TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asks why Speaker 1 doesn't feel safe in the US, to which Speaker 1 responds that they believe there will soon be a wave of forced vaccinations disguised as voluntary ones. Speaker 1 mentions that the World Health Organization has been working on vaccines that cause permanent sterility and that illegally approved vaccines contain a substance called squalene. Speaker 2 explains that squalene is used to make vaccines more immunogenic but can also cause adverse reactions. Speaker 1 claims that the US government wants to provoke a pandemic using a live attenuated virus. The conversation ends abruptly.

Currently, there is too much convergence between the government, the National Assembly, and the general press, which is unhealthy. There needs to be checks and balances, debates, and many decisions being made are authoritarian and lack scientific substance. For example, forcing people to take an experimental vaccine without giving them a choice is unethical and goes against the principles of medical experimentation. In the future, we will look back and question how such things were allowed to happen. The communication world is starting to collide with reality, whether it's about vaccines or other issues. The vaccines were rushed and not properly evaluated, and there have been adverse effects reported. The number of complaints against the vaccines will continue to rise. It's important to understand the risks and benefits and not exaggerate the severity of the disease.

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.

A child born in a US hospital receives pharmaceutical interventions, like erythromycin ointment and a hepatitis B vaccine, without informed consent. The ointment prevents chlamydial infections, though mothers are tested for chlamydia. The hepatitis B vaccine is for a sexually transmitted/IV drug user disease, which babies are not exposed to. There is a huge economic incentive to get more vaccines on the schedule because the government pays hundreds of millions of dollars for mandated products. Once approved, these vaccines are paid for everyone, and questioning them is discouraged by trusted institutions. YouTube will censor and demonetize videos that show skepticism of vaccine efficacy or need, even without directly attacking vaccines.

"I don't know what happened in 1990. There was no plague that was killing children that we had tripled the amount of vaccines." "Happened after 1989? The vaccine schedule. Born to 26 more vaccines. Agreed. Are all of them absolutely necessary?" "They wanna make money." "It's twice as many as anywhere else in 30 countries in the Western world. But We give twice as many shots as any of those countries." "Should you educate yourself. We wanna empower parents to educate themselves. Do we need to have the chicken pox? Do we need the hepatitis b shot on the second day of life?" "I don't think we can afford to assume that the people who are charged with our public health any longer have our best interest at heart all the time."

The speaker believes cooperation with companies developing vaccine technology should be outlawed due to "nefarious intent" and financial incentives. They claim the pharmaceutical industry profits from vaccine-induced adverse outcomes, leading to costly medical treatments and prescriptions. Vaccines are described as an "economic loss leader" for the medical-industrial complex. Healthy, unvaccinated children don't generate revenue, while vaccines can lead to health issues like asthma, allergies, ADD/ADHD, diabetes, and cancer. The speaker compares vaccines to a free gift that lures people into purchasing more expensive products or services. They argue that "free" vaccines can cost individuals their health, citing potential side effects like Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis, encephalitis, and neurological issues, as well as turbo cancers, respiratory problems, and myocarditis. A forthcoming study will allegedly reveal a significant number of deaths from chronic renal disease linked to vaccines. The speaker concludes that the pharmaceutical industry fiercely defends the vaccine schedule because it drives their profits, especially with the advent of mRNA technology.

In 1985, millennials received a few vaccines. Today, children may receive up to 70 shots by age 18, including 27 before age 2, and up to 6 shots in one visit. The speaker asks if these shots are producing healthier kids, and claims the data says no. The speaker suggests that asking questions about the vaccine schedule is discouraged. Some parents who question the schedule may be reported to Child Protection Services or dismissed from their pediatrician's office. The speaker asserts that parents are being held hostage and did not sign up to co-parent with the government.

Speaker 0 frames the issue as 'the corruption of science' and the 'capture of the agencies' by pharmaceutical industries, stating the goal is to restore integrity and credibility to science. Speaker 1 cites a CDC internal study: 'black boys who got the vaccine on time had a two hundred and sixty percent greater chance of getting an autism diagnosis than children who waited.' He adds that 'The chief chief scientist on that, Doctor. William Thompson, the senior said vaccine safety science at CDC, was ordered to destroy that data. And then they published it without that fact.' Finally, he asserts, 'So, you know that story. And you know of hundreds of stories like that. It happens all the time. We are being lied to by these agencies, and we're gonna change that right now.'

The discussion centers on the credibility of vaccine safety claims made by various health organizations and the FDA. One speaker argues that vaccines undergo rigorous testing, while the other contends that no vaccine has ever completed a long-term placebo-controlled trial before being licensed. They express distrust in the FDA, citing past issues with drugs like Vioxx and opioids, suggesting that the FDA misled doctors and the public about their safety. The speaker believes that pharmaceutical companies influence these agencies, leading to misinformation about vaccine safety. The goal is to address and rectify this perceived corruption.

I believe in safe vaccines, robust science, and independent regulators. The problem with vaccines is that they have become profitable, leading to an increase in the number of vaccines given to children. In 1986, a law was passed that protects vaccine companies from being sued, removing their incentive to make vaccines safer. The four companies that make all 72 mandated vaccines have a history of wrongdoing. There is a body of science that supports my position, but I won't go into it here. The few studies that exist are flawed and written by industry and the CDC. The Institute of Medicine has criticized the CDC for not properly studying the link between autism and vaccines. Big tech companies like Facebook are censoring vaccine information. I am not anti-vaccine, but I advocate for safe vaccines.

