TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Jean-Marc Sabatier, a research director at CNRS, discusses the lack of scientific debate and censorship surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. He explains that there is a silence and taboo within the scientific community regarding the adverse effects of vaccines. Despite evidence showing the deleterious effects of current vaccine platforms, there is a favoritism towards the narrative promoted by Big Pharma and those who follow it. Sabatier highlights the explosion of adverse reactions and the increased risk of infection among vaccinated individuals. He attributes the lack of scientific consensus to administrative and political influences within research organizations like CNRS. Despite facing marginalization and potential repercussions, Sabatier remains committed to conducting research based on scientific evidence and protecting public health.

Speaker 0 states that one of their three children experienced health issues, including heart inflammation, after receiving the vaccine and subsequently lost their job for refusing further vaccination. This adverse reaction is officially registered. The speaker recounts a doctor advising their son against further vaccination outside a hospital setting, but later denying having said so. Speaker 1 says there is a good system for reporting side effects in New Zealand and finds no clear evidence of suppression of medical side effects of the Pfizer vaccine. Speaker 0 questions why the vaccine is still in use given the side effects. Speaker 1 responds that society decided to tolerate a certain number of adverse effects for the greater good, characterizing the speaker's family member's reaction as "taking one for the team."

Michael Caine shares his painless COVID vaccine experience. A grieving mother warns against vaccination after her daughter died post-shot. Morgan Freeman expresses trust in science and the vaccine. Concerns arise about vaccine safety, with reports of severe side effects and deaths linked to various vaccines. Individuals share personal stories of adverse reactions, including heart issues and neurological problems. Some argue that the risks of COVID vaccines may outweigh the benefits for children, emphasizing the need for more research. A retired pediatrician notes that the risk of serious disease from COVID is low for children, while potential vaccine risks are higher. Others claim that COVID-19 may not exist as a distinct virus, suggesting it is misidentified influenza. Overall, the discussion reflects deep divisions regarding vaccine safety and efficacy.

The speaker shares their experience with the Johnson vaccine, stating that they had four surgeries since January of this year. They mention being vaccinated because they were a deputy and didn't want to give the impression of not doing their job. They were unaware that President Macron and many government officials were not vaccinated. The speaker wanted to set an example but advised against copying them. They mention other world leaders getting vaccinated and state that they did it because they are somewhat known and wanted people to see how they were doing. They mention that they mentioned getting sick during the election campaign but no one listened. The speaker experienced severe side effects and almost died. They question the campaigns to push people to get vaccinated, especially with vaccines that are not well understood.

COVID vaccines are declared safe by Speaker 0. Speaker 1 expresses pain, trauma, and regret due to lack of help for vaccine injuries. They mention others with amputations and heart conditions, and question why support is lacking. They criticize the vaccine damage payment scheme and highlight over 30,000 adverse reactions in Scotland. Speaker 1 demands that Rashid Shunaka do the right thing. Speaker 0 responds by stating that decisions during the pandemic were based on medical advice from experts, guiding vaccine rollout and eligibility.

Some people love the vaccines, while others hate them. The speaker acknowledges that vaccines have saved lives, but also mentions concerns about their safety. Reports vary on the effectiveness and problems with the vaccines, but the speaker claims to have saved 100 million lives. They argue that those who get very sick and go to the hospital are usually the ones who haven't taken the vaccine. The mainstream media is accused of stifling information about adverse reactions. The speaker believes the vaccines have saved millions of lives but criticizes the media for pausing the Johnson and Johnson vaccine over a small number of cases.

Denis Agréche, a French doctor, shares an interview with the Minister of Health, Mr. Brande, conducted by Roger from Sud Radio. They discuss the need for transparency regarding the serious adverse effects of COVID vaccines. Mr. Brande claims there are no alerts or concerns, but Denis disagrees, citing the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety. He accuses Mr. Brande of lying and provides evidence of serious cases, such as myocarditis and hypertension, linked to the vaccines. Denis hopes that one day Mr. Brande will have to answer for his statements in court, comparing him to the disgraced politician Cahuzac.

Speaker 0 acknowledges reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with the Pfizer vaccine but seems unsure about the mechanism behind it. Speaker 1 asks if the vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. Speaker 2 questions if people were forced to get vaccinated to keep their jobs and asks Speaker 0 to retract their statement. Speaker 0 clarifies that everyone had the choice to get vaccinated or not, and they don't believe anyone was forced.

Jean-Marc Sabatier, a research director at CNRS, discusses the lack of scientific debate and censorship surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. He explains that there is a silence and taboo within the scientific community regarding the adverse effects of vaccines. Despite evidence showing the deleterious effects of current mRNA vaccines, there is a favoritism towards the narrative promoted by Big Pharma and those who follow it. Sabatier highlights the explosion of side effects and the increased risk of infection after vaccination. He attributes the lack of scientific consensus to administrative and political influences within research organizations like CNRS. Despite facing marginalization and potential repercussions, Sabatier remains committed to conducting research based on scientific evidence and protecting public health.

