TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Twenty percent of Americans did not take the COVID vaccine because it was not safe enough. The mRNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines has been chemically modified to resist breakdown by enzymes. The mRNA and spike protein are found in the heart and brain, and the spike protein circulates in the blood for six to nine months post-vaccination. The speaker claims the lethal part of the virus circulates in the blood of vaccinated individuals, especially after boosters, and that it is a killer protein. The speaker asserts safety trumps efficacy and objects to claims that vaccines, specifically the COVID-19 vaccine, saved millions of lives. They state that consent forms do not guarantee the vaccine will save lives and that there has never been a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial showing that COVID-19 vaccines reduce mortality or hospitalization.

In this video, a diagnostic pathologist discusses the evidence presented by Pfizer to the FDA regarding COVID-19 vaccine trials in children aged 6 months to 4 years. The trial initially recruited 4,526 children, but 2,000 dropped out, raising concerns. The trial defined severe COVID as a slightly raised heart rate or increased breaths per minute. Six children in the vaccine group had severe COVID compared to one in the placebo group, suggesting a higher likelihood of the vaccine causing severe COVID. Additionally, 34 vaccinated children contracted COVID during the three-week period between doses, compared to 13 in the placebo group, indicating a 30% increased chance of catching COVID if vaccinated. The trial ignored significant data, ultimately comparing only three vaccinated children with COVID to seven in the placebo group to claim vaccine effectiveness.

The speaker claims Pfizer documents reveal the COVID vaccines didn't work to stop the virus a month after rollout in November 2020. They allege Pfizer knew the third most common side effect was COVID. Within months, Pfizer supposedly needed to hire 2,400 staffers to process adverse event reports. The speaker asserts Pfizer and the FDA knew in May 2021 that the vaccines caused heart damage in 35 minors within a week of injection, but this wasn't disclosed to parents until August 2021. The speaker states the CDC initially claimed the injection materials stayed at the injection site, but Pfizer knew they biodistributed throughout the body within 48 hours, settling in the brain, liver, adrenals, spleen, and ovaries. Pathologist Dr. Robert Chandler allegedly found no mechanism for the body to eliminate lipid nanoparticles from the ovaries, leading to accumulation with each injection.

In this video, a diagnostic pathologist discusses the evidence presented by Pfizer to the FDA regarding COVID-19 vaccine trials in children aged 6 months to 4 years. The trial initially recruited 4,526 children, but 2,000 dropped out without explanation. The trial defined severe COVID as a slightly raised heart rate or increased breaths per minute. Six children in the vaccine group had severe COVID compared to one in the placebo group, suggesting a higher likelihood of the vaccine causing severe COVID. Additionally, 34 vaccinated children contracted COVID during the three-week period between doses, compared to 13 in the placebo group, indicating a 30% increased chance of catching COVID if vaccinated. The trial ignored significant data and only compared small numbers, concluding that the vaccine was effective based on three cases in the vaccine group and seven in the placebo group.

Pfizer is not solely a German company; it has a partnership with Fosun Pharmaceutical, a major Chinese Communist Party-owned firm, to manufacture vaccines. Fosun has produced a billion doses, but China does not use them. BioNTech has transferred its technology to the Chinese government, raising concerns about the ownership of intellectual property related to the vaccines administered to millions of Americans. Storage instructions for the vaccines have been inconsistent, which could affect their stability and safety. The adult dosage for Moderna is 100 micrograms, while Pfizer's is 30 micrograms. Internal documents revealed that Pfizer had to abandon a higher dose due to safety concerns, yet this information wasn't communicated to those already vaccinated. Alarmingly, the CDC has now added these vaccines to the routine child vaccination schedule, with reports indicating that the dosage for children is being tripled.

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.

Dr. Nikki Turner explains that the Pfizer vaccine contains a small piece of genetic material wrapped in a fatty bubble, along with salts and sugar products. It is a simple vaccine with few ingredients. The vaccine is safe for almost everyone, including those on medication or with immune system issues. On the other hand, another speaker claims that the vaccine is intentionally designed to harm people. They argue that the genetic material in the vaccine causes the body to attack its own cells, potentially leading to blood clots and neurological defects. They also mention that lipid nanoparticles in the vaccine can distribute throughout the body, including the ovaries. However, Dr. Turner emphasizes that the vaccine is highly recommended for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals.

