TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Critics raised concerns about the lack of testing before the COVID-19 vaccine was rolled out. Katie Lees, a fit and healthy 34-year-old, decided to get the AstraZeneca vaccine after the guidelines changed. Unfortunately, she suffered a fatal blood clotting disorder and passed away. Her parents faced backlash for speaking out about her death. The panel discusses the rushed vaccine rollout and the need for acknowledgment and compensation for vaccine injuries. Professor Kieran Phelps and her wife, Jacqui, share their own adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine. They highlight the lack of medical curiosity and the need for better support and compensation for those who experience vaccine injuries.

The speaker claims adverse events from the vaccine rollout were covered up and dismissed as rare and coincidental. They state that regulators approved the vaccines based on relative risk data (95%), which they describe as misleading, while the absolute risk reduction was only 0.84%, meaning 120 people had to be vaccinated to prevent one infection. The speaker alleges that Pfizer has 31 convictions, including withholding data, presenting false data, and bribing clinicians and regulators. They claim over 100 doctors have written to various health organizations, including the NHS and MHRA, about the vaccine program, but received only one response. The speaker concludes that science is dead because discussion, analysis, and debate are no longer allowed, and decisions are being made without scientific basis.

Pfizer in the UK breached regulations by promoting unlicensed medicines on social media, leading to a £30,000 fine. This ruling may pave the way for citizens to pursue legal action against Pfizer for vaccine injuries. The UK's compensation system for vaccine injuries could make it easier for affected individuals to seek recourse. The Telegraph highlighted the safety concerns surrounding the injections, potentially fueling lawsuits against Pfizer.

The Dutch paper reveals a 36% higher risk of serious adverse events in the Pfizer vaccine group compared to the placebo. Despite this, the public was misled about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. Adverse reactions like stroke and heart attack were downplayed, making it difficult to link them to the vaccines. The truth is slowly coming to light, exposing the deception by big pharma, governments, and the media. Those responsible may face consequences in the future.

I informed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak about evidence from Dr. Josh Gutschko suggesting that Pfizer had conducted a bait and switch operation with their vaccine. The Pfizer vaccine tested on 22,000 individuals was not the same as the one rolled out globally. The change in guidelines by the MHRA on the second day of mass vaccination, requiring people to stay for 15 minutes due to the risk of anaphylactic shock, supports this claim. Anaphylactic shock occurs when there are endotoxins in the vaccines, which are present when they are cultured in Escherichia coli. This indicates that the vaccine distributed worldwide was not manufactured to the same standards as the approved one. Informed consent was therefore not possible, as people were given an untested vaccine. I am still awaiting a response from the Prime Minister regarding this crucial matter. (134 words)

Unvaccinated patients entering the hospital reported being treated differently based on their vaccination status. Those who had not received the COVID-19 shot were quickly given treatments like remdesivir and placed on ventilators, leading to a high mortality rate. There are claims that hospitals had financial incentives to classify deaths as COVID-related, with some receiving substantial payments for each case. Whistleblowers from within the healthcare system indicated that staff were pressured to ensure positive COVID tests to secure funding. The financial motives behind these practices raised serious ethical concerns, with one individual stating that their loved one was valued more dead than alive due to these incentives.

There is a lack of medical curiosity in investigating vaccine side effects. The number of adverse reactions reported is small compared to the actual cases. Patients with vaccine injuries struggle to be heard and compensated. Medical practitioners need to engage with affected individuals, conduct research, and provide safe healthcare. The compensation scheme is inadequate, requiring extensive documentation for claims. Many young people are experiencing serious health issues post-vaccination. More support and follow-up are needed for those suffering from vaccine injuries.

Actions were taken to promote the vaccine by inflating COVID numbers through protocols in 2020. Hospitals were incentivized to label patients as COVID, put them on ventilators, administer Remdesivir, and profit from deaths. The goal was to instill fear and push vaccinations. Hospital administrators, driven by financial incentives, unknowingly contributed to unnecessary deaths. This greed-driven system continues to harm people.

We submitted a paper on COVID vaccine injuries to The Lancet, which was taken down due to pressure from the pharmaceutical industry. The paper has now passed peer review and will be published, showing that 74% of sudden deaths after vaccination were caused by the vaccine. More evidence is emerging daily on the harm of COVID vaccines, urging politicians to act preemptively.

There have been unprecedented injuries, disabilities, and deaths from COVID-19 vaccines. By January 22, 2021, 182 deaths were reported to the US vaccine adverse event reporting system. The FDA and CDC, who co-administer the program, lack experience in vaccine campaigns. Pfizer knew about 1,223 deaths within 90 days of their vaccine but kept it confidential. Moderna has not released their data. There are over 34,100 peer-reviewed papers on vaccine injuries, disabilities, and deaths.

