TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

According to the speaker, 'And then hepatitis b is sexually transmitted.' The speaker argues 'There's no reason to give a baby that's almost just born hepatitis b.' The recommendation is to 'wait till the baby is 12 years old and formed and take hepatitis b.' The speaker concludes that 'if you do those things, it's gonna be a whole different it's gonna be a revolution in a positive sense in the country.' These statements frame a proposed policy shift regarding Hepatitis B vaccination timing and its perceived national impact. The quotes reflect a view on vaccination policy and public health strategy.

This is the current CDC recommendations for vaccines for children. On day number one, they get their first jab, a hepatitis vaccine. By the time they're 18, they've had 18 jabs. By the time they get to build up to vote, they have 76 jabs. Speaker 0 discusses vaccines and a timeline from birth to adulthood milestones. These lines illustrate a staged vaccination pattern culminating in 76 jabs. However, the transcript includes no further detail about the vaccines, dosing intervals, or specific ages beyond 18. The overall message emphasizes a count of injections rather than the nature of each vaccine.

“Day one of birth.” “they get one on day one of birth, they get another one a month later, they get another six months later.” It’s a “captive audience.” “How many babies are gonna be IV drug abusers or go out and have unprotected sex or get a blood transfusion from somebody who’s infected?” They claim “mom could have had hepatitis B” and that “mom was tested for hepatitis during her pregnancy,” so doctors would have known and could have “either treat it or do something about it or maybe prophylax the baby.” They ask, “Why would pediatricians go along with that? … money.” They warn, “If they’re giving infants treatment that the infant doesn’t need that has potentially harmful consequences and they’re doing it for money, then they’re criminals.” “there’s two hepatitis B vaccines that are in use.” They ask, “What the long term the follow-up study on those two hepatitis B vaccines is? No. Four days for one, five days for the other.” “Where’s the longitudinal study?” “They haven’t done it.” “That’s the vaccine industry.”

A child born in a US hospital receives pharmaceutical interventions, like erythromycin ointment and a hepatitis B vaccine, without informed consent. The ointment prevents chlamydial infections, though mothers are tested for chlamydia. The hepatitis B vaccine is for a sexually transmitted/IV drug user disease, which babies are not exposed to. There is a huge economic incentive to get more vaccines on the schedule because the government pays hundreds of millions of dollars for mandated products. Once approved, these vaccines are paid for everyone, and questioning them is discouraged by trusted institutions. YouTube will censor and demonetize videos that show skepticism of vaccine efficacy or need, even without directly attacking vaccines.

Speaker 0 suggests that a child who hasn't received any immunizations will have to endure six injections at once. Speaker 1 confirms that a six-month-old would receive DTaP, polio, and Hep B vaccines. Speaker 0 mentions that the type of Hep B vaccine depends on previous sessions. The same applies to a two-and-a-half-year-old. Speaker 1 questions why aluminum adjuvants are used in vaccines, to which Speaker 0 replies that they make the vaccine more effective. Speaker 1 asks about the form of aluminum and its effects, but Speaker 0 is unsure. They discuss the quantity of ingested and injected aluminum, but Speaker 0 believes the amount in vaccines is safe. Speaker 1 questions the ability of aluminum to cross the blood-brain barrier, but Speaker 0 is unaware. They also discuss antigens, macrophages, and vaccine ingredients, but Speaker 0 lacks specific knowledge. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 asking about family history factors and the type of polio vaccine used in the US. Speaker 0 provides some clarification.

