TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 suggests giving a child who hasn't received any immunizations before six different injections at once. Speaker 1 confirms that a six-month-old would receive DTaP, polio, and Hep B vaccines. They discuss the use of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines to make them more effective. Speaker 1 asks about the form of aluminum used in vaccines, and Speaker 0 mentions that ingested aluminum is different from injected aluminum. They discuss the safety of injected aluminum and its ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Speaker 1 asks about antigens bound to aluminum and their role in creating antibodies. They also mention the presence of animal and human parts in vaccines. Speaker 0 is unsure about the specific details. They discuss the use of aborted fetal tissue in vaccine production and the presence of cellular debris in vaccines. Speaker 0 relies on CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations for vaccine safety. They consider family history factors, such as immune suppression, when determining vaccine recommendations. They clarify the type of polio vaccine used in the United States.

The speaker believes all vaccines are suspect. As an emergency medicine physician, the speaker thought vaccines only contained a dead or attenuated virus and saline. In September 2000, after reading a package insert and researching vaccines, the speaker was mortified to learn that a child receiving all scheduled vaccines gets almost 13,000 micrograms of aluminum, almost 600 micrograms of mercury, and over 200 chemicals. The speaker states that this is why vaccines have never been proven safe, and vaccination is like injecting foreign matter into a baby.

In 2011 the IOM issued a vaccine-safety report, 'Adverse Effects of Evidence of Causality,' examining 158 serious injuries after vaccination. The speaker notes they were consulting for Sanofi, Merck, GSK, and others, not disclosed in the report. Tdap is on the childhood schedule and is given to pregnant women. On autism, the IOM concluded, 'The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, or acellular pertussis containing vaccine and autism.' The evidence doesn't exist to show whether DTaP or Tdap do or do not cause autism. 'There is not evidence to, say a million different things. We have no suspicions, at least I don't, that, autism is caused by DTaP.' 'absence of evidence is no proof whatsoever.' He could tell parents that DTaP, Tdap does not cause autism, and, 'I'm also willing to tell them it doesn't cause leprosy.'

Speaker 0 asks if Moderna uses its profits to help people injured by their vaccine. Speaker 1 responds that indemnities are a government policy matter and cannot comment. Speaker 0 clarifies if Moderna is unwilling to take responsibility for the safety of their vaccine. Speaker 1 emphasizes their commitment to vaccine safety but reiterates that indemnities are a matter for policymakers. Speaker 0 questions the moral obligation of Moderna to assist vaccine victims, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 assuming the answer is zero and thanking them.

Speaker 0 suggests that a child who hasn't received any immunizations will have to endure six injections at once. Speaker 1 confirms that a six-month-old would receive DTaP, polio, and Hep B vaccines. Speaker 0 mentions that the type of Hep B vaccine depends on previous sessions. The same applies to a two-and-a-half-year-old. Speaker 1 questions why aluminum adjuvants are used in vaccines, to which Speaker 0 replies that they make the vaccine more effective. Speaker 1 asks about the form of aluminum and its effects, but Speaker 0 is unsure. They discuss the quantity of ingested and injected aluminum, but Speaker 0 believes the amount in vaccines is safe. Speaker 1 questions the ability of aluminum to cross the blood-brain barrier, but Speaker 0 is unaware. They also discuss antigens, macrophages, and vaccine ingredients, but Speaker 0 lacks specific knowledge. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 asking about family history factors and the type of polio vaccine used in the US. Speaker 0 provides some clarification.

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.