COVID vaccines are declared safe by Speaker 0. Speaker 1 expresses pain, trauma, and regret due to lack of help for vaccine injuries. They mention people with amputations and heart conditions, and question why they had to set up a support group in Scotland. They criticize the vaccine damage payment scheme and state that over 30,000 people in Scotland have had adverse reactions to the vaccine. Speaker 1 demands that Rashid Shunaka start doing the right thing. Speaker 0 responds by saying that decisions regarding the vaccine were made based on medical advice from experts.

The speaker discusses the recognition of side effects from the Covid-19 vaccine by public authorities. After two years of conspiracy theories, the link between the vaccine and various health issues is now acknowledged. Only 72 out of 241 cases have received compensation for vaccine-related adverse effects. The main incidents recognized are cardiac disorders, particularly myocarditis and pericarditis. Neurological disorders, such as facial paralysis, and severe vascular issues like strokes, thrombosis, and pulmonary embolisms, have also been reported. The difficulty in reporting adverse events and the low number of victims seeking compensation are highlighted. The speaker suggests that the media downplayed the severity of these effects during vaccination campaigns.

Speaker 0 asks Jérôme how he can reassure young people about potential long-term side effects of the vaccine. Jérôme explains that while there is no certainty about future effects, the benefit-risk ratio is important to consider. The vaccine has been tested on thousands of patients, providing significant data. He emphasizes that there has never been such a large vaccinated population, with over a billion people receiving the vaccine. Jérôme acknowledges that time is not compressible in vaccine development, but highlights the low risk of severe side effects compared to the risk of severe COVID-19. He also mentions that a future vaccine to eradicate the controversy will likely take time, possibly not before 2021.

The speaker expresses concern that only 5% of adverse reactions are reported in the database, suggesting it's just the tip of the iceberg. Another speaker reassures that the vaccine is safe and there is no evidence of it causing deaths. Prior to the COVID vaccine rollout, an average of 1500 adverse event reports were received annually for all vaccines in New Zealand, resulting in one or fewer reported deaths per year.

Jean-Marc Sabatier, a research director at CNRS, discusses the lack of scientific debate and censorship surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. He explains that there is a silence and taboo within the scientific community regarding the adverse effects of vaccines. Despite evidence showing problems with current vaccine platforms, there is a favoritism towards the narrative promoted by Big Pharma and those who follow it. Sabatier highlights the explosion of side effects and the increased risk of infection after vaccination. He attributes the lack of scientific consensus to administrative and political influences within research organizations like CNRS. Despite facing marginalization and potential repercussions, Sabatier remains committed to conducting research based on scientific evidence and protecting public health.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain why the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination but does not provide a clear explanation. Speaker 0 insists on understanding the mechanism and questions why the vaccine is considered safe without addressing the risks. Speaker 2 intervenes, suggesting that Speaker 1 will address the question later. Speaker 1 talks about the benefit-risk ratio and the global recommendation of health authorities. Speaker 0 reiterates the question, to which Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. Speaker 2 confirms this agreement.

Speaker 0 expresses clear personal hesitation about vaccines, stating that they are not jabbed and would not touch the experimental mRNA and gene therapy experiments, asserting there is a lot of concern about these technologies from many medical people. They reference political figures and media narratives, saying Kennedy in the United States will expose much of this material and that Donald Trump is keen to see it as well. Speaker 0 then recalls personal health concerns related to vaccination, mentioning friends who have experienced myocarditis, blood clots, strokes, and other problems after receiving the COVID jab, and emphasizes the idea of long-term effects being unknown. Speaker 1 counters by saying they still believe in vaccinations, but notes that no one on that side would discuss possible problems with vaccines, and they themselves got vaccinated multiple times and are now open to the idea that there might have been problems. They acknowledge the complexity of the issue and state they do not object to vaccines inherently. Speaker 0 clarifies their stance further, stating they are not a medical expert but their instinct was not to have the vaccine, and they acknowledge how difficult it was to avoid it since the state appeared to force people to receive it. Speaker 1 adds that their own vaccination status includes having been vaxxed several times, and they feel okay today, though they recognize the complexity of the situation and that long-term effects are uncertain. Speaker 0 then discusses the notion that the state and public health authorities pressured people to vaccinate, naming the NHS, Matt Hancock, and portraying the messaging as a duty to vaccinate “because you might kill granny,” mentioning Trudeau and the World Economic Forum Brigade as part of the broader narrative. Speaker 0 proposes an alternative approach: those who are vulnerable should isolate themselves. They reference Anders Tegnell’s approach in Sweden, which did not impose lockdowns. They claim Sweden’s economy hardly missed a heartbeat, in contrast to “ours,” and argue that the pandemic greatly disrupted young people’s lives and education, with knock-on effects described as huge. Speaker 0 concludes that those who made the lockdown decisions are not ready to admit they got it wrong, for a host of reasons.