John, an NHS pharmacist, experienced significant issues following his vaccination. His family is angry that he had to endure bureaucratic trauma on top of his illness and recovery. The family's lawyer states that 350 people have been rejected from the vaccine damage payment scheme (VDPS) because they didn't meet the 60% disability threshold, which was originally designed for industrial injuries, not the complex impacts suffered by John. The family believes the system needs to be overhauled to be fair and transparent. They cite a two-year delay in John's case, during which he wasn't examined or consulted, and his rejection broke him psychologically. John believed in vaccination and saw the VDPS as vital for public confidence. The Department of Health stated that the COVID inquiry will consider VDPS reform in hearings next year and that qualified independent medical assessors undertake claim assessments. John's family feels the system failed him and wants accountability. They urge the government to take action.

We represent three groups advocating for those affected by COVID vaccine injuries and bereavements: UK CV Family, Vaccine Injured and Bereaved UK, and the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group. Our inquiry highlights the need to acknowledge the real experiences of those impacted, who are neither anti-science nor anti-vaccine. We urge the inquiry to examine the production, regulation, and rollout of vaccines, including the communication of risks and the adequacy of post-rollout monitoring. Many individuals faced disbelief and stigma when reporting symptoms, and the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme is inadequate. Urgent reform is necessary to support the injured and bereaved, as their experiences must inform future vaccination programs. The inquiry must listen to these voices and propose meaningful changes to ensure better care and support for those affected.

At the outset, a process was approved by the FDA for emergency use authorization. However, it was later discovered that the approved process was swapped out for one containing contaminants like DNA and a cancer-causing substance. Pfizer redacted 800 pages of the manufacturing process, hiding the fact that a carcinogen was included. This lack of transparency led to no informed consent and potential harm to individuals. The vaccine rollout included a trial with a 2.4 times higher adverse event rate, including the presence of a carcinogen.

Over 100 million Americans were required to get vaccinated due to job mandates. The government claimed vaccines were safe and effective, but data showed vaccinated people could still carry the virus. Despite promises of freedom, there have been 1 million adverse events reported from COVID-19 vaccines, with only 11 compensated cases. Big Pharma has immunity from liability for vaccine injuries.

Over 100 million Americans were required to get vaccinated for their jobs under federal mandates, which covered two-thirds of American workers. Claims of vaccine effectiveness were exaggerated, leading to a bait-and-switch situation. Despite promises of safety and freedom, over 1 million adverse events from COVID-19 vaccines have been reported, with only 11 compensated cases, while Big Pharma remains immune to liability.