Speaker 0: President of The United States just posted this. Speaker 1: Show them the thimerosal bomb, which we keep in a metal container because we're a little afraid of it, and it's a very fine powder. Speaker 2: This is this is thimerosal, which is labeled very toxic, has cumulative effects, can cause damage to the kidneys, to the respiratory system, skin, to the, nervous system. Specifically warns on here that it can cause reproductive and developmental toxicity, meaning that it can cause things like autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. This is immensely toxic stuff. Speaker 1: And it's a vaccine. Speaker 2: And this is what's in the vaccine. It's important to to realize we're talking about a whole range of products. Vaccines are a big one because, of course, you're directly injecting it. For example, this is tetanus vaccine. This one expires. It's a little outdated now in 02/2007. Here's the thimerosal. One to 10,000 is a preservative. Perhaps the the biggest one in The US at least that's for exposure to mercury is the influenza vaccine. Influenza vaccine is now recommended for all pregnant women, all infants, all children on a yearly basis. You're supposed to influenza? Speaker 1: Understand that thimerosal is not added at the end. It's not like, well, that factory next year can make thimerosal free. Thimerosal, you either have to have a thimerosal free factory or you have to not have one. They add thimerosal at each step because the factory is not clean and not sterile. So you either have to have an expensive sterile factory where you don't need thimerosal or you have to have one that produces thimerosal. It's gonna need thimerosal or something the whole time. It needs to be stopped. Speaker 2: This is, the influenza vaccine from Adventist Pasture, their flu zone. Thimerosal, 25. Speaker 1: I'd like to point out that a lot of people didn't know, and and I'm one of them. I've given 2,000 rogam shots. I've been in vaccines for thirty five years. I didn't know that rogam had thimerosal in it. So I think a lot of the doctors were unaware. Speaker 0: There's already confusion because this is what the video looks like on desktop. I verified and this is what it looks like in the app. It says they're all poison, every single one. So I wonder if the president or whoever runs his account know that this is on there. Regardless, it looks like this administration is really prepping the public for a big announcement about vaccines. Keep in mind, very recently, the recommendation has changed for thimerosal, so it is no longer recommended in any vaccine. However, there are other additives that people are concerned about like aluminum. Leave it at that for now, but as always, let me know your thoughts about this and make Speaker 2: sure you're Speaker 0: following me for more.

That there is a movement among our secretary, Kennedy, and others in the anti vax movement to take alum out of vaccines. It's used in about seven different pediatric vaccines, including one by Pfizer as an adjuvant, so it helps stimulate an immune response. So they want to force manufacturers, I believe, to reformulate those vaccines. That would be a major issue because this is a very safe ingredient, it's been used for seventy years, there's really no alternative. If they force manufacturers to have to reformulate all those pediatric vaccines, I think you'd see a lot of vaccines potentially come off the market because there is no good alternative. Meaning that they would no longer be effective, they wouldn't stimulate the immune?

Speaker 0 states his position on vaccines has changed because he learned how they are produced. He had assumed they were produced reasonably, but discovered safety work had not been done. He says that in a book he completed in 2019, he listed vaccination as one of medicine's three great achievements, along with surgery and antibiotics. He now believes the mechanisms used by vaccine manufacturers and the methods used to obscure safety signals invalidate the products. Discovering that vaccines use a trick to hyper-activate the immune system to work, he questioned its safety and its connection to allergies. Speaker 0 says injecting aluminum to hyper-activate the immune system should come with instructions about what to avoid eating or seasons to avoid the shot, to minimize the likelihood of triggering the immune system to react to something that is not a pathogen. Speaker 1 summarizes this by saying the vaccine opens up the body so that anything present at the time can trigger an immune response.

Vaccine recommendations typically come from the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices (an outside consulting committee at CDC) and VRBPAC (within FDA), which recommends vaccine licensure. These committees only adopted evidence-based medicine about twelve years ago. The speaker states that during their administration, they want safety studies prior to vaccine licensure and recommendation. They claim vaccines are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing, and the COVID vaccine was the only one tested in a full placebo trial. They assert that the other 76 shots children receive between birth and 18 have not been safety tested against a placebo, meaning the risk profile is not understood. The speaker intends to remedy this.

Vaccines eradicated smallpox and polio. The speaker was taught that vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary, and there's no reason to question it. Medical school rotations reinforced that vaccines are safe and effective, and the speaker was told to ignore the inserts because that's lawyer jargon. Medical school provided no education about vaccine contents, safety records, informed consent, or the vaccine injury compensation program. The speaker assumed the science was settled and didn't question vaccines.

Speaker 0 asks if Moderna puts any of its profits into helping people injured by the vaccine. Speaker 1 states that indemnities are a matter for the government and cannot comment further. Speaker 0 questions if Moderna is unwilling to underwrite the risk of its own vaccine and prioritize its safety. Speaker 1 reiterates that they take vaccine safety seriously and have a good pharmacovigilance process in place, but indemnities are a matter for policymakers. Speaker 0 asks about the moral responsibility of helping vaccine victims, to which Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 assuming the answer is zero.

The speaker claims that no childhood vaccine has ever undergone a safety trial using a double-blind, placebo-based study. They assert that this type of study, involving a saline injection as a placebo, is the only way to determine the safety of a pharmaceutical product. Furthermore, the speaker states that there has never been a study comparing the health outcomes of children who receive the full schedule of 72 (or potentially up to 90) vaccines to those who receive none. Because of the lack of safety studies and comparative data, the speaker chooses not to inject themselves or their children with vaccines. They want evidence that vaccines are safe and make people healthier.

