TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

On October 6, 2021, I met with my manager, Conwell Gill, a principal scientist at Pfizer. We discussed the ethics of giving people experimental booster shots for money. mRNA vaccines have been around for 50 years but never made it to clinical use due to side effects. Pfizer and Moderna used the emergency of the pandemic to push through their vaccines. Pfizer collaborated with Beyond Tech on mRNA technology for COVID-19. Everything was new and rushed due to the pandemic. There was no time to think, only to act.

mRNA vaccines, like the ones developed for the pandemic, have brought attention to the potential of gene and cell therapy. Previously, if we had asked the public if they would be willing to receive such treatments, the majority would have refused. However, the pandemic has changed people's perspectives and made them more open to innovative approaches in healthcare.

There is a new mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but there is no evidence to support its effectiveness or safety in human trials. Additionally, several studies from different countries suggest that these vaccines may actually increase the risk of contracting COVID-19 over time. This is concerning and not a typical outcome.

mRNA vaccines have shown the potential of cell and gene therapy. Two years ago, most people would have refused gene or cell therapy, but the pandemic has increased acceptance of innovative treatments.

Every childhood vaccine will be mRNA, becoming gene therapies that alter genetics without re-approval. COVID vaccines were profitable data and experimentation tools, but the real danger is the continued genetic tinkering via mRNA integration into all vaccines. The speaker is now anti-vaxx and will not get any more vaccines for themselves or their family because all vaccines are being redesigned to include gene therapies, driven by profit.

Our company is embracing cell and gene therapy, which has the potential to make a significant impact. The mRNA vaccines are a prime example of this. Just a couple of years ago, if we had asked the public if they would be willing to undergo gene or cell therapy, the majority would have refused. However, the pandemic has changed people's perspectives and made them more open to innovative solutions.

Technology is being rapidly advanced and implemented in humans, particularly messenger RNA vaccines. These advancements are being fast-tracked, and it's important to acknowledge that our food species will also be affected by these vaccines.

- The m n r m r n a technology was a radical qualitative leap forward in technology. - The mRNA is a type of vaccine. - 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. - It bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that. - There are different types that they didn't have to contend with the fact that it wasn't the same technology. There are different technologies. - There certainly are. That are different technologies.

All childhood vaccines will soon be mRNA-based gene therapies, without requiring reapproval. This means that getting any type of vaccine will alter a person's genetics. The focus is now on integrating mRNA into all vaccines, which raises concerns about tinkering with genes. The speaker strongly opposes vaccines and vows not to get any more, emphasizing the financial interests involved in this shift.

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.”

Two years ago, most people would have refused gene or cell therapy, but the pandemic has changed perceptions of innovation. The COVID vaccine is not a traditional vaccine as it doesn't provide immunity or prevent transmission. The Pfizer vaccine wasn't tested for transmission prevention before its release due to the urgency. Vaccinated individuals can still get COVID-19. Countries with rapid mass vaccination have seen increased infections and deaths. A study from the Cleveland Clinic suggests that the more shots received, the higher the risk of getting COVID. Vaccination puts evolutionary pressure on the virus, leading to mutations. Epidemiological analysis shows a significant number of deaths related to the vaccines, with dangerous mechanisms of action and consistency with other fatal conditions. Temporal relation is also evident, with many deaths occurring shortly after vaccination.

We are generating real-time data on mRNA vaccines, which have been in development for years due to side effects. Pfizer and Moderna used the pandemic to accelerate their development. The collaboration with BioNTech on flu led to the quick rollout of the mRNA vaccine. Clinical trials skipped phases, causing uncertainty. Concerns arise about vaccine distribution and the need for booster shots. Politics play a role in decision-making.

The speaker suggests that prior to the pandemic, a survey asking the public about willingness to receive gene or cell therapy would have likely resulted in a 95% refusal rate. They believe the pandemic has opened people's minds to innovation in a way that was previously impossible, using mRNA vaccines as an example.

Every childhood vaccine will be mRNA, becoming gene therapies that alter genetics without re-approval. COVID vaccines were profitable data and experimentation tools, but the danger lies in continued genetic tinkering. mRNA is being integrated into every vaccine. Therefore, no vaccines should be taken. All vaccines are being redesigned to include gene therapies because there is so much money in it.

I've been involved in over 50 vaccines, including mRNA vaccines. mRNA is like DNA, giving cells instructions to make proteins. This technology was originally for gene therapy, now used for vaccines. It's a new, experimental technology never used in humans before COVID. Animal studies were skipped for COVID vaccines, a novel approach.