Dr. Menares and an interlocutor debate the science behind pediatric COVID vaccination and routine immunizations, focusing on transmission, hospitalization, and risk. - The interlocutor asks whether the COVID vaccine prevents transmission. Speaker 1 answer: the vaccine can reduce viral load in individuals who are infected, and with reduced viral load, there is reduced transmission. The interlocutor reframes, insisting that the vaccine does not prevent transmission and notes decreasing effectiveness over time, citing Omicron data showing around 16% reduction when there is a reduction. - On hospitalization for children 18 and under: Speaker 0 asserts the vaccine does not reduce hospitalization for 18-year-olds; statistics are inconclusive due to small numbers of hospitalizations in that age group (approximately 76 million people aged 18 in the country, with 183 deaths and a few thousand hospitalizations in 2020–2021; numbers have since dropped). The argument emphasizes a need to discuss the issue. - On death for children 18 and under: Speaker 0 says the vaccine does not reduce the death rate; claims there is no statistical evidence that it reduces deaths. Speaker 1 responds with a more cautious stance: “It can,” but Speaker 0 counters, calling that an insufficient answer. - The discussion references the vaccine approval process and ongoing debates in vaccine committees. The interlocutor states that when the vaccine was approved for six months and older, the discussion acknowledged no proof of reduction in hospitalization or death. The argument asserts that the justification for vaccination is based on antibody generation rather than clear hospitalization/death data. The interlocutor contends that immunology measurements (antibody production) do not necessarily justify vaccination frequency. - The core debate centers on what the science supports for vaccinating six-month-olds and the benefits versus risks. The interlocutor argues there is no hospitalization or death benefit for vaccination in this age group, and notes a known risk of myocarditis in younger populations, estimated somewhere between six and ten per ten thousand, which the interlocutor claims is greater than the risk of hospitalization or death being measurable. - The exchange then shifts to changing the childhood vaccine schedule, particularly the hepatitis B vaccine given to newborns when the mother is not hepatitis B positive. The interlocutor asks for the medical or scientific reason to give a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn with an uninfected mother, arguing that the discussion should focus on whether to change the schedule rather than declaring all vaccines as good or bad. - Speaker 1 says they agreed with considering the science and would not pre-commit to approving all ACIP recommendations without the science. Speaker 0 disagrees, asserting their position that the debate should center on the medical rationale for these specific vaccines and schedules, not on a blanket endorsement of vaccines. - Throughout, the dialogue emphasizes examining the medical reasons and evidence for specific vaccines and schedules, rather than broad generalizations about vaccines.

ACE has never turned away a single vaccine, even for diseases that are not casually contagious. The hepatitis B vaccine is recommended for babies when they're an hour old, despite the fact that it's transmitted through sexual contact or shared needles. While maternal transmission is possible, every mother is tested, so we know who is vulnerable. The speaker claims the risk to a one-day-old baby is one in seven million, and that financial incentives are a factor. Many of the targeted diseases' vaccines don't prevent transmission, making mandates questionable. Vaccines can cause chronic injuries that last a lifetime.

Hepatitis B is contracted through sexual activity and IV drug use. The speaker believes babies do not need the hepatitis B vaccine. The hepatitis B vaccine contains 250 micrograms of aluminum. The speaker states that after Thimerosal was removed from vaccines, the hepatitis B vaccine was moved from being given to teenagers to newborns. The speaker claims the amount of aluminum in the vaccine is five times the adult daily maximum.

RFK Jr. claims babies don't need hepatitis B vaccine due to low risk of exposure. However, CDC data shows infants can contract it from infected mothers. Testing for hepatitis B in mothers is not foolproof, leading to some cases being missed. The virus can also survive on surfaces, posing a risk to babies. Vaccination is necessary to fill gaps in prevention methods and protect infants from lifelong infection.

Day one of birth. They get one on day one, another a month later, another six months later: 'They get one on day one of birth, they get another one a month later, they get another one six months later.' 'That's because it's a captive audience. That's the only reason.' He questions the rationale: 'How many babies are gonna be IV drug abusers or get a blood transfusion from somebody who's infected?' He argues mom 'was tested for hepatitis during her pregnancy,' and that if they had hepatitis B, doctors would know and 'could ... prophylax the baby.' He asks, 'Why would pediatricians go along with that? ... money.' He contends: 'If they're giving infants treatment that the infant doesn't need ... they're criminals.' He notes 'two hepatitis B vaccines' are in use, with 'Four days for one, five days for the other' follow-up, and asks, 'Where's the longitudinal study? ... They haven't done it. ... That's the vaccine industry.'

