TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker asks if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. They request a clear yes or no answer and the data to be shared with the committee. The response states that they did not have prior knowledge of stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market and had to rely on scientific research. Another speaker expresses outrage, claiming that people were pressured to get vaccinated based on the false belief that it would protect others.

I, along with six colleagues, wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expressing concerns about the COVID vaccines. The EMA responded, revealing shocking facts. They clarified that the vaccines were only approved for individual immunization, not for controlling or preventing infections. The EMA emphasized the lack of data on contagiousness and even stated that repeated exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection in vaccinated individuals. The government's campaigns promoting vaccination to protect others were unauthorized and based on misinformation. The EMA also highlighted the importance of carefully considering safety information before administering vaccines. The government's failure to report vaccine side effects within the first 14 days was not only fraudulent but also endangered lives. The vaccination campaign should be halted as it does not meet EMA standards. The government and supporting political parties should be held accountable for their lies and deception.

More governmental authorities are mandating the vaccine in response to the rise of Delta. It cannot come soon enough, as we have hit a wall with vaccinations and need higher levels to prevent another surge and new variants. A decision must be made as a society, similar to laws against drunk driving. While people can remain unvaccinated, there's an obligation to society if they want to be in public and potentially infect others with a dangerous disease. An opt-out system, like in France or Italy, could require vaccination or proof of a negative test to enter bars, restaurants, and movie theaters. People should not have the choice to infect vulnerable children, immunocompromised people, or even others who have taken the responsible choice to get vaccinated.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They wanted a clear yes or no answer and requested the data to be shared with the committee. In response, it was stated that no, they did not have knowledge about stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market. They had to act quickly.

A group of European Parliament members wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expressing concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines. The EMA responded, stating that the vaccines were only approved for individual immunization and not for controlling or preventing infections. They also admitted a lack of data on vaccine effectiveness against infections. The government's campaign to vaccinate for the sake of others was based on misinformation. Furthermore, the EMA emphasized the need to carefully consider safety information before administering vaccines. The mass vaccination campaign should be halted as it does not meet the EMA's requirements and puts people's health at risk. The government and supporting political parties should be held accountable for their lies and deception.

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.

Last month, a group of European Parliament members, including myself, wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expressing concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines. The EMA's response revealed shocking facts. They admitted that the vaccines were only approved for individual immunization and not for controlling or preventing infections. Furthermore, there is a lack of data supporting the vaccines' effectiveness in preventing infections. In fact, the EMA stated that repeated exposure to the virus increases the risk of infection even in vaccinated individuals. The government's campaigns promoting vaccination to protect others were unauthorized and based on misinformation. The EMA also emphasized the need to carefully consider safety information before administering vaccines. The mass vaccination efforts were in direct contradiction to the approved use of the vaccines. The government and supporting political parties should be held accountable for their lies and deception. The vaccination campaign needs to be halted as it is not safe and does not meet EMA requirements.

Vaccines have a place, but the population has been scared into accepting them. It's frustrating that vaccines are being promoted as gene therapy to children who are not at risk. It's ethically questionable to recommend something dangerous to a certain group to protect the elderly. Personally, as a 70-year-old, I don't want young people getting vaccinated for my sake. If something happened to them, I would feel guilty.

None of the 72 vaccines for children have been tested against a placebo. The speaker sued HHS in 2016 to find placebo studies for vaccines, but none were found. The safety testing for the polio vaccine was only 48 hours, while the hepatitis b vaccines were tested for 4-5 days. This means that any adverse events occurring after that time period were not considered. Without placebo testing, the risk profile of current vaccines is unknown, and it cannot be determined if vaccines cause more harm than good. The speaker questions the ethics of mandating medical products with unknown risks for children.

Vaccination will always be a choice, and there will not be a two-tier society. The idea of a vaccination passport should be approached with caution, as it may create implicit pressure. Companies or organizations cannot enforce vaccination. There should be no indirect vaccination requirement, and no disadvantages or advantages for those who choose not to vaccinate or have already been vaccinated. People should never feel compelled to prove their vaccination status, and it should be legally impossible to use it as a requirement. Voluntary means voluntary, and it should not become mandatory through other means.

Last month, Joachim Küs and six other colleagues from the European Parliament wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding concerns about the vaccines. The EMA responded, stating that the vaccines were only authorized for individual immunization and not for infection control, prevention, or reduction. In fact, the EMA highlighted a lack of data on contagion and stated that repeated exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection even in vaccinated individuals. The massive vaccination campaigns aimed at protecting others were not authorized and lacked factual basis. The EMA emphasized that vaccinations were solely for the protection of the vaccinated individual, and safety information should be carefully considered before administering or recommending a vaccine. The government's vaccination policies disregarded this information, putting lives at risk. Vaccination campaigns should be halted immediately, and those responsible for the lies and deception held accountable.