The speaker warns against manipulating patients and emphasizes the importance of safe vaccines. They mention having written a book advocating for safe vaccines and criticize the government's stance on vaccination. The speaker shares a personal experience of being vaccinated and still contracting COVID-19, highlighting the need for revaccination. They accuse big pharmaceutical companies of manipulating the population and influencing politicians. The speaker refers to a book that challenges official COVID-19 statistics and argues that the increase in deaths is due to age rather than the disease itself. They also mention cases of medical abuse and negligence in hospitals. The speaker estimates around 160,000 deaths in France, attributing them to pre-existing conditions and lack of treatment.

Jean-Marc Sabatier, a research director at CNRS, discusses the lack of scientific debate and censorship surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. He explains that there is a silence and taboo within the scientific community regarding the adverse effects of vaccines. Despite evidence showing the deleterious effects of current vaccine platforms, there is a push to follow the narrative of pharmaceutical companies and authorities. Sabatier highlights the explosion of side effects and the increased risk of infection after vaccination. He attributes the lack of scientific consensus to administrative and political influences within research organizations like CNRS. Despite facing marginalization and potential sanctions, Sabatier remains committed to conducting research based on scientific evidence and protecting public health.

The speaker asks Pfizer and Moderna to explain how the COVID-19 vaccine causes myocarditis. The response from the doctors is that the exact mechanism is still being studied, but myocarditis is generally an autoimmune response that can occur after COVID-19 or other infections. The speaker questions if other organs could also be affected by the vaccine, but the doctors explain that ongoing surveillance is in place to monitor potential risks. The speaker expresses concern about the lack of initial disclosure of these risks. The doctors emphasize the importance of preventing COVID-19 and state that the reported rate of myocarditis is around 2-3 per 100,000 doses. The speaker argues that if it can happen to the heart, it could happen to other organs. The conversation ends due to time constraints.

Speaker 0 asks if people are not afraid of the side effects of the Covid vaccine. Speaker 1 responds that they are more afraid of long-term effects of Covid itself than the vaccine's side effects. They mention that billions of people have been vaccinated with no major side effects reported. Speaker 1 also addresses the concern that women are more affected by vaccine side effects, stating that there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. They mention not having any information from the COVAS (the organization responsible for scientific surveillance) or any published studies on this matter.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain the process of how the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination. Speaker 0 insists on an explanation of the mechanism, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. Speaker 1 emphasizes that all medicines have benefits and side effects and refers to the benefit-risk ratio. Speaker 0 continues to press for an explanation of the biochemical pathway, but Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. The transcript ends with Speaker 2 confirming Speaker 1's agreement to give a further response.

Speaker 0 assures that reported side effects of the vaccine are expected and not concerning. They urge people to report any unusual reactions. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of transparency and unbiased investigation into outbreaks following vaccination. They question the accuracy of recording underlying causes of death related to COVID-19. Speaker 0 dismisses these concerns, stating that spreading doubts about vaccine safety during a pandemic is dangerous and undermines public health. Speaker 1 finds the minister's response concerning and ends the conversation.

The speakers discuss the issue of side effects not being properly accounted for in the context of pharmacovigilance. They mention a commission on side effects and criticize the lack of transparency from health authorities. They highlight cases where autopsies have linked vaccines to deaths and express frustration with the Minister of Health's denial of side effects. The speakers also criticize the media for not challenging the Minister and point out the apparent double standards of those who promote the government and pharmaceuticals. They argue that journalists should question the Minister's claims and demand assurance of no side effects before encouraging vaccination.

I don't understand why people are hesitant to get vaccinated despite the clear benefits. Some individuals are experiencing side effects, but the overall goal is to end the pandemic. It's important to address concerns and encourage vaccination to prevent the virus from spreading and mutating. The discussion also touches on censorship, misinformation, and the need for a thorough review of vaccine effectiveness. Ultimately, the focus should be on public health and safety.

The speaker discusses the strange situation regarding the pharmacovigilance system's early awareness of menstrual side effects from the vaccine. Despite this, the European Medicines Agency initially concluded that it was not significant, but recently revised their diagnosis. It is peculiar that while the pharmacovigilance system alerted early based on feedback from vaccinated individuals, it took a considerable amount of time for the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety to accept it as a probable side effect.