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify the core topics: trial design and safety monitoring, absence of control group, list of reported adverse events, causality vs association, need for placebo-controlled trials, regulatory and review positions (CDC, IOM), and final stance on vaccine safety. - Preserve key factual claims and phrases (e.g., monitoring duration, lack of control group, listed adverse events, causality requirements). - Emphasize any surprising or unique points (no pre-licensure placebo trial, IOM stance on data, final assertion about safety assumptions). - Exclude filler, repetition, and off-topic chatter; keep a neutral, fact-focused summary. - Translate only if needed; retain precise wording where quoted. - Keep the summary within 378-473 words. Summary: In the discussion about Recombivax HB, the speaker confirms the product and its labeling, noting that Section 6.1 covers pre-licensure clinical trial experience and that safety was monitored after each dose for five days. It is stated that five days is not long enough to detect autoimmune issues or neurological disorders arising after vaccination. The conversation also points out that there is no control group in those trials. Turning to Section 6.2, the nervous system disorders subsection acknowledges reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome and multiple sclerosis, including exacerbation, myelitis including transverse myelitis, seizures and febrile seizures, peripheral neuropathy including Bell’s palsy, muscle weakness, hypothesia, and encephalitis. It is emphasized that these reports are included because they have been reported to authorities as occurring after vaccination, not because they prove the vaccine caused those reactions. To establish causality, a randomized placebo-controlled study would be needed, but none was performed for this hepatitis B vaccine before licensure. Without a control group, evaluating whether a phenomenon in the vaccine group is related is not possible. A speaker comments that the broader issue is that such safety placebo trials were not done before licensure; once injuries are observed, they argue that it’s unethical to conduct placebo trials, and doctors may claim there are no studies showing the injuries are caused by the vaccine, leading to an assumption of safety. The discussion then touches on CDC guidance, with a question about agreeing with the recommendation that babies receive hepatitis B on the first day of life. The responder concedes that hepatitis B doesn’t cause encephalitis “in my opinion.” The IOM review is cited as having determined it “couldn’t find science to support a causal determination one way or another.” In the absence of data, the conclusion cited is that “there’s no proof that causation exists,” which is distinguished from saying it doesn’t cause it. The transcript closes with a provocative remark: “Vaccine safety is not based on science and data. And that is the stalemate we find ourselves in.”

The speaker argues that vaccines should be administered in smaller doses over several years: "when you go for the shot, you do it over a five time period. Take it over five times or four times, but you take it in smaller doses and you spread it out over a period of years." They describe the process as "they pump so much stuff into those beautiful little babies, it's a disgrace" and say, "they pump it looks like they're pumping into a horse." They claim, "you have a little child, little fragile child, and you get a a vat of 80 different vaccines, I guess, 80 different blends, and they pump it in." The speaker further states, "ideally, a woman won't take Tylenol." And suggests, "instead of one visit where they pump the baby, load it up with stuff. You'll do it over a period of four times or five times."

Why did the number of vaccines triple after 1989? Are all of them necessary, or is it about profit? The US gives twice as many shots as other Western countries. Parents should educate themselves, and decide what is absolutely necessary. Do we need the chicken pox vaccine, or the hepatitis B shot on the second day of life? We can't assume public health officials always have our best interests at heart. Parents need to make educated decisions and look at the information. Space out vaccines, delay them, and clean out the toxins. Why wouldn't doctors want to learn more about preventing disease? The AAP and medical schools are financed by drug companies, and vaccines are the fastest-growing part of the pharmaceutical industry, a 13 billion dollar business. We're asking them to take a loss for the good of our children, which is a tough sell.