Last month, Joachim Küs and six other colleagues from the European Parliament wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding concerns about the vaccines. The EMA responded, stating that the vaccines were only authorized for individual immunization and not for infection control, prevention, or reduction. In fact, the EMA highlighted a lack of data on the vaccines' ability to prevent infections. The EMA also mentioned that repeated exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection even in vaccinated individuals. The massive vaccination campaigns aimed at protecting others were not authorized and lacked factual basis. The EMA emphasized that vaccinations were solely for the protection of the vaccinated individual, and safety information should be carefully considered before administering vaccines. The government's vaccination policies and failure to report side effects were deemed dangerous and fraudulent. Vaccination campaigns should be halted immediately.

The speaker believes that gradually we will move towards mandatory vaccination, which will likely be implemented after the presidential election next year. However, before that, there will be an intermediate step of vaccinating children. The Pfizer laboratory has completed its study and found that the vaccine is effective and well-tolerated in children aged five to eleven. They have submitted their request for commercialization to the FBI in the United States. Cuba has already started vaccinating children from the age of two. Therefore, the question of vaccinating children aged two and above will arise.

There is only one known attempt, to my knowledge, which is vaccination. People who have been vaccinated were asked for their consent, even though the vaccine has not been fully evaluated. Many people were forced to get vaccinated in order to live a normal life or work at the hospital, making it an illegal therapeutic trial. From a legal perspective, there have been violations at the national, European, and international levels. Mandatory vaccination goes against various international agreements and declarations, violating human rights. When the people are stripped of their sovereign power and the elites and judges fail to uphold the separation of powers, we have entered a different realm. The real problem lies in the criminal responsibility of politicians, as forcing people to inject experimental products violates human rights and can be considered a crime against humanity.

Vaccines have a place, but the population has been terrorized with propaganda. It's frustrating that vaccines are being promoted as gene therapy with unknown risks for children who are at low risk. It's not ethically or morally acceptable to recommend something dangerous to them to protect the elderly. As a 70-year-old, I don't want young people getting vaccinated for my sake, and I would feel guilty if something happened to them.

Last month, I, along with six colleagues from the European Parliament, wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expressing concerns about the COVID vaccines. The EMA's response revealed shocking facts. They admitted that the vaccines were only approved for individual immunization, not for controlling or preventing infections. The EMA emphasized the lack of data on the vaccines' ability to prevent transmission. In fact, repeated exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection even in vaccinated individuals. The government's campaigns promoting vaccination to protect others were unauthorized and based on misinformation. The EMA also stated that vaccinations were solely for the protection of the vaccinated individual, and each case should be carefully evaluated for safety before administering the vaccine. The government's vaccination policy disregarded reporting of side effects within the first two weeks after vaccination, falsely attributing any complaints to the virus. This information exposes the flaws in the vaccination strategy and calls for an immediate halt to the campaign.

The speaker discusses the activation of mandatory vaccination and questions whether it should be implemented only when necessary. They mention a colleague named Pfeffer in Berlin who is not available.

A vaccine that cannot block transmission should never be used on the battlefield. Mass vaccination with such a vaccine generates a breeding ground for more infectious variants. There is no scientific rationale to vaccinate children, and no added value for them. There are only major concerns and risks; the risk-benefit ratio is completely wrong. Vaccination provides no chance of contributing to herd immunity. Under no circumstances should you allow your child to be vaccinated. It risks inducing auto-immune responses in children.

Last month, Joachim Küs and six other colleagues from the European Parliament wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding concerns about the arrival of vaccines. The EMA responded, stating that the vaccines were only authorized for individual immunization, not for infection control, prevention, or reduction. The EMA also highlighted a lack of data on contagion and stated that repeated exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection even in vaccinated individuals. The government's massive vaccination campaigns, aimed at protecting others, were not authorized and lacked factual basis. The EMA emphasized the importance of carefully considering safety information before administering vaccinations. The government's policy of not reporting complaints within the first 14 days of vaccination was seen as deliberate endangerment of human life. The speaker called for an end to vaccination campaigns and accountability for the government's lies and deception.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They requested a clear yes or no answer and asked for the data to be shared with the committee. The speaker then stated that they did not have knowledge about stopping immunization before the vaccine entered the market.

