TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 claims that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They assert that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 states this is not just their opinion, but can be verified by anyone who examines the FDA website, specifically the package inserts and underlying clinical trial documents.

The CDC unanimously recommended the COVID-19 vaccine for 5 to 11 year olds, which has raised concerns about hidden incentives and liability immunity for manufacturers. The speaker questions the medical justification for vaccinating healthy children who have minimal risk from COVID-19 and already possess lifetime immunity. They argue that the potential harm from the vaccine outweighs the benefits, especially considering the limited testing done on children. The speaker compares the situation to the Tuskegee experiment, highlighting the lack of informed consent for children. They express shock and concern over the decision to vaccinate young children and believe it is an atrocity in the making. The speaker questions the justification of putting children at risk to protect others and emphasizes the importance of individual well-being.

Children are not affected by this virus, according to a researcher. Only 226 children have died in a year, and not all of them were due to COVID. The speaker accuses Anthony of planning genocide by vaccinating the masses and demands that he stop.

Today, the speaker discusses the transmission and viral load of vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals. They mention the example of Israel, where a professor from Tel Aviv hospital stated that 75% of hospitalized patients were vaccinated. The speaker argues against the narrative that vaccinated individuals are solely responsible for immunity. They emphasize that the disease has a low mortality rate and question the need for continued booster shots. The other speaker counters by stating that vaccines protect against severe forms of the virus, particularly for those under 60 years old. The conversation ends with a disagreement about the percentage of vaccinated individuals in hospitals.

According to the speaker, the COVID vaccine has caused more deaths in the last 8 months than 72 other vaccines combined over the past 30 years. They claim that children are most at risk of suffering from heart attacks due to myocarditis, with a 50% chance of death or requiring a heart transplant within 5 years. The speaker mentions different studies that estimate the likelihood of children getting myocarditis from the vaccine, ranging from 1 in 300 to 1 in 2,700. They argue that the risk of COVID-19 for healthy children is zero, based on studies that found no healthy American child who died from the virus. The speaker also discusses data from Pfizer's trial, highlighting neurological injuries and the case of a girl who is now wheelchair-bound after participating in the trial. They express concern about mandating the vaccine for children based on limited testing.

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.

"Doctor Menares and Speaker 1 debate the science behind vaccines. 'The COVID vaccine can reduce viral load... When you have reduced viral load, you will have reduced transmission,' yet 'it doesn't prevent transmission. You can still transmit the virus if you've had the vaccine,' with Omicron-era reductions 'around 16%.' On hospitalization for 18-year-olds: 'It can,' but 'the statistics are inconclusive' and 'there is no statistical evidence that it does reduce the death rate.' They point out that 'no proof of reduction in hospitalization or in death' guided by 'make antibodies' rather than outcomes: 'it's based on whether you make antibodies or not'—'I can inject you with a foreign protein every week and measure antibodies.' They flag myocarditis risk: 'between six and eight and ten thousand,' 'much greater than the risk of hospitalization or death.' They question the medical basis for newborn hepatitis B vaccination and six-month COVID vaccine: 'What is the medical reason... if the mom is hep B negative?' 'The burden is upon you... prove to us.' 'Untrue.'

COVID-19 vaccinations protect children from severe illness and reduce community spread, which goes against the science. Only 15 children between 0-19 years old died during the pandemic. Increased death tolls and adverse events arose after the COVID shots were rolled out. Before that, there was no pandemic, and children who died had serious comorbidities. Positive PCR tests were fraudulent due to high cycle thresholds between 40-45, leading to many false positives, making the test useless. The test's creator stated before his 2019 death that it was not designed to diagnose viral illnesses.

Speaker 1 claims that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They assert that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 states this is not just their opinion, but can be verified by anyone who examines the FDA website, specifically the package inserts and underlying clinical trial documents.

The speaker asks if there is a higher incidence of myocarditis among adolescent males aged 16 to 24 after taking the vaccine. The other speaker responds by saying that the data from the CDC shows that there is actually less myocarditis in people who get the vaccine compared to those who get COVID. The first speaker disagrees and presents six peer-reviewed papers that contradict this claim. They also mention speaking with the president who privately acknowledged the increased risk of myocarditis. The conversation then shifts to discussing the rationality of mandating three vaccines for adolescent boys and the timing of myocarditis after the second dose. The first speaker criticizes the CDC's recommendation to vaccinate individuals who have recovered from COVID and experienced myocarditis. They argue that many countries do not offer the vaccine to children unless they are at risk for severe disease. The first speaker concludes by stating that the risk and benefits of vaccination need to be weighed, and that parents are unlikely to comply with mandatory vaccination for their children.