Vaccines may work for some in preventing diseases like measles, but they can also cause problems. Informed consent is important, so people should know all the possibilities, without influence from incentivized doctors. Some doctors may receive kickbacks for administering the full vaccine schedule. The number of vaccines is high; for example, 72 doses of 17 vaccines between birth and age 18. Many states mandate children receive 29 doses of nine vaccines to attend kindergarten, and multiple doses of 13 vaccines for daycare enrollment. The Hepatitis B vaccine, given on day one, is questioned, especially since it's for a sexually transmitted disease. The COVID vaccine is also considered unnecessary. Tetanus was misrepresented as dangerous. It is claimed that tetanus is not dangerous, and can be prevented by washing out an open wound.

Two hepatitis vaccines exist, and one of them had a safety study that lasted for four days on a 100 and forty three kids, a product that's gonna be given to the seventy six million kids. The risk profile prior to the introduction of the vaccine, the risk of a baby dying from hepatitis B was one in seven million. That means you need to give 7,000,000 hepatitis B vaccines to prevent one death if you're going to give seven. This statement emphasizes that the risk of infant death from hepatitis B was one in seven million. So, Mr. Sikh, and I guess before that.

The childhood vaccine schedule is managed by a vaccine advisory group with CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics representation. Changes would come to my desk for review, but this committee is very influential in vaccine policy. Regarding the hepatitis B vaccine, I'm surprised it's given to day-old babies based on limited safety data from a study with only a five-day review period and no placebo group. The FDA likely extrapolated adult data, but I don't think this establishes safety for newborns. I would prefer to see this vaccine given to older children. I disagree with the heavy-handed approach to vaccines, as it increases hesitancy and distrust. Doctors should educate, not badger or threaten, people about vaccines. I'm not a big advocate for one-year-olds getting the hepatitis B vaccine unless the mother is hepatitis B positive and the baby is at high risk.

A newborn in the US receives pharmaceutical interventions, including erythromycin ointment and the hepatitis B vaccine, despite limited informed consent. The Hep B vaccine targets a sexually transmitted and IV drug user disease, which babies are not exposed to. The rationale for administering the vaccine on the first day of life is questioned, considering that newborns are unlikely to contract Hep B through sex or intravenous needles. When questioned, doctors claim American patients are too stupid to remember to get the vaccine later. Another justification is that a child at daycare could trip over a needle with hepatitis B on it. However, there has never been a documented case of hepatitis B transmission outside of intravenous needles or sex. Therefore, there is no valid reason to administer the vaccine to newborns.

The speaker states that vaccines contained 40 different viruses that were being inactivated. The yellow fever vaccine contained leukemia virus due to the crude science of the time. The speaker says they were not reporting AIDS virus at the time, but they had a disease virus. The speaker says it was good science at the time because they didn't worry about these viruses.

After 1989, the U.S. administers twice as many vaccines as other Western countries. Parents should educate themselves on vaccine choices, questioning the necessity of certain shots like the hepatitis B vaccine at birth. There is concern that public health officials may not always prioritize individuals' best interests. The speaker questions why doctors wouldn't want to learn more about life-saving vaccines, suggesting financial ties between pharmaceutical companies and medical institutions influence vaccine promotion. Advocating for children's well-being may clash with the profit-driven pharmaceutical industry.

