TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Pfizer reported its vaccine shows 95% efficacy, but this refers to relative risk reduction, not overall risk reduction. In Pfizer's trial, 8 out of 18,198 vaccinated people developed COVID-19. In the unvaccinated group, 162 people contracted it, meaning the risk without the vaccine was 0.88%, reduced to 0.04% with the vaccine. The absolute risk reduction is 0.84%. The 95% figure refers to the relative difference between 0.88% and 0.04%. Relative risk reduction is considered misleading, and the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead. The question is raised how many people would have taken the vaccine knowing it offered less than 1% benefit. In Canada, any potentially serious risk must be disclosed.

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.

Data accumulated to the point where meta-analysis studies could be done. These are very comprehensive analyses, and it virtually came back consistently that there was no benefit to risk ratio for taking a messenger RNA vaccine. In fact, it was more dangerous to take a vaccine than it was to contract COVID-19 and be hospitalized with it. This is we're now in 2022 that the status started to come out. The side effects for this essentially gene therapy were so enormous and progressive. It was difficult to fathom. And then finally, a few months ago, some of the detailed biochemistry studies started to appear in the literature. And this sudden flood of messenger RNA, it appears irrespective of what the messenger RNA insert is coding for. Just the sheer amount of number of millions of molecules of messenger RNA entering the cell is creating biochemical

"dreadful use of vaccines and the mandates that have caused so much problem." "From the very beginning, these vaccines were not vaccines, particularly the ones that ended up after AstraZeneca with all the clots and they were shut down." "The messenger RNA vaccines of Pfizer and Moderna, of course, unbelievable problems and damage to people." "They were pushed into this by Pfizer and all the people that Pfizer and Moderna wanted to get this into everybody." "These were not vaccines. These were horrible gene therapies that could actually integrate into your genome." "turbo cancers." "They are incompetence, medical negligence, everything, and nobody is accepting responsibility for this." "This is Nuremberg trial stuff." "They were never ever effective." "There was no evidence that they were effective whatsoever. It was basically hope, and they were never ever safe."

Calling a product safe and effective requires the absence of danger signals. Current vaccines show danger signals 20 times worse than previous ones over 30 years, making them 600 times more dangerous. These vaccines are also ineffective, increasing the risk of getting COVID. Politicians must face the reality and understand the data presented by Jessica Rose and others. Thank you. Translation: Describing a product as safe and effective hinges on the absence of danger signals. The current vaccines exhibit danger signals that are 20 times worse than those seen in the past 30 years, making them 600 times more dangerous. Additionally, these vaccines are ineffective and increase the likelihood of contracting COVID. It is crucial for politicians to acknowledge the facts and comprehend the information presented by Jessica Rose and other experts. Thank you.

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.

Speaker 0 described a guest whose 18-year-old daughter was injected with Pfizer and developed cancer. He stated that he has sat across numerous people who lost their children to these injections, with some deaths immediate and others gruesome, and that these people must testify to lawmakers and others recounting their stories repeatedly. He framed this as a massive crime that needs to stop. He asserted that the FDA was fully aware that these injections would cause cancer, citing published guidance documents. He claimed that the FDA regulates the industry and, in 2015 and 2013 (and even more recently), wrote extensive guidance documents explaining to manufacturers developing mRNA products that they must study risks, including cancer, death, fertility issues, blindness, strokes, and cardiovascular issues. He said these risks were documented as regulatory knowledge and that manufacturers were told they had to study these risks and exclude them. He also claimed that studying these risks in healthy volunteers was not allowed because it was considered unethical. He contrasted this with 2020, stating that “all of a sudden, all of this is solved,” calling it a joke, and that this period raised his suspicions, prompting him to investigate independently. He concluded by describing the situation as a premeditated crime in which regulators knew, and that the military conducted a “fake exercise” to capture all these pharmaceutical companies and compel them to create these weapons.

They didn't see safety signals because they didn't want to see them and wouldn't report them. They lied about the vaccine staying in the arm, when they knew it wouldn't. They said the mRNA would dissolve in hours or days, but they knew it was modified RNA that stayed in the body with the spike protein. They continue to push this, despite evidence to the contrary. The science has been corrupted and the agencies have been corrupted, so they have no credibility.

The speaker claims that in Pfizer's initial vaccine trial with 20,000 vaccinated and 20,000 unvaccinated participants, the vaccinated group had 23% more deaths from all causes than the placebo group after six months. The speaker states that the claim of 100% vaccine efficacy was based on the fact that two people in the placebo group died from COVID versus one person in the vaccine group. The speaker asserts that people believed the vaccine would prevent them from getting COVID, which they now realize is false.