When mRNA vaccines are injected, the amount of protein produced is not directly controlled by the dose of RNA given. Factors like metabolism and cell activity influence protein output. Doses vary between Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, but the key is the spike protein produced in the body. Studies show some individuals may not produce enough spike protein for immunity, while others may have excess leading to side effects or toxicity. In vitro experiments may not accurately predict in vivo outcomes due to individual differences.

Monash University has just received a grant from Moderna to produce 100,000,000 doses of messenger RNA vaccine. The speaker questions what arms they are going to go into, and what they are going to have tagged, and what message they will have. They note that Monash has just come out with the RSV data. The speaker recalls a lesson from the 1970s: you steer away from trying to produce an RSV vaccine because you get immune enhanced disease. Many should have told them this; they didn’t cancel things, they put it on pause. So they paused, putting RSV messenger RNA into the arms of infants. The speaker states that twelve point five percent, one in eight, of these kids nearly died from overwhelming RSV infection. Twelve point five percent. The speaker suggests it’s a bit like they can’t control the dose and they shouldn’t have been doing it in the first place.

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.

Speaker 0 argues that billions of people were injected with an experimental vaccine, stating “it wasn't a bloody just no. It wasn't.” He rejects the notion of it being definitive or perfect, emphasizing that “it wasn’t” in terms of being a flawless solution. Speaker 1 counters, asserting “It was no one isn’t,” suggesting confusion or contradiction in the prior claim and challenging the certainty of the statement. He adds that there is a lack of a 100% success rate and questions the ultimate aim, asking what the core purpose is when it comes to giving your body a training of the immune system and technology. Speaker 0 reinforces the complexity, noting that there were “different types” to contend with and that the fact that they weren’t the same technology matters. He agrees there are various types of vaccines or approaches, indicating there is diversity in the technology or formulations used. Speaker 1 concedes the existence of different types and technologies, acknowledging that “there are different types of” vaccines, and that “There are different technologies.” He identifies mRNA as a type of vaccine but Speaker 0 interrupts, insisting “No. It was” and continuing his line of reasoning about the distinctions between the technologies and their evolution. Speaker 1 acknowledges change, saying “like this, and now it's like this,” recognizing a progression or shift in the approach. Speaker 0 rejects the suggestion that the transition is simple or uniform, insisting “No. No. No. It was like this, and now it's like this.” He asserts that the mRNA technology represented a radical, qualitative leap forward in technology, a claim about the significance of the development. Speaker 0 contends that naming the technology as mRNA can be acceptable only in a limited sense; he says “You can call it if if you want to, but it bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that.” The rationale for the term mRNA is tied to branding: “The reason it was called a scene was because was a brand name that had a track record of safety, and shoehorning it in that was one of the ways to make sure that people weren't terrified of the technology.”

"72 mandated vaccines by the age of 18." They start injecting pregnant women second trimester. "In 1986, congress gave big pharma carte blanche, put in whatever you want. You have absolutely no liability." "And in that year, the vaccine schedule tripled." "Babies are getting seven shots at the same time." "This shot is experimental and on and you it did not get FDA approval. That was a complete fraud." "under an EUA, emergency use authorization." The synthetic mRNA is a program that they put into your body. It instructs your cells to produce the spike protein. The spike protein in itself creates the disease. It also contains fetal cell lines, kidney cells, retinal cells, lung cells. These are immortal meaning that they are cancerous. The COVID contained polyethylene glycol. Seventy percent of people are allergic to this. Luciferase. The shot contains a bioluminescent dye.

The speaker expresses concern about the mRNA vaccines, specifically the Pfizer and Moderna ones, stating that they believe there are deliberate toxicities built into these vaccines. They explain that normally the immune system only attacks foreign substances, but when mRNA is introduced to the body, it instructs cells to produce a foreign protein, causing the immune system to attack the cells. The speaker believes this mechanism of toxicity is intentional and points out that all four companies producing COVID-19 vaccines chose the same spike protein, which they claim is biologically active and potentially harmful. They find it unlikely that multiple companies would independently choose the same solution.