The transcript presents a critical examination of Bill Gates, portraying him as transforming from a software magnate into a global health power broker whose wealth and influence have reshaped public health, vaccine development, and population policy. It argues that Gates’ philanthropic activities are not purely charitable but are deployed to extend control over health systems, global research agendas, and even the reproductive choices of people worldwide. Key claims and points are detailed across several strands: - Public image and power shift: Bill Gates is described as no longer a “public health expert” yet becoming a central figure in billions of lives, guiding medical actions and vaccine strategies. The program asserts that Gates’ reinvention through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been aided by a sophisticated public relations apparatus and by directing media coverage of global health issues. - Foundation scale and reach: The Gates Foundation is depicted as the world’s largest private foundation, with assets reported as tens of billions of dollars and a broad remit in global health, development, growth, and policy advocacy. Its influence extends to funding media outlets, think tanks, and reporting units across multiple outlets (BBC, NPR, Our World in Data, ABC, among others), creating what the program calls “tentacles” across global health. - Partnerships and funding of global health initiatives: Gates is credited with initiating and funding major global health vehicles, including: - Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, with seed funding and ongoing commitments that have shaped vaccination markets. - The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and other public-private partnerships that coordinate vaccine development and immunization programs. - Support for CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), the World Health Organization’s vaccine initiatives, and other pandemic preparedness efforts. - The World Health Organization’s funding profile, described as heavily dependent on Gates Foundation support, with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted as a non-medical doctor connected to Gates-backed initiatives. - The “Decade of Vaccines” and vaccine policy: Gates is credited with launching a decade-long vaccine initiative, including a pledge of billions of dollars to vaccine development and distribution. This is linked to the creation of a global vaccine action plan and to Gavi’s role in establishing vaccine markets. The narrative asserts that vaccines have been used to steer global health policy and to secure roles for private firms in public health decision-making. - Vaccine development concerns: The program raises concerns about the safety and speed of vaccine development, criticizing the eighteen-month timeline Gates advocates for a universal vaccine, and questioning the use of new technologies (DNA and mRNA platforms) and rapid deployment with limited testing. It highlights potential safety risks, including historical vaccine-associated disease enhancement and concerns about broad immunization in a short period. - Vaccine safety and regulation: It is claimed that vaccine safety at scale is hard to guarantee and that liability protections for vaccine makers and public health officials have been enacted (e.g., a U.S. declaration granting liability immunity for COVID-19 countermeasures), a point framed as enabling risk-bearing without accountability. - Population control framing: A central thread is the assertion that Gates seeks to reduce population growth through health improvements, vaccines, and reproductive health services. The transcript traces Gates’ interest in contraception and population issues to his family background and to Rockefeller-era eugenics historical contexts, arguing that discussions about fertility, contraceptive technologies, and demographic trends have long-term population implications. It cites specific Gates Foundation activities in reproductive health, including funding for innovative birth-control delivery methods, depot injections, implanted devices, and efforts to develop digital identity tied to health services as tools within a broader population-control framework. - Digital identity and biometric ID: The narrative emphasizes Gates’ involvement with biometric identification through Gavi and ID2020, noting partnerships with Microsoft and the Rockefeller Foundation, the Aadhaar system in India, and the World Bank’s ID4D initiative. It argues that vaccination programs, biometric identity, and cashless payments are being integrated into a comprehensive “population control grid,” enabling state and private actors to track, truncate, or deny access to services based on identity and health status. - Data, surveillance, and privacy concerns: The piece contends that the push for digital IDs, digital health records, and biometrics will erode privacy and enable broad government and corporate surveillance, linking health data to financial services, voting, housing, and welfare. It highlights projects involving digital certificates, immunity passports, and real-time health data collection via microneedle patches and barcode-like skin markers, suggesting these innovations could be used to control access to services. - Epstein connections and broader conspiracy context: The program references alleged connections between Gates and Jeffrey Epstein, including flight logs and involvement in philanthropic funding discussions, framing these ties as part of a broader pattern of influence. It also points to prior associations with notable figures (Buffett, Rockefeller, Soros) and critiques of Gates as aligning with a “population control” ideology. - The underlying motive and conclusion: Throughout, the narrative asserts that Gates’ wealth is being used not for charity alone but to build an overarching system of control—over health institutions, research funding, public policy, identification, and financial systems. It contrasts his public image as a generous philanthropist with alleged hidden agendas, suggesting that the real aim is to shape global governance and human behavior through vaccination, identification, and digital infrastructure. - Final framing and call to action: The closing sections urge viewers to recognize Gates’ influence as part of an ideology rather than a single person’s plan. It frames the situation as a broader movement that could continue beyond Gates personally, urging awareness and action to resist what the program deems a population-control regime embedded in global health and digital identity initiatives. In sum, the transcript portrays Bill Gates as a central figure driving a multifaceted, globally interconnected program—through the Gates Foundation, Gavi, CEPI, and related partnerships—that allegedly reconfigures vaccine policy, global health governance, reproductive health, biometric identification, and digital payments into a cohesive system of population control and surveillance, using philanthropy as a veneer for power and control.

I recently met someone whose 18-year-old daughter developed cancer after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. I've heard from many parents who lost children to these injections, some experiencing immediate and horrific deaths. They repeatedly share their stories with lawmakers, highlighting a significant crime that must end. The FDA was aware of the potential cancer risks associated with these vaccines, as outlined in guidance documents from 2013 and 2015. These documents instructed manufacturers to study risks like cancer, fertility issues, and cardiovascular problems, and deemed it unethical to test on healthy volunteers. Yet, by 2020, these concerns were seemingly overlooked. This raises serious suspicions about the intentions behind the vaccine rollout, suggesting a premeditated crime where regulators and the military may have colluded with pharmaceutical companies.

There have been repeated attempts to mandate coercion without accepting natural immunity, which is claimed to be equally effective at preventing infection and more effective at preventing severe disease and death. There was no real questioning of an emergency use authorized product, and informed consent was not prioritized. When doctors make mistakes, they should acknowledge the mistake and harm, apologize, and institute measures to prevent recurrence. This hasn't happened at a public health scale, and the medical establishment needs to acknowledge the problem. The speaker believes the product in question should never have been approved for a single human. At the very least, there should be acknowledgement of unintended harms, apologies, efforts to help the vaccine-injured, and structures for greater transparency in medicine. Regulators should not receive 86% of their funding from big pharma and then claim to be independent.

The Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed developed a COVID vaccine quickly, but critics argue that the program protected drug companies from liability for vaccine injuries. The government's compensation program for harm caused by vaccines has been criticized for being bureaucratic, with only 8 payouts out of 12,000 claims filed. The issue of liability for vaccine manufacturers has been a topic of debate since Reagan's presidency. Some argue that those harmed by vaccines deserve accountability and that free speech is crucial in discussing the merits of vaccines. There is a call to end crony capitalism and lobbying in government, with a focus on preventing government officials from joining companies they previously dealt with. The government's actions during the COVID-19 pandemic, including vaccine mandates and the approval of mRNA shots for young babies, are seen as problematic. There is a desire for accountability and a promise to clean house in agencies like the CDC, NIH, and FDA to prevent similar situations in the future.

Vaccines were oversold, leading to mandates that caused people to lose their jobs. The intent behind vaccine liability laws was well-meaning, but companies must be held accountable for vaccine injuries. Early treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were undermined, preventing effective therapies from being available and allowing emergency use authorization for vaccines. This approach resulted in unnecessary loss of life. The suppression of alternative treatments benefited pharmaceutical companies financially. Despite evidence supporting treatments like corticosteroids and ivermectin, these options were dismissed, paving the way for vaccine mandates. The public response to vaccine injuries has been inadequate and unacceptable.

On August 7th, the speaker wrote to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak with evidence from Dr. Josh Gochko indicating that Pfizer, enabled by the MHRA, carried out a bait and switch operation with their vaccine. The speaker claims the Pfizer vaccine tested on 22,000 individuals was not the same vaccine rolled out in the UK and worldwide. Evidence for this is allegedly the MHRA changing guidelines on the second day of mass vaccination, requiring people to stay at the vaccination center for 15 minutes due to the risk of anaphylactic shock. The speaker asserts the MHRA hadn't expected anaphylactic shock because it wasn't shown in the Pfizer trials. Anaphylactic shock occurs when there are endotoxins in vaccines, which are present when vaccines are cultured in bacteria like E. coli. The speaker claims this demonstrates the vaccine rolled out was not manufactured the same way or to the same standards as the vaccine that received medical approval, meaning informed consent was impossible. They state people were told the vaccines were safe, effective, and tested, but they were taking a completely untested vaccine from Pfizer. The speaker is still awaiting a response from the prime minister regarding the 44 pages of evidence supplied.

I wrote to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak with evidence from Dr. Josh Gutschko, indicating that Pfizer carried out a bait and switch operation with their vaccine. The Pfizer vaccine tested on 22,000 individuals was not the same as the one rolled out worldwide. The MHRA changed guidelines on the second day of mass vaccination, requiring people to stay for 15 minutes due to the risk of anaphylactic shock. This shock is caused by endotoxins in vaccines, which are present when they are cultured in bacteria like Escherichia coli. The vaccine rolled out globally was not manufactured to the same standards as the approved one, meaning informed consent was not possible. I'm still awaiting a response from the Prime Minister regarding this crucial matter.

Regulators, including the MHRA, European regulator, and World Health Organization, have found that all three COVID-19 vaccines used in the UK are safe and effective, saving thousands of lives. The vaccine rollout is going well, and the safety system is working. The AstraZeneca vaccine is not recommended for those under 30, but alternatives will be offered to ensure safety. The vaccine has not been tested on children as their risk of significant harm from COVID-19 is low. All data and side effects are being transparently shared. Face masks are recommended in hospitals, care homes, and some other environments. Vaccination not only protects individuals but also reduces transmission and brings us closer to normalcy. The UK regulator is independent and not influenced by external pressure. Leaving the EU allowed the UK to make authorization decisions faster while maintaining safety checks.

Australia already has vaccine indemnity agreements in place, so doctors don't need to worry. Some people have sadly died after taking AstraZeneca, and there are concerns about whether they were fully informed of the symptoms to look out for. However, individuals are responsible for their own health and have the opportunity to visit their GP for consultation. The government has funded this process, and informed consent allows individuals to make decisions about their own health and bodies.

Vaccine manufacturers are uniquely protected from design defect claims, unlike manufacturers of other products like planes, cars, and drugs. This immunity was granted in 1986 through the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act because manufacturers of the three routine childhood vaccines (MMR, Polio, and DTP) faced excessive liability and potential bankruptcy due to harm caused by their products. Instead of requiring safer products, Congress granted immunity, allowing manufacturers to continue selling vaccines regardless of potential harm. This immunity extended to all future routine childhood vaccines. Consequently, the CDC schedule has expanded from 3 injections in the first year of life in 1986 to 29 today. Pharmaceutical companies developing these vaccines know they won't be liable for injuries. Unlike typical drug trials, vaccine trials often lack placebo controls (except for the COVID-19 vaccine), have short safety review periods (days, weeks, or up to six months), and are underpowered, making it difficult to confirm product safety.