The speaker expresses concerns about vaccines and their impact on the immune system. They mention their frustration with the lack of transparency from organizations like the WHO and CDC. They believe that interventions in the immune system without proper understanding are foolish. The speaker questions whether various groups, such as pregnant women and the elderly, were included in vaccine testing. They consider such omissions insulting.

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 speaker states the vaccine recommendation panel has been under attack for 20 years. A 2002 congressional investigation allegedly found 97% of panel members had conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. One instance cited four out of five members working for a company when they approved its vaccine, and one voting member held a patent on that vaccine, later sold for $186 million. The speaker says the goal is to ensure the panel consists of individuals without conflicts of interest who are not profiting from their votes. The speaker claims that since the panel's inception in 1986, the vaccine schedule has expanded from 11 doses of five vaccines to 69 to 92 doses of 19 vaccines, none of which have been tested for safety. The speaker asserts this is malpractice and aims to ensure all vaccines are tested for safety so physicians and patients understand the risk profile and benefits of each vaccine.

A PDF crowdsourced document that I believe CNN put out was sent to me by a New York Times reporter researching me, citing 200 different studies on vaccines that supposedly used placebo. I spoke with Dr. Joel Worsch, a pediatrician with an MS in epidemiology who wrote a book and is credible, neutral, and honest, and he says we don't know. There's not enough data to know. He breaks it down: the vast majority of these studies are not on the CDC schedule; many used active comparables, not inert placebo. After filtering, 25% of these studies pertain to vaccines on the schedule. Of those, inert placebo is used in about 5% of items. Longitudinal safety studies are zero; perhaps one or two were prelicensing. Journalists do their job: I spoke to doctor Joe; here's what I found. Cognitive dissidence is described as insecurity about flaws in the party.

Speaker 0 explains that each brand of vaccine is different, including Moderna. Speaker 1 asks if they can see the safety studies for all the vaccines, but Speaker 0 says the information given to patients does not contain that. Speaker 1 asks which vaccine they are giving, and Speaker 0 confirms it is the one they are giving. Speaker 1 questions why the package insert is intentionally blank, and Speaker 0 says the safety studies are inside. Speaker 1 asks how this is informed consent, and Speaker 0 suggests talking to CVS. Speaker 1 expresses concern about not knowing what they are injecting, and Speaker 0 agrees it is a valid point. Speaker 0 admits they cannot answer which studies prove the vaccine is safe and effective.

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

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.

Speaker 0 asks if anyone on the vaccine committee has received money from vaccine manufacturers. Speaker 1 tries to answer but is interrupted. Speaker 1 explains that according to regulations, people who receive royalties are not required to disclose them, even under the Bayh Dole Act.

The speaker asked why the FDA and HHS removed thimerosal from most children's vaccines but left it in a few. They admitted not being vaccine experts and offered to investigate and provide more information later. The speaker expressed interest in sharing the answer with the public.

The speaker claims the current vaccine injury surveillance system, VAERS, captures less than one percent of vaccine injuries, according to a 2010 CDC study. They state that the CDC had a machine counting system to roll out to HMOs but shelved it. The speaker intends to improve surveillance, gather data sets, and create data-sharing agreements with scientists worldwide. They aim to investigate the contribution of vaccines, mold, EMF, food, and other exposures that began in the late 1980s to health issues.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about the lack of clinical trial data for the MMR vaccine. Speaker 1 insists that the vaccine was extensively tested before being licensed and that millions of doses have been used. Speaker 0 asks for proof of pre-licensure clinical trials, but Speaker 1 only refers to a book and mentions studies done in the 1960s. Speaker 0 argues that the data provided is not sufficient and questions the absence of a placebo group. Speaker 1 admits uncertainty about the inclusion of control groups but maintains that safety assessments were conducted. Speaker 0 concludes that no randomized placebo-controlled study exists for the MMR vaccine. Speaker 1 agrees to provide additional information after the deposition.

Exhibit 22 is an excerpt from the IOM's report discussing whether DTaP or TDaP cause autism. The IOM concluded that there is inadequate evidence to determine a causal relationship. Speaker 1 points out that there are no studies showing that vaccines cause autism, except for one study by Guyer and Guyer, who lack legitimacy. They emphasize the need for a proper study involving controlled administration of vaccines. Speaker 1, as a physician, cannot definitively say vaccines do not cause autism, but they believe they do not. Speaker 0 questions if it is appropriate to make that claim without scientific evidence. Speaker 1 argues that they prioritize the child's health and are willing to say vaccines do not cause autism. The IOM did not review if DTaP causes leprosy.