TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to argue that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and claims that the Gene Technology Act does not apply to manufacturing in other countries. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's acknowledgment of transfection as part of gene therapy. The regulator disputes the definition of gene therapy. The conversation ends without resolution.

All childhood vaccines will soon contain mRNA, making them gene therapies that alter genetics. The vaccines won't require reapproval or go through any additional processes. The focus is on integrating mRNA into every vaccine, which is concerning because it involves tinkering with genes. The speaker urges people to be cautious and not get any vaccines, emphasizing their strong opposition to it. The speaker believes that there is a significant amount of money involved in this shift towards gene therapies.

Synthetic DNA and RNA injections are genetic therapies, not vaccines. The speaker questions the mislabeling of these therapies and criticizes the CDC for redefining vaccines. They argue that the shots are not effective and are being given for non-existent variants. The speaker raises concerns about the safety of these injections, including the potential for cancer and other health risks. They highlight the contamination of the vaccines with DNA and other harmful substances. The speaker calls for the cessation of these shots, the opening of cancer databases, and the return of informed consent in medicine. They emphasize the importance of trust, integrity, and community in navigating these issues.

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 argue that when the body is instructed to make a piece of foreign non-human protein, every cell that expresses it is seen as an invasion, leading the immune system to attack and potentially harm the body's own cells. The speaker also claims that all four companies producing COVID-19 vaccines intentionally chose the spike protein, which is biologically active and potentially toxic, as a component of their vaccines. They find this choice unusual and believe it to be a deliberate decision.

The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's report to argue that mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy. They question why the mRNA vaccine was not tested for genotoxicity and why the Office of Gene Technology Regulator did not consider it as gene technology. The regulator responds that the question of genotoxicity should be directed to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and explains that since the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia and not manufactured there, they are not responsible for checking gene therapy. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's statement about transfection being a part of gene therapy. The regulator suggests a difference in the definition of gene therapy.

The speaker argues that genetic vaccines are totally unacceptable and defines the introduction of transgenes into the human body as gene therapy, questioning how this can be considered acceptable practice for creating vaccines. They assert that encapsulating messenger RNA in nanoparticles and administering it leads to off-target effects, with the effects starting from the ovaries to the brain, liver, spleen, and bone marrow. They emphasize that the biggest problem is going to the bone marrow and the reproductive organs like the ovaries, and then every possible organ. Regarding spike proteins, the speaker states that spike proteins are still detected in the rash after more than a year, which they interpret as evidence that messenger RNA is producing spike proteins. They contend that there is no way for a year-old spike protein to remain in the rash and be detected. Personal choices are also mentioned: they did not choose to get vaccinated because they think it was a foolish decision from the beginning. They have not even opted for the flu shot because they consider it an unwise choice.

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 argue that when the body is instructed to make a piece of foreign non-human protein, every cell that expresses it is seen as an invasion, leading the immune system to attack and potentially harm the body's own cells. The speaker also points out that all four companies producing COVID-19 vaccines chose the same part of the virus, the spike protein, which they believe is biologically active and potentially toxic. They suggest that this choice was intentional and not a coincidence.

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to support the claim that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and manufacturing processes conducted in other countries. The speaker highlights the contradiction in the regulator's statements and the disagreement with Pfizer's definition of gene therapy. The regulator argues that the definition of gene therapy is subjective. The conversation ends without a resolution.

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 asserts that the design of the molecular structures in vaccines and injections has no purpose other than to injure and kill. Drawing on 30 years of experience in rational drug design, they say every component in a vial is chosen by someone with specific objectives (e.g., how quickly absorbed, how long it lasts, where it distributes in the body) and that these components are not random or natural products. They declare the ingredients to be toxic by design and intentionally harmful. This, they claim, fits with what they call “the lie” about the pandemic, arguing there wasn’t a real pandemic. According to Speaker 0, the pandemic’s purpose was to damage the economy, train people to comply under a mock emergency, and compel people to get vaccinated. They warn that if people do nothing, speak up less, and simply follow directives, they will lose their freedom and then their lives. They allege that a self-appointed group of very rich people desires a much smaller global population than 8,000,000,000 people, and they claim to be able to deduce the script behind these events. The speaker urges listeners to start talking to anyone and everyone relentlessly, insisting that this situation is not going away. They warn that without protest and refusal, people will first lose their freedom and then their lives.