Nederlandse samenvatting: Afgelopen maand schreef ik met Joachim Koez en zes EU-parlementscollega’s een brief aan de EMA over de Covid-vaccins en vroeg om opheldering en mogelijk intrekking van de markttoelating. De EMA antwoordde met schokkende feiten: "de corona vaccins alleen en uitsluitend op de markt heeft toegelaten voor individuele immunisatie En absoluut niet voor beheersing van besmetting en absoluut niet voor het voorkomen of verminderen van besmettingen." "EMA's beoordelingsrapporten over de toelating van vaccins benadrukken het gebrek aan gegevens over besmettelijkheid." "De vaccins waren niet bedoeld voor het voorkomen van besmettingen en er zijn al helemaal geen gegevens die onderbouwen dat de vaccins helpen tegen besmettingen." "Sterker nog, de EMA verklaart herhaalde blootstelling aan het virus verhoogt de kans op infecties, zelfs in gevaccineerden." "Vaccinaties zijn uitsluitend voor de bescherming van het gevaccineerde individu." "alle veiligheidsinformatie zorgvuldig worden overwogen alvorens een vaccinatie toe te dienen of aan te bevelen." Verder: "de eerste 14 dagen na vaccinatie juist niet werden gemeld omdat het vaccin 10 tot 14 dagen nodig zou hebben om effectief te worden. Alle klachten in die periode werden juist aan het coronavirus toegeschreven." De regering wist dat de vaccins niet zouden beschermen tegen de verspreiding van het virus maar deelde deze informatie niet met de burgers. "De vaccinatiecampagnes dienen zo snel mogelijk stopgezet te worden. Het is gewoonweg niet veilig en ze voldoen niet aan de eisen die de EMA stelt." De regering en alle politieke partijen die dit steunden behoren op hun leugens en bedrog afgerekend te worden. English translation: Last month I, together with Joachim Koez and six colleagues from the European Parliament, wrote a letter to the EMA about the Covid vaccines and asked for clarification and possibly withdrawal of market authorization. The EMA replied with shocking facts: "the corona vaccines were only and exclusively authorised on the market for individual immunization And absolutely not for controlling infection or for preventing or reducing infections." "EMA's assessment reports on the authorisation of vaccines emphasise the lack of data on transmissibility." "The vaccines were not intended for the prevention of infections and there are absolutely no data to support that the vaccines help against infections." "Moreover, the EMA states that repeated exposure to the virus increases the risk of infections, even in vaccinated individuals." "Vaccinations are solely for the protection of the vaccinated individual." "all safety information should be carefully considered before administering or recommending a vaccination." Furthermore: "the first 14 days after vaccination were not reported because the vaccine would take 10 to 14 days to become effective. All complaints in that period were indeed attributed to the coronavirus." The government knew that the vaccines would not protect against the spread of the virus but did not share this information with the citizens. "The vaccination campaigns should be stopped as soon as possible. It is simply not safe and they do not meet the requirements set by the EMA." And the government and all political parties that supported this should be held accountable for their lies and deception.

Everyone should have the option to get vaccinated. If someone chooses not to get vaccinated, they shouldn't be forced to, although it's unlikely. However, there should be consequences for not getting vaccinated. It's not fair for those who do get vaccinated to face disadvantages while others don't. Being fair means that those who get vaccinated protect themselves and others. Vaccination prevents the spread of the virus, and as a result, life should return to normal as much as possible for those who are vaccinated and for a certain number of vaccinated individuals. That's why I believe vaccine certificates are important, not just for travel within Europe, but also for everyday life in the long run.

I, along with six colleagues, wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expressing concerns about the COVID vaccines. The EMA's response revealed shocking facts. They admitted that the vaccines were only approved for individual immunization, not for controlling or preventing infections. The EMA emphasized the lack of data on contagiousness and stated that repeated exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection, even for the unvaccinated. The government's campaigns promoting vaccination to protect others were unauthorized and based on false information. The EMA also highlighted the importance of carefully considering safety information before administering vaccines. The mass vaccination efforts were in direct contradiction to the approved use of the vaccines. The EMA expected reports of side effects, but the government failed to report them, endangering lives. The vaccination campaign should be halted immediately.

None of the vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have undergone proper testing. No childhood vaccine has completed a placebo-controlled clinical trial with sufficient duration and power to confirm its safety before being administered to millions of children in America. This is not an opinion; it can be verified by anyone visiting the FDA website, where the package inserts and clinical trial documents are available for review.

Governmental authorities and others are increasingly mandating the vaccine in response to the Delta variant. The VA, mayor of New York, and governor of California have already implemented vaccine requirements. This trend is expected to continue. Vaccination rates in the country are not sufficient to prevent another surge of coronavirus and the emergence of new variants. Similar to laws against drunk driving, society needs to make a decision about the vaccine. While individuals can choose to remain unvaccinated, being in public and potentially infecting others with a dangerous and highly transmissible disease should come with an obligation. France and Italy have implemented an opt-out system, requiring vaccination or proof of a recent negative test for access to public places. It is important to protect vulnerable children, immunocompromised individuals, and those who have responsibly chosen to get vaccinated.