The speaker asks if there is a higher incidence of myocarditis among boys aged 16 to 24 after taking the vaccine. The other speaker responds that the data from the CDC actually show that there is less risk of myocarditis for those who get the vaccine compared to those who get COVID infection. The first speaker clarifies if they are saying that males in the 16 to 24 age group who take the vaccine have a lower risk of myocarditis than those who contract the disease. The second speaker confirms this.

Some parents may hesitate to vaccinate their children due to concerns about rare side effects, but they should consider the potential consequences of not protecting them. As younger individuals are increasingly affected by the virus, parents must think about how they would feel if their child became seriously ill, developed long-term complications, or even died from COVID-19. Vaccines for infants have existed for a long time, and there is over a year of data on the vaccines approved by the European Union, which have been administered to millions of people. It is important to prioritize reason over emotion and consider the impact of not vaccinating children, especially during holiday gatherings. Even with testing, the situation can still be stressful and tense for everyone involved. A collective effort to vaccinate would have provided some relief.

Children aged 5 to 11 can now get the COVID vaccine to protect older and vulnerable individuals. The vaccine has low side effects, with only a few cases of heart inflammation out of millions vaccinated in the US. Getting COVID poses a higher risk of heart inflammation than the vaccine. Vaccinating kids can reduce school disruptions and help safeguard older people.

The CDC video discusses the impact of COVID-19 on children and the safety of the vaccine. It emphasizes that although children are less affected by the virus, they can still get seriously ill. The vaccine is deemed safe for children over 6 months, with millions of doses administered and closely monitored for safety. The benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks, particularly the risk of heart inflammation after a COVID infection. The speaker, who plans to vaccinate her own children, encourages parents to consult their child's healthcare provider for more information. The second part of the video addresses the claim that the vaccine increases the risk of heart swelling. The speaker refutes this, stating that investigations found no significant increase in myocarditis cases due to COVID alone, while vaccine-induced myocarditis cases have been reported.

A study of 1,700,000 children found heart damage only in COVID-vaccinated children, with zero heart-related problems in unvaccinated children. The study also found that no children, vaccinated or unvaccinated, died from COVID-19. The COVID shots offered little protection, with many children becoming infected after 14-15 weeks. The study, led by Oxford University's Professor Kome d Andrews, investigated Pfizer's vaccine safety and effectiveness in 5-15 year olds registered with the UK's national healthcare system. Myocarditis and pericarditis cases only emerged in the vaccinated group. The speaker asserts emergency use authorization was given despite evidence the injections were not safe, which Pfizer and the FDA allegedly knew. The speaker claims future injection rollouts need more scrutiny and alleges globalists plan to force regular injections via digital ID systems to prevent future pandemics. The speaker urges scrutiny of everything from big pharma.

Is the COVID vaccine more dangerous for children than COVID itself? This is a complex question that requires scientific analysis. The risk of serious illness or death from the vaccine is extremely low. Ultimately, the decision about vaccination should be made between you, your parents, and your doctor.

"Senator: 'We discovered is that Anthony Fauci was destroying federal records. He was encouraging other people to destroy federal records. That is a crime.' He testified to the house a year ago and said he wasn't doing that. 'That's a crime to perjure himself.' 'We will bring him back. I've asked him to come and testify this fall. If he doesn't come voluntarily, we will subpoena him.' 'The question is, is he immune because of the pardon? I think that that needs to be challenged in court.' 'I have encouraged the Trump administration that they should prosecute this case and challenge the auto pen. I don't think the auto pen is sufficient.' 'There were so many pardons that I'm not sure Biden was aware of all the people he did pardon.' 'There is not a direct link from the person running the auto pen to the president. The person that was running the auto pen never spoke with the president.' 'And I think a president's signature on something so as important as legislation or a pardon is absolutely required.'" "Susan Monarez will testify before the senate HELP committee tomorrow. This will be her first appearance since being ousted from the role. She will be joined by Deb Aury, a former chief medical officer and deputy director who was one of four CDC officials who resigned after Monarez was ousted." "The chair with the president of Moderna ... I asked him about the expectation that he'll be getting a lot less revenue from the vaccine for COVID perhaps this time around. The scientific evidence shows that the risks of taking the COVID vaccine for children exceeds the benefits, and the scientific evidence is abundant on this. There's a study out of Israel that showed that about six to eight kids 20 that are healthy will get an inflammation of the heart that is very dangerous, and that risk exceeds the benefits of a vaccine. Every kid at six months needs to get a COVID vaccination, and that defies the scientific evidence and shows me that she's not objective. It's the same with the hepatitis B vaccine. Unless the mom has hepatitis B vaccine, disease, there is no indication for the vaccine at birth, and we need to readdress that."