The speaker expresses concern about the mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer and Moderna, claiming that they contain deliberate toxicities. They argue 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 believes that this mechanism of toxicity is intentional and points out that all four companies developing COVID-19 vaccines chose the spike protein as a target, which they claim is biologically active and potentially harmful. They find it unlikely that multiple companies would independently choose the same solution, suggesting a deliberate decision.

As the only doctor in the room, I feel the need to clarify that there is a clear distinction between gene therapy and an mRNA vaccine. The medical definition of gene therapy does not include mRNA vaccines. While Mr. Baudet is free to use whichever terms he prefers, it is important to correct this misinformation. Gene therapy is in a completely different stage of research compared to the development of this vaccine. Feel free to express your opinions, but I wanted to address this and set the record straight. Thank you.

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.”

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 Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to argue that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and claims that since the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia, they were not manufactured there. The speaker disagrees, stating that transfection still occurs in Australian citizens. The regulator disagrees with the definition of gene therapy and the reliance on the manufacturer's statements. The conversation ends without a resolution.

Pfizer's own document, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA all acknowledge that mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy. The speaker questions why the mRNA vaccine wasn't tested for genotoxicity and why the Office of Genetic Therapeutics didn't consider it as gene technology. The response states that the TGA is responsible for approving the vaccine and the question of genotoxicity should be directed to them. It is clarified that the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia and not manufactured there. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's admission that transfection is part of gene therapy. The response disagrees with the speaker's interpretation.

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to support the claim that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and manufacturing processes conducted in other countries. The speaker highlights the contradiction in the regulator's statements and emphasizes that transfection, a part of gene therapy, occurs in Australian citizens. The regulator disagrees and questions the definition of gene therapy. The speaker concludes by relying on the manufacturer's statements.

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.

The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's report to argue that mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy. They question why the mRNA vaccine was not tested for genotoxicity and why the Office of Gene Technology Regulator did not consider it as gene technology. The regulator responds that the TGA is responsible for approving vaccine products and addressing genotoxicity concerns. They explain that since the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia and not manufactured there, the Gene Technology Act does not apply. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's statement about transfection being a part of gene therapy. The regulator suggests a difference in the definition of gene therapy.

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 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.

The speaker expresses concern about the mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer and Moderna, claiming that they contain deliberate toxicities. They argue 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 believes that this mechanism of toxicity is intentional and points out that all four companies developing COVID-19 vaccines chose the spike protein, which can trigger blood coagulation, as the target. They find it unlikely that multiple companies would independently choose the same solution and suggest that this is a deliberate decision.

The speaker states that while messenger RNA (mRNA) can be used to produce missing proteins like insulin, using mRNA for vaccines is a failed and dangerous concept. They criticize the US government for not being honest about their involvement in mRNA research, specifically the Adept p three program, which aimed to use mRNA to end pandemics within 60 days.

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 materials. They explain how the immune system normally distinguishes between self and foreign substances, but when mRNA is used to make a piece of a foreign protein, the immune system goes into attack mode. The speaker argues that these vaccines cannot be safe for mass market use as they may cause the immune system to attack its own cells. They also claim that all four companies developing COVID-19 vaccines intentionally chose the spike protein, which they believe is biologically active and potentially toxic.