The COVID special committee revealed significant misinformation regarding the mRNA injection. Claims that it saved 20 million lives were exposed as false; that figure actually refers to all vaccines in history, not just the mRNA injection. In reality, it is suggested that the mRNA injections may have contributed to the deaths of 17 million people globally. There is no evidence to support the notion that these injections are safe and effective, as they were never properly tested.

The speaker explains a distinction between absolute risk and relative risk and shows how both can be technically true but convey different impressions. Absolute risk is described as the real chance of something happening, while relative risk compares two small numbers to emphasize one as much larger than the other, often making the risk appear much bigger or smaller than it truly is. Using a jar example, absolute risk is the chance of drawing a red marble from a jar with 10,000 marbles and only one red marble—a one in ten thousand chance. Relative risk, by contrast, compares two jars: if another jar has two red marbles, the statement would be that you have a 100% greater chance of drawing a red marble in this jar than in the first jar. Although the numbers are both small, the relative risk has doubled. The speaker argues that relative risk is a favorite tool of fearmongers because it makes tiny numbers sound large, whereas absolute risk shows the real-world odds. The speaker then applies this to headlines. A headline claims you are 800 times more likely to get sick from raw milk than from pasteurized milk, labeling this as a relative risk number. It is technically true, but the absolute risk of illness from raw milk is about 1 in 13,000 for the people who drink it, which is less than one one-hundredth of a percent. A similar framing is discussed with COVID-19 vaccines. The Pfizer vaccine is described as 95% effective in headlines, which the speaker notes is the relative risk reduction. In the trial data, the absolute risk reduction—the actual difference in risk between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups—was about 0.8%, less than one percent. The speaker asserts that this shot lowers actual risk by less than one percent, but the media emphasized the 95% figure. While not called a lie, this framing is characterized as incredibly misleading and capable of influencing public decisions. The overarching message is that statistics can be technically true yet used to manipulate public opinion through framing. The speaker urges readers to compare whether a number refers to relative risk or absolute risk whenever confronted with alarming or astonishing headlines. Relative risk is said to sell headlines; absolute risk is said to tell the truth.

Truth is out. Scientists are now confirming what many have long suspected. The COVID shots don't just impact your immune system. They can damage your brain and devastate mental health, and the evidence is overwhelming. A recent wave of studies have revealed shocking increases in ischemic strokes up forty four percent, hemorrhagic strokes up fifty percent, transient ischemic strokes or mini strokes up sixty seven percent, myasthenia gravis, a debilitating autoimmune condition up over seventy one percent, Alzheimer's up twenty two percent, cognitive impairment up nearly a hundred and thirty eight percent, depression up over sixty eight percent, anxiety disorders up nearly forty four percent, and sleep disorders up over ninety three percent, all linked to one thing, toxic spike protein accumulation and persistence in the brain. This isn't a conspiracy theory. There's a documented peer reviewed research published studies by documented experts, including by epidemiologist Nicholas Holcher, who says using mRNA to hijack cells in various organ systems to produce a highly toxic spike protein that persists in the body for months or even years was one of the worst ideas in medical history. So what can you do?

The speakers discuss the potential effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Speaker 1 explains that the idea of DNA fragments and reverse transcription in vaccines is a distinct possibility proven in vitro (in the laboratory) but not as solidly established in real-life humans. He says the machinery exists to reverse transcribe the synthetic mRNA in “these gene products” but notes skepticism about certain public figures and officials who allegedly ignored earlier communications. He cites Denis Rancourt’s data, claiming the vaccine has killed 17 million people and that the injury-to-kill ratio is 34.4. He translates this to global totals of 602 million injured or killed, with approximately 700,000 Americans killed and 2.5 million injured in the United States, describing this as an unprecedented injury-to-kill ratio in medicine and military contexts. He asserts that deadly gene products should have been removed from the market and from Florida two years ago. Speaker 0 asks whether Latipo was alerted two years ago and whether he ignored the warnings. Speaker 1 confirms that Latipo, Ashley Moody, and DeSantis did not respond to communications over the past two years, but notes that Latipo is now taking some action. The conversation shifts to how people can respond health-wise. Speaker 1 contends that health care systems and governments are corrupt, claiming the government has spent trillions of dollars to capture healthcare systems and push dangerous narratives. He urges listeners to leave the conventional healthcare system, describing it as corrupt and implying that healthcare professionals are silenced or fired for speaking out. He promotes an alternative health approach through a parallel system and mentions an emergency medical kit intended to address multiple dangerous diseases and scenarios, asserting that timely access to certain drugs is limited through ordinary medical channels. Throughout, Speaker 1 emphasizes drastic distrust of mainstream medical and governmental institutions, urging viewers to seek alternative health solutions and to prepare for potential health crises. He repeats that the traditional healthcare system is compromised and advocates a shift toward a different healthcare approach and emergency preparedness, including access to medications outside standard channels.

