 vaccines. Ivermectin is a cheap and widely available drug, but its safety is disputed by Merck, despite distributing it when it was under patent. It is important to be cautious of articles that may be biased or paid for.

In 2018, remdesivir, described as one of my favorite targets, was deemed too unethical to put into Ebola clinical trials in Africa because it had a fifty-three percent kill rate published in medical journals. The speaker notes that Ebola doesn’t have a fifty-three percent kill rate, yet in April and May 2020 it was chosen to be the drug of choice to treat COVID. The drug was considered too unethical to use in an African clinical trial because it was killing fifty-three percent of the people to whom it was given. The speaker asserts that Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx were sitting next to the president advocating the use of remdesivir despite the World Health Organization stating it was unethical to use it. The central problem identified is that, as long as the financial interest that dictates which product is promoted is the one making the declaration of the pandemic, there is no possibility for accountability and no possibility for justice. The speaker argues that the decision-making is influenced by a lineage described as having emerged from the Eugenics office, specifically naming Carnegie Mellon in 1913, the same group of people that established the World Health Organization in 1953. The speaker claims that this same group is the one making the current decisions. The speaker asks the audience to consider their feelings about Eugenics and concludes by expressing a problem with it, tying these connections to the governance and promotion of pandemic responses.

Speaker 0: Remember that in 02/2018, remdesivir, one of my favorite targets, remdesivir was too unethical to put into Ebola clinical trials in Africa because it had a fifty three percent kill rate published in medical journals. Ebola doesn't have a fifty three percent kill rate, but it was chosen in April and May 2020 to be the drug of choice to treat COVID. This drug was too unethical to use in an African clinical trial because it was killing fifty three percent of the people that it was given to. And we had Anthony Fauci, Deborah Burke sitting next to the president going, we need to use remdesivir despite the fact that the World Health Organization said it was unethical to use it. Here's the problem. The problem is as long as the financial interest that dictates what product is going to be promoted is the one making the declaration of the pandemic, We have no possibility for accountability. We have no possibility for justice. And what we do is we allow people who were formed out of the Eugenics office, Carnegie Mellon in 1913, that same group of people that were the same group of people that established the World Health Organization in 1953, that same group of people are the ones who are making this decision. And I don't know how you feel about Eugenics, but I have a problem with it.

The speaker believes that Ivermectin's effectiveness threatened the emergency use authorization for vaccines, which would impact the global market worth over $100 billion. The speaker suggests that Ivermectin's low cost and availability posed a threat to patented pharmaceuticals like PAXLOVID and Molnupiravir. They argue that Ivermectin could have ended the pandemic if widely used, but was suppressed due to its potential impact on the market. Translation: The speaker suggests that Ivermectin's effectiveness posed a threat to the emergency use authorization for vaccines and the global market, potentially impacting billions in revenue. They argue that Ivermectin's affordability and availability could have ended the pandemic if widely used, but was suppressed due to its potential impact on the market.