The speaker discusses the effectiveness of the vaccine in terms of producing an immune response and the severity of breakthrough cases. They mention that there was no significant difference in the severity of illness between those who received the vaccine and those in the placebo group. The advantage of the vaccine is preventing infection in the first place. The speaker also addresses the dosing in terms of micrograms and mentions that the results show low reactogenicity and a comparable immune response. They mention that the amount of protein produced by the mRNA and its persistence is an interesting question worth pursuing. Another speaker adds that the two mRNA vaccines are different and have optimized the expression of antigens.

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.

Big problem with trusting the science is not the science part, it's who's behind the science part, primarily in the area of vaccines for children. Normally, when you study a drug, you compare it with a placebo, so that way you can truly test the side effects on something, but that is not how they test children's vaccines. This so called placebo control is not really a true placebo control because it's not inert. It's an active vaccine with something called an adjuvant. The big one that they've been using for a long time is aluminum. My question is, how can you really truly test the safety and effectiveness of something if you're looking at the relative safety of an active vaccine to another active vaccine with adjuvants. That just muddies the water to this whole safe and effective claim that you keep hearing over and over and over.

The speakers discuss a broad denial about vaccine injuries and the idea that, despite evidence, the medical establishment and political figures push the narrative that vaccines are safe and effective. They claim that many people who are vaccinated want to move on and avoid acknowledging serious side effects, including turbo cancers, undetected myocarditis, and neurological issues, and that autoimmune disease is being attributed to other causes. They argue that the medical establishment, federal health agencies, and some members of Congress who produce supportive content, such as segments like Steve Colbert’s, advocate for taking the shot. They question how many people were killed or died from the shot, asserting that Bayer’s data shows “close[ly]” to thirty-nine thousand worldwide, and that if only ten percent are reported, the true number would be in the hundreds of thousands. They claim there are millions of adverse events, but that this is denied and covered up. The speakers contend that the shot was not a real vaccine. They describe it as gene therapy rather than a traditional vaccine. They explain a sequence in which a vaccine is typically an attenuated or killed virus that requires adjuvants like aluminum or mercury to stimulate the immune system, because the attenuated or killed virus may not work well on its own. In contrast, they say this shot is mRNA, which is modified so it does not degrade. They describe how it is put into a lipid nanoparticle designed to permeate barriers like the blood-brain barrier, and they assert it would never stay in the arm, distributing all over the body. They claim the lipid nanoparticle allows the mRNA to enter cells, hijack cellular structures, and cause the cells to express spike protein, which the body then attacks as foreign. When asked who is responsible, they reference a “doctor Frankenstein” figure and name Francis Collins, head of the NIH, and Anthony Fauci as possible figures in question. The response indicates that while they consider all of them criminally liable, they would say it is primarily Fauci, with acknowledgment that people like Collins are implicated as well.

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.