"There is not one longitudinal safety study on hepatitis b against unvaccinated kids versus vaccinated kids, inert placebo, does not exist." "The two studies that are cited most often, one is for MMR." "Hep B is not involved." "They're like, we did a huge study about this. No autism." "And I'm not suggesting there's a link. I'm simply saying that huge study is only MMR." "The other study they love to talk about involves thimerosal." "Not everything else about the hepatitis B vaccine." "There the there the reality is it's not settled science. Just it's okay." "Vaccines have like, we could but to even say that, anti vaxxer."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the hepatitis B vaccine agenda and controversy around its use for newborns. Speaker 1 describes an upcoming September meeting where hepatitis B vaccine is on the agenda, predicting an effort to change the birth dose so that children wouldn’t receive it at birth. They say that if a mother has good prenatal care and known hepatitis B status, that may not matter, but if a mother does not attend prenatal care, the child would have only one opportunity to receive the vaccine. Speaker 0 reacts strongly, arguing that the person promoting the vaccine is inappropriately chosen to advocate for it. They state that the vaccine “was made for people who partake in promiscuous sex with multiple partners or share heroin needles,” and disclaim any direct accusation about the person’s needle-sharing, while asserting that this individual fits a certain group. They question why this person should mandate a hepatitis B vaccine for their child, insisting that in the United States people should be allowed to live freely, but not have the government or advocates push a vaccine tied to a particular lifestyle onto a newborn. Speaker 0 contends that the day-one vaccination would not provide long-lasting protection, especially if the person’s argument is framed as addressing a disease tied to sexual activity. They point out that the majority of pregnant individuals in America are not hepatitis B positive (citing a statistic they recall), and ask why their child should receive an injection for a sexually transmitted infection on day one of life. Speaker 0 challenges religious leaders who support the vaccination program, asking what they would say to families who do not plan for their child to engage in the behaviors associated with hepatitis B transmission. They question the alignment with religious beliefs, asking believers of various faiths whether they intend for their child to share heroin needles. They suggest a paradox in relating the injection to the condition of being created in the image and likeness of God, and conclude with a provocative remark about losing sight of religious or moral principles. Throughout, the speakers frame the hepatitis B vaccination strategy as an ideological fight over who should decide what is injected into newborns, juxtaposing public health goals with concerns about personal freedom, lifestyle, and religious beliefs.

A child born in a U.S. hospital is immediately subjected to pharmaceutical interventions, including Erythromycin ointment and a hepatitis B vaccine, often without informed consent. The hepatitis B vaccine targets a sexually transmitted disease and IV drug use, which newborns are not at risk for. It's questioned why infants are vaccinated for conditions they are unlikely to encounter. The rationale provided by some doctors includes the notion that parents might forget or that a child could encounter a contaminated needle, despite no historical evidence supporting such transmission outside of the known routes. Thus, there seems to be no valid reason for administering this vaccine on the first day of life.

The speaker references a study linked in a functional nurse program about an autopsy on a four-month-old baby boy who died of SIDS, noting that the aluminum content in the baby's brain was far higher than expected and asking where that aluminum comes from. They discuss the hepatitis B vaccine in relation to newborns, and claim that babies receive many injections—by six years old “they go to the doctor so many times they get like 70 shots” and that all of these have aluminum, asserting that “90 and it’s toxic.” The speaker asserts a belief that humans are born with everything they need, emphasizing sunshine, healthy water, and food, and stating that fasting can help heal the body, while claiming that injecting babies with toxins is never the right or healthy choice. They state that babies are dying at an exponential rate from mothers getting the COVID vaccine, alleging that spike proteins cause clots and disruption, and that childhood shots contain neurotoxins, leading to the claim that every doctor visit poisons babies more. The speaker also notes that a recent release stated vaccines don’t cause autism, asserting that claim was never based on any evidence.

Will you assure mothers that the measles and hepatitis B vaccines do not cause autism? If the data supports it, I will. The vaccine discussion is oversimplified. Parents are concerned about giving a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn when the disease is primarily transmitted through drug use and sex. I vaccinated my children but chose to delay the hepatitis B vaccine until school age. There needs to be an honest debate about vaccines, especially regarding COVID-19, where risks differ significantly between age groups. Healthy children are at minimal risk from COVID. We should remain open-minded about vaccine safety and autism, as we don't fully understand its causes. Science evolves, and we must be humble in our conclusions. The rationale for immediate vaccination against hepatitis B exists, but if a mother's status is known, vaccination can be delayed.

"What we're told is that the amount of aluminum in vaccines is completely safe. It's so miniscule. It would have no adverse effect on the human body." "Two hundred and fifty micrograms of aluminum are being injected into your day one old baby in that hepatitis b vaccine. Ten times the oral lethal dose in a rat study, and no one has ever checked it." "CBS reports United States Of America has the highest day one old birth rate in the world. In fact, we have more babies die in the first day of life than every other industrialized nation combined."