The speaker argues that an irrational, unbridled enthusiasm for new possibilities leads to a sacrifice of safety. This enthusiasm, in their view, has adversely affected precautionary considerations and risk assessment. They reference presenting autopsy findings related to deaths following COVID-19 vaccination at the American Society of Microbiology, an event attended by thousands of microbiologists, vaccinologists, and immunologists. In conversations with attendees, the speaker was surprised by what they describe as a scientific seduction surrounding messenger RNA technology. The core concern expressed is that this eagerness to embrace mRNA platforms is accompanied by a neglect of safety considerations. The speaker asserts that there will be a cataclysmic recognition that messenger RNA technology represents an unsafe platform. They emphasize that, as they understand it, there is no way to break down certain aspects of the technology they refer to as “pseudourogenated messenger RNA,” noting this within the context of their work in research laboratories. The statement implies a belief that the degradation or metabolic processing of this form of RNA poses unresolved issues. A central, striking claim presented is that circulating messenger RNA from Pfizer or Moderna has been found in their patients’ bloodstream three years after vaccination, and that this RNA is intact. The speaker underscores this as evidence tied to their observations and research experiences, asserting the persistence of the RNA in the circulatory system over an extended period. Overall, the message conveys a perspective that rapid adoption and optimism around mRNA vaccines and technologies have overshadowed safety considerations, and it anticipates a future realization of safety concerns associated with these platforms. The speaker ties their warnings to concrete experiences at a major scientific conference and to specific, long-term biomarkers observed in patients, presenting a narrative of ongoing research findings and anticipated paradigm shifts in how the safety of mRNA vaccines is perceived.

Making mRNA is easy and cheap, which is the key. In the next 5 years, advancements are possible with lipid nanoparticles and their self-assembly. This nano construction surpasses our technological expectations.

The mRNA platform is effective but has a flaw: it can cause autoimmune disorders by producing foreign proteins in cells. The challenge is to target only specific cells and avoid damage to vital organs. The pandemic allowed the emergency use authorization of mRNA vaccines, bypassing safety measures. However, a large portion of the population has already accepted this technology. To address the issue, a solution could be to replace the spike protein with a different protein that doesn't have flaws. But if the problem lies in any foreign protein transcribed by cells, the immune system may still target vital organs.

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.”

We are in a digital and scientific revolution, hacking the software of life with mRNA. Our body is made of organs, organs of cells, and in each cell is messenger RNA transmitting DNA information to proteins. This "operating system" can be altered to impact diseases like the flu and cancer. For instance, instead of injecting virus proteins for a flu vaccine, mRNA instructions can teach the body to make its own protection. This mRNA technology has vast potential for disease prevention and treatment.

We discussed pandemic readiness and the speed of mRNA technology. I proposed a simulation to create a vaccine within 60 days, which was initially met with skepticism. However, due to our work on personalized cancer vaccines, we were prepared. When news of a new coronavirus emerged, we quickly got the sequence and began working on a vaccine. The conversation shifted to the need for disruptive entities to accelerate vaccine development, moving away from traditional methods like egg-based production. The urgency for innovative solutions to address outbreaks was emphasized.

The emergency use authorization (EUA) was crucial for normalizing the mRNA platform, which was seen as a significant advancement in vaccine technology. The fear surrounding COVID-19 helped facilitate acceptance of this new approach, despite existing treatments that could have mitigated the pandemic's impact. If doctors had been allowed to explore effective treatments, the reliance on mRNA vaccines would have been diminished, creating a control group that could reveal potential harms. While the EUA was important, it wasn't strictly necessary; they could have navigated around it. The rollout of the mRNA platform aimed to reshape public perception, and the legal complexities surrounding the EUA provided a layer of immunity for those involved. The backlash and discussions about vaccine injuries may complicate future implementations of this technology.

Moderna and BioNTech used the first sequence of the SARS CoV-2 genome, published on January 10th, to develop their vaccines. Moderna relied solely on the published data and never had the live virus on their site. This highlights the significance of digitizing biology, as Moderna, a leading company in biology, faced a software problem rather than a biological one.

Our company is embracing cell and gene therapy, which has the potential to make a significant impact. mRNA vaccines are an example of this type of therapy. Two years ago, if we had asked the public if they would be willing to undergo gene or cell therapy, the refusal rate would have been around 95%. However, the pandemic has made people more open to innovation in ways that were previously unimaginable.