The discussion centers on COVID-19 misinformation and the roles of public figures and disinformation spreaders. Speaker 0 questions whether doctor Fauci is involved in a plot to kill millions. Speaker 1 says he cannot confirm involvement but asserts Fauci is not an innocent bystander and is aware of his actions; he doesn’t have the information to determine the extent of Fauci’s involvement. Speaker 2 identifies Dr. Dirashid Bhattar as one of the top spreaders of COVID-19 disinformation on social media, citing the Center for Countering Digital Hate, noting Bhattar once had more than a million followers. The dialogue includes several false or debunked claims attributed to Bhattar. Speaker 1 states that “More people are dying from the COVID vaccine than from COVID,” a claim Speaker 2 labels as not true, along with Bhattar’s assertion that “the Red Cross won’t accept blood from people who have had the COVID vaccine,” and his claim that “most who took COVID vaccines will be dead by 2025.” Bhattar’s broader theory is that COVID was a planned operation, politically motivated as part of a secret global plot to depopulate the earth. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 believes the pandemic was planned; Speaker 1 responds affirmatively but says he has no idea who is behind it. Speaker 2 warns that praising or repeating Bhattar’s views is dangerous, noting Bhattar’s use of false or twisted information to distrust vaccines. The conversation touches on whether the COVID vaccine works; Speaker 1 says the vaccine is “very effective at what it was designed for perhaps,” but “not preventing death.” Speaker 0 challenges this, and Speaker 2 counters that Bhattar doubles down on vaccines being more dangerous than the virus, even in the face of data. A numerical claim is raised: “6,340,000,000 doses of this vaccine have been given,” with implications if the claim were true. Speaker 1 says vaccines are designed with ingredients published and that each vaccine appears to be different, though he concedes not being a vaccine developer. Speaker 2 notes Bhattar has been removed from Facebook and Instagram for disinformation but remains active on Twitter, Telegram, and his own site. Speaker 0 references a September 5 retweet of a photo suggesting AstraZeneca was made in 2018; Speaker 1 acknowledges it could have been fake and questions why Bhattar would share such content. A combined exchange discusses questioning agencies and the consequences of misinformation, with Speaker 0 accusing Bhattar of contributing to a mass misinformation problem and Speaker 1 acknowledging the existence of a large follower base that has received false information. The dialogue closes with a mention of a statement from North Carolina’s Board of Medicine prior to COVID, implying regulatory context or action.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss vaccines and vaccine technology. Speaker 0 begins by saying, “He injected billions of people with an experimental it wasn't a bloody just no. It wasn't,” expressing that the vaccine was experimental and not straightforward. Speaker 1 counters briefly with, “It was no one isn't,” then suggests uncertainty about the claim. Speaker 0 adds that “Yes. It is. It's Well, it doesn't have a 100%,” indicating skepticism about a perfect success rate. Speaker 1 asks, “You think it's a definition of all point of is to give your body a,” challenging the stated purpose of the vaccine in terms of its aim to train the immune system. Speaker 0 then states, “protein train on. The immune system works. Technology,” implying that the vaccine trains the immune system and works as a technology. Speaker 1 responds that “Who cares if it's not the same? There's plenty there's,” implying there are multiple vaccines or approaches enough to matter, suggesting diversity in types. Speaker 0 replies, “different so types that they didn't have to contend with the fact that it wasn't the same technology.” Speaker 1 acknowledges that “There are different types of,” and that “There are different technologies. Fine. The mRNA is a type of vaccine.” Speaker 0 firmly rejects that, saying, “Now this is No. It was,” indicating a disagreement about the classification. Speaker 1 clarifies that “like this, and now it's like this,” implying a progression from one form to another. Speaker 0 insists, “No. No. No. It was like this, and now it's like this. The m n r mRNA technology was a radical, qualitative leap forward in technology.” He asserts that mRNA technology represents a significant advancement compared to what existed before. Speaker 1 suggests naming it differently or acknowledging changes, but Speaker 0 continues that “You can call it if you want to, but it bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that.” The final point is that “The reason it was called a scene was because was a brand name that had a track record of safety, and shoehorning it in that was one of the ways to make sure that people weren't terrified of the technology.”

The speaker asserts that COVID-19 shots do more than affect the immune system; they can damage the brain and worsen mental health. They claim a wave of studies shows sharp increases in various strokes: ischemic strokes up to 44%, hemorrhagic strokes up to 50%, and transient ischemic attacks (mini strokes) up to 67%. They also report increases in neurological and autoimmune conditions, including myasthenia gravis up 71% and Alzheimer’s disease up 22%. Cognitive impairment is claimed to have risen by nearly 138%, while depression is up 68%, anxiety disorders up 44%, and sleep disorders up 93%. The speaker links all of these increases to “toxic spike protein accumulation and persistence in the brain.” The speaker states this is not a conspiracy theory and cites what they describe as documented peer‑reviewed research and studies by experts. They name epidemiologist Nicholas Holcher, who allegedly says that using mRNA to hijack cells in various organ systems to produce a highly toxic spike protein that persists in the body for months or years was “one of the worst ideas in medical history.” The speaker then asks, “So what can you do?” as a transition to presumably recommendations or actions, though no specific actions are listed in the provided segment.

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.

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.

The speaker expresses concern about the mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer and Moderna, stating that they contain deliberate toxicities. They explain that when the body is instructed to produce a foreign protein, the immune system goes into attack mode, potentially harming the body's own cells. The speaker also highlights that all four companies developing COVID-19 vaccines chose the same spike protein, which they claim is biologically active and toxic. They find it unlikely that multiple companies would independently choose the same solution, suggesting intentionality.

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.