The speaker clarifies they are injured by an mRNA therapeutic, not a vaccine, and highlights issues with lipid nanoparticles and synthetic mRNA, which can persist for hundreds of days. They claim that instructing cells to produce a protein that presents on the cell surface can trigger autoimmune disorders. The speaker states that the spike protein itself is biologically active, causing cells to grow and divide inappropriately, and was known to damage the placenta and lungs. They assert they knew early on that the shot didn't stay in the arm. They cite 2005 research showing the SARS-CoV-1 spike protein alone could harm animals. The speaker references 2015 gain-of-function research at UNC, NIH, and Wuhan labs, where a more lethal and transmissible SARS virus was created. A traditional vaccine attempt for this virus caused harm and lethality in animals, with pathology slides showing similar vascular lung damage seen with SARS-CoV-2. The speaker concludes that "they" knew about these risks but still rolled out the vaccine, profiting from it while falsely claiming it was safe and effective.

Pfizer reported its vaccine has 95% efficacy, but this refers to relative risk reduction, not overall risk reduction. In the Pfizer trial, the unvaccinated group had a 0.88% risk of contracting COVID-19, while the vaccinated group had a 0.04% risk. The absolute risk reduction offered by the Pfizer vaccine is 0.84%. The 95% figure represents the relative difference between 0.88% and 0.04%. Relative risk reduction can be misleading, and the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead. It is important to consider how many people would have chosen to take the vaccines had they understood the less than 1% benefit. In Canada, any potentially serious risk must be disclosed.

They claimed high effectiveness based on one COVID death in the vaccinated group versus two in the unvaccinated, out of 22,000 people. But effective for what, exactly? They kept saying it was a certain percentage effective, but the point was to negate the severity. I remember seeing videos of Fauci, Biden, Gates, and Bourla saying that if you take the vaccine, you can't get or pass COVID. If you want, I can even play the video for you. Regardless, it doesn't matter what Rachel Maddow says.

"you were two to four times more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the COVID vaccine than you were to be hospitalized with COVID." "what is more better described as a gene therapy than as a vaccine." "$500,000,000 worth of investments in the mRNA technology for vaccines." "mega analysis of all the data." "Hundreds of studies, peer reviewed studies showing the harms of the mRNA vaccine." "the side effects of this gene therapy was so enormous and progressive, it was difficult to fathom." "The millions of molecules of mRNA entering the cell is creating biochemical havoc." "It's disrupting protein metabolism." "It's interfering with tumor suppressor genes." "In other words, it may be a risk factor for cancer." "it's highly likely that the COVID vaccines have been a factor, a significant factor in the cancer of members of the royal family."

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.

We were deceived with false information about the safety and effectiveness of these products. The claim that they would remain at the injection site and lymph nodes was proven false. The modified RNA in these products was said to only last a short time, but we now know it remains active in the body for weeks or even months. We were also manipulated into believing that we all needed to be vaccinated for everyone to be safe, using illegal tactics like coercion and enticement. These lies were used to justify the deployment of these experimental products, which aimed to establish a profitable vaccine platform technology.

I recently testified in the US Senate on December 7th, 2022. I want to be very clear: the vaccine is killing people, and it's killing large numbers of people. It fulfills all the criteria for the Bradford Hill tenets of causality for a medicinal product causing death. As of December 23rd, 2022, the CDC has recorded over sixteen thousand Americans that have died within a few days of taking the vaccine, and that's probably a gross underreport. I was recently at a conference in Romania on the COVID crisis. There was a lot of work trying to unpack what we actually understand, and I saw a credible estimate of something like seventeen million deaths globally from this technology. When you scale up to billions, it's not hard to reach a number like that with a technology this dangerous.