According to the speaker, the COVID vaccine has resulted in more deaths in the past 8 months than 72 other vaccines combined over the past 30 years. They claim that children are most at risk of suffering from heart attacks due to myocarditis, with a 50% chance of death or requiring a heart transplant within 5 years. The speaker mentions studies showing that healthy children have zero risk of dying from COVID, while the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is much higher. They also discuss data from Pfizer's trial, highlighting the case of a girl who experienced severe side effects and is now wheelchair-bound. The speaker questions the decision to mandate the vaccine for children based on limited testing.

Some parents may hesitate to vaccinate their children due to concerns about rare side effects like blood clots. However, they should consider the potential consequences of not protecting their children. As younger individuals are increasingly affected by the virus, there is a risk of severe illness, long-term effects, or even death. Vaccines for infants have existed for a long time, and there is over a year of data on the COVID-19 vaccines approved by the European Union, which have been administered to millions of people. It is important to prioritize reason over emotion and imagine how one would feel if their child fell ill or suffered because they were not vaccinated. Even with testing, spending Christmas with unvaccinated children can be stressful and tense for grandparents. A collective effort to vaccinate could have eased the situation.

At a recent conference in Romania on the COVID crisis, a credible estimate suggested that there could be 17 million deaths worldwide from the COVID vaccine. This number may seem high, but when you consider the global population, it is not impossible. It is tragic that the vaccine is still being recommended for healthy children who are unlikely to benefit from it and may suffer serious and long-lasting harm. There has never been a proper justification for giving the vaccine to healthy kids, as they are not at high risk of dying from COVID and the vaccine does not prevent transmission. It is concerning that this practice continues even though the emergency situation has passed.

Speaker 0 questions whether it is a conflict of interest for government employees who profit from the vaccine to dictate vaccine policies. Speaker 1 responds that the government should decide. Speaker 0 asks about the higher incidence of myocarditis among adolescent males after vaccination. Speaker 1 claims that the data shows less risk with the vaccine compared to getting COVID. Speaker 0 disagrees and presents peer-reviewed papers contradicting Speaker 1's claim. Speaker 0 questions the scientific soundness of mandating three vaccines for adolescent boys and suggests having a rational discussion about one vaccine. Speaker 1 defers to public health leaders. Speaker 0 criticizes the CDC's recommendation to vaccinate children multiple times and compares it to other countries' approaches. Speaker 1 admits to vaccinating their own children multiple times. Speaker 0 argues that the risk of myocarditis after vaccination should be weighed against the risk of the disease. Speaker 0 also expresses concern about conflicts of interest in government decision-making.

Speaker 1 states that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They claim that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 asserts this is not an opinion, but can be verified by anyone reviewing package inserts and clinical trial documents on the FDA website.

According to the speaker, the COVID vaccine has a higher death rate compared to other vaccines. They claim that children are at a higher risk of suffering from heart attacks due to myocarditis caused by the vaccine. They mention a study that found no healthy American children who died from COVID, suggesting zero risk for healthy children. However, they argue that the vaccine poses a significant risk, citing a German study that found 3 children per million died from the vaccine. The speaker also mentions neurological injuries, particularly affecting girls, and highlights the case of a girl who experienced severe side effects after participating in a trial. They conclude by suggesting that mandating the vaccine could potentially harm thousands of children.

The speakers discuss the benefits of vaccines and the need to compare the number of children affected by vaccines versus those with adverse reactions. They mention the 99.7% survival rate of COVID-19 and the increase in chronic health issues among children. They suggest that vaccines may be a factor in the rise of these issues and call for further study. However, they clarify that they are not claiming vaccines cause these issues, but that it should be properly investigated. They also point out that the increase in chronic health issues does not necessarily mean vaccines have improved children's health. They emphasize the need for sufficient data before reaching conclusions.

First speaker: The question is about how many people are totally unvaccinated, and whether this is mainly among parents who stepped up. The claim is that it’s a very small percentage because many people blindly followed the vaccination recommendations for children. Second speaker: It’s less than one percent of the public who are unvaccinated. The Amish are given as a perfect example of a large group that is largely unvaccinated. The speaker asserts that you won’t find an autistic child who was unvaccinated, and that such chronic diseases as ADD, autoimmune diseases, PANDA/PANS, and epilepsy are very rare in the Amish community. The speaker claims that the US government has studied the Amish for decades, but there has never been a public report. The reason given is that such a report would show that not following the guidelines leads to healthier outcomes, and therefore there would be a disclosure that would be devastating to the narrative. According to the speaker, there is no public report because it would reveal that the CDC has been harming the public for decades and is bearing all the data privately.