Nicholas Holcher, an epidemiologist and foundation administrator at the McCullough Foundation, appears on the WiderWake Media Podcast to discuss what he calls harms from the mRNA COVID vaccines and to critique mainstream approaches to the pandemic and public health policy. - Vaccine definitions and mRNA technology - Pre-2000 definition: a vaccine is an injectable or oral product that introduces a killed part of a virus or an inactivated form to the body so that encountering a wild-type version would not infect or would cause a less severe illness. - He asserts that mRNA injections are not vaccines: they are a gene transfer platform using modified messenger RNA with long persistence in the body (via N1-methylpseudouridine), delivered in lipid nanoparticles. He claims these bubbles distribute systemically, including to the brain, heart, bone marrow, and reproductive system, and that they instruct cells to produce a spike protein, effectively turning organs into “toxic spike protein production factories.” He says this leads to autoimmune attack on those tissues and contributes to adverse events, including myocarditis, strokes, immune destruction, and “turbo cancers.” - History and purpose of mRNA in vaccines - According to Holcher, work on this technology existed for decades but animals testing showed high mortality or sterilization in ferrets and mice, preventing approval except under a declared global emergency. He contends the COVID-19 crisis enabled emergency use authorization across Western countries, with ulterior aims to inject the globe with mRNA technology. - Global impact and uptake - He estimates about 70% of the global population received at least one COVID-19 injection (mRNA or viral vector). He notes Eastern countries used non-mRNA platforms (e.g., AstraZeneca/J&J in some places; Sinovac elsewhere) but that uptake in the West was high. - Harms and evidence - Excess deaths: cites a study by Dennis Brancourt et al. estimating around 17 million deaths worldwide as a result of COVID injections (as of September 2023); he claims US deaths could be in the hundreds of thousands to millions. - Turbo cancers: cites multiple studies in 2023 showing increased risk of seven cancer types (colorectal, bladder, breast, thyroid, prostate, etc.) in vaccinated groups; cites a major cancer journal, OncoTarget, reporting hundreds of turbo cancer cases across 27 countries, with Pfizer contributing most cases. Holcher also mentions his own group’s work with Neo7 Bioscience documenting genomic integration of vaccine-derived mRNA in a stage IV bladder cancer patient (31-year-old woman) with a segment of mRNA found in circulating tumor DNA on chromosome 19; another study reported thousands of dysregulated genes in post-vaccine cancers, including p53, KRAS, and BRCA. - Definition of turbo cancer: per Merrick et al., rapid, aggressive tumor progression with sudden onset and early metastasis, often in younger individuals, and resistant to treatment. - Fertility, pregnancy, and autism - Fertility: cites studies suggesting fertility impacts, including Karaman et al. finding depletion of primordial follicles in rats after mRNA vaccination; Manichi et al. reporting 33% lower conception rates in vaccinated women in Denmark; a study indicating a ~20% drop in sperm concentration and motility with no recovery over five months. - Autism: asserts a large body of evidence linking vaccines to neurodevelopmental disorders, citing a 136-study review with 107 studies finding positive associations between vaccines and neurodevelopmental issues, including autism, attributed to toxicity and immune system disruption, particularly in children with high vaccine exposure and reduced detox capacity (CYP450 impairment). - Other topics tied to vaccines and public response - The COVID-19 period and vaccine skepticism: claims the pandemic catalyzed a large anti-vaccine movement because people were compelled to take an experimental gene therapy product. - Sam Altman and gene editing: discusses Altman’s Preventive venture with the aim to reduce heritable diseases via in utero gene editing but warns of the path to designer babies and the potential for harm in early-iteration edits, citing prior CRISPR experiments on human embryos that produced deformed offspring or nonviable results. - AI, workers, and future society: predicts two-tier society with implanted or enhanced individuals and a replacement of human labor by robots and AI systems; discusses military and surveillance ambitions in gene editing and AI augmentation. - Mental health and digital life: references a randomized trial showing that turning off mobile Internet improved depression scores and well-being to an extent comparable to or greater than antidepressants. - World Health Organization (WHO): notes the US has pulled out of the WHO, arguing this is good for the US but potentially harmful for others still in the organization; expresses concerns about the pandemic treaty and ongoing global health governance, including vaccine passport-style surveillance. - FDA and public health policy: acknowledges some shifts (e.g., cutting doses from the childhood schedule) but argues the FDA remains compromised and too aligned with vaccine industry interests; criticizes the removal of a potential black box warning for vaccines and calls for more accountability. - Resources and contact - Holcher invites listeners to follow him on X (Twitter) at @nichulsher and to read their work on focalpoints.com and through McCullough’s network. Note: The transcript presents Holcher’s claims and interpretations about vaccines, turbo cancers, autism, fertility, and policy changes. The summary reproduces these points without endorsement or evaluation.