"a systematic review of autopsy findings and deaths after COVID nineteen vaccination, actually proved a causal link between these mRNA shots and death." "A study by Alessandro and colleagues found a thirty seven percent life expectancy reduction in those who received two or more doses." "The first one, ninety nine million people in it. They found, five hundred percent increased risks of myocarditis, about two hundred, three hundred percent increased risks of spinal cord inflammation." "The second largest study with eighty five million people, and it just came out. They found three hundred percent increased risks, heart attacks, strokes, arrhythmias, and coronary artery disease." "And then we had another study last week that came out that showed people with strokes who got mRNA shots are producing spike protein in their cerebral arteries, so in their brains, for up to seventeen months."

Speaker 0 explains a common manipulation in presenting statistics, distinguishing absolute risk from relative risk. Absolute risk is defined as the real chance of something happening. Relative risk compares two small numbers to make one seem much larger, often used to fear-mmonger. The example given is a jar with 10,000 marbles, one red marble. The chance of picking the red marble is one in ten thousand—that is the absolute risk. If there is a second jar with two red marbles, the relative risk comparison would say you have a 100% more chance of getting a red marble in this jar than in the first jar. Even though the absolute probabilities are both very small, the relative risk makes the difference appear dramatic. Relative risk is described as a favorite tool of fearmongers because it makes a tiny number sound huge, whereas absolute risk shows the real-world odds. The speaker then applies this distinction to headlines. They cite a headline claiming you are “eight hundred and forty times more likely to get sick from raw milk than from pasteurized milk.” This is a relative risk number and is technically true, but the absolute risk of getting sick from raw milk is about one in thirteen thousand for the people who drink it, which is less than one one-hundredth of one percent. The same framing tactic is said to have been used with COVID vaccines. Regarding vaccines, the Pfizer vaccine is described as “ninety-five percent effective,” a number that was widely publicized. The speaker notes that this figure is the relative risk reduction. When examining the actual trial data, the absolute risk reduction—the real difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups—was about 0.8 percent, less than one percent. The speaker emphasizes that the shot “lowers your actual risk by less than one percent,” but this was not the framing chosen; instead, the larger, scarier-sounding percentage was presented. The argument is that people made significant life decisions based on that framing. The overall message is that statistics can be technically true yet misleading, influencing public opinion in areas like food safety or medicine. The recommended approach when encountering scary or amazing numbers in headlines is to ask whether the figure refers to relative risk or absolute risk. The speaker concludes: relative risk sells headlines; absolute risk tells the truth.

Pfizer's claim of 96% efficacy for their vaccine was questioned. The study and data were not independently verified, and Pfizer wanted to keep the data hidden for 75 years. The true effectiveness of the vaccine, based on absolute risk reduction, is less than 1%. More people died and were harmed in their trials compared to the placebo group. The vaccine's safety was questionable from the start, and it is not effective. Additionally, appropriate studies were not conducted for new variants.

"What happened is that the data had accumulated to the point where meta analysis studies could be done." "And it virtually came back consistently that there was no benefit to risk ratio for taking a messenger RNA vaccine." "In fact, it was more dangerous to take a vaccine than it was to contract COVID nineteen and be hospitalized with it." "The side effects for this essentially gene therapy was so enormous and progressive, it was difficult to fathom." "Just the sheer amount of number of millions of molecules of messenger RNA entering the cell is creating biochemical havoc." "It's disrupting protein metabolism." "It's interfering with tumor suppressor genes." "It's just completely it's damaging the mitochondria, the powerhouses of the cell." "It's it had to be stopped."

Speaker 0 states that death rates from the vaccine are extraordinarily high, claiming there have been more deaths in eight months than in all the billions of vaccines combined over the last thirty years for this one vaccine, totaling seventeen thousand recorded deaths in the United States, and asserts the death rate is much higher, “probably 40 times.” The speaker says the risk from the vaccine is completely untenable and that if people knew the truth they would not be taking this vaccine, and that the benefits after six months are apparently zero or even subzero. Speaker 0 references British data, claiming that people who are vaccinated are actually more likely in many age categories to get COVID than people who are unvaccinated, and asserts this outcome was predicted. The speaker alleges that Pfizer knew this would happen, citing their clinical trial, which they say was only six months long; at the end of that period, they claim twenty people died in the vaccine group and fourteen in the placebo group of all-cause mortality. They further claim there were five heart attacks in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo group, concluding that the chance of dying of a heart attack when vaccinated is five hundred percent greater than if one is unvaccinated. Speaker 0 contends that Pfizer knew they were going to kill a lot of people and proceeded to do so anyway. They insist that people need access to those studies to understand what they describe as deceptive, criminal deception that has supposedly been imposed upon them.