Pharmaceutical companies buy TV ads not to influence people to ask for specific drugs, but to manipulate the news industry. The ads are a tactic to buy off the news and prevent them from investigating the pharmaceutical industry. The news acts as a referee, labeling anyone who questions vaccine safety as anti-science, while the two largest vaccine makers have been involved in criminal activities. People who have experienced vaccine injuries are silenced and labeled as anti-science. The media is funded by pharmaceutical companies at all levels, creating a dark reality. The speaker believes it is empowering to recognize this and calls for a shift away from trusting pharmaceutical companies, especially considering the massive government funding they receive.

Speaker 0 describes a study on the hepatitis B vaccine, stating it is loaded with mercury during the first thirty days of life and comparing infants who received it in that period to those who did not or who received it later. He claims that the relative risk of smoking a pack a day for twenty years leading to lung cancer is ten, with a figure of 11.35, and attributes this to Thimerosal. Speaker 1 asks if the claim is about Thimerosal, and Speaker 0 confirms, then recounts a story that motivated his involvement: a “secret meeting” held to avoid on-campus exposure to freedom of information requests. The meeting occurred at Simpson Wood, a remote Methodist retreat center on the Chattahoochee River in Norcross, Georgia. Over two days, 52 attendees included major vaccine companies, regulatory agencies (WHO, CDC, FDA, NIH, HHS), and leaders in academic vaccinology. Megan recorded the first day, and Speaker 0 says he obtained the transcripts in 2005, calling them horrific. He invites listeners to read them on the Children’s Health Events site to judge for themselves, arguing the transcripts reveal “panjarums of the American healthcare system” and that regulators claimed the science was bulletproof while suggesting vaccines cause autism. Speaker 1 notes that Speaker 0 has previously claimed the conference revealed that vaccines cause autism and that data should be buried, referencing a January 2011 Rolling Stone article and a Salon piece that later withdrew the article. He mentions an eighteen-month US Senate committee investigation that found allegations of CDC misconduct unsubstantiated and concluded there was no cover-up. Speaker 0 clarifies it was a two-year committee hearing led by Senator Burton at the Governmental Oversight Committee, and asserts that vaccines do cause autism, while encouraging listeners to research the science themselves rather than trust him or the organizations cited. Speaker 0 then attacks the credibility and funding of CDC, NIH, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, claiming they are “bought and paid for,” with statistics he cites: FDA is funded 45% by the pharmaceutical industry; the AAP allegedly gets 80% of its money from industry; and the CDC spends 4,900,000,000 of its 12,000,000,000 annual budget. Speaker 1 pushes back by noting that parents within these organizations vaccinate their own children against vaccines that include thimerosal, asking rhetorically whether they are willingly harming their children, and suggesting a broader government conspiracy. Speaker 0 then directs Speaker 1 to the movie Dopesick for further context, contrasting it with opioid prescriptions, and asserts that doctors treated patients and their own children with opioids because they believed FDA guidance. Overall, the dialogue centers on thimerosal in early vaccines, alleged hidden meetings and data suppression, controversial media coverage of vaccines-autism links, and critical claims about regulatory agency funding and conduct, culminating in comparisons to pharmaceutical and medical industry dynamics.

World governments have harmed millions without apology. The speaker believes vaccines cause autism, but mainstream media won't discuss it. They gathered data from 10,000 parents showing a link between vaccines and autism, ADHD, and other health issues. More shots lead to poorer health in children.

The speakers discuss the increased number of vaccines since 1990 and question if all are necessary. One speaker claims the US vaccine schedule includes twice as many shots as other Western countries. They suggest parents should educate themselves, space out or delay vaccines, and clean out toxins. One speaker believes public health officials may not always have people's best interests at heart. They claim the AAP and medical schools are financed by drug companies and that vaccines are the pharmaceutical industry's largest growing division, worth $13 billion. They suggest asking pharmaceutical companies to take a loss for the good of children is a tough sell.

The speaker claims colored vaccines are dangerous, with no clinical benefit and over 10,000,000 deaths worldwide. They suggest avoiding vaccination altogether, citing studies showing unvaccinated kids are healthier. They criticize censorship by the government and medical boards, leading to job loss and license revocation for speaking out against the narrative. The medical journals are also deemed corrupt. Speaker 1 mentions not every batch causes harm, as they themselves took a few shots without issue.

World governments have harmed millions without apology. Vaccines are linked to autism, ADHD, and other health issues. The more shots kids get, the more likely they are to have these conditions. The truth is often silenced in mainstream media.

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.

Laura Logan hosts a discussion with Dr. Sherri Tenpenny on vaccines, public health policy, and what they see as failures and harms within the system. The conversation weaves together personal history, policy details, scientific debates, and broader social concerns, intercut with promotional content for GiveSendGo. Key points and claims raised by Dr. Tenpenny - Vaccine ingredients and aluminum exposure: Tenpenny asserts that if someone receives every vaccine on the schedule, they would be injected with a total of about twelve thousand micrograms of aluminum, which she says is inflammatory to every organ system and can be stored in bones (60% of aluminum exposure). She notes aluminum is present in vaccines in order to replace mercury, which she describes as also a poison. - Early vaccine industry liability and the 1986 Act: The discussion explains that prior to 1986 there were liability concerns for vaccine makers due to injury lawsuits. Tenpenny recounts that in 1986 Congress passed a law giving the pharmaceutical industry liability immunity for vaccines, creating what she describes as a ramp in the vaccine schedule. She cites that by 1991 additional vaccines were introduced (Hep B at birth, Hib, chickenpox, Prevnar, Gardasil, Hep A, and more) and alleges this resulted in a rising autism incidence aligned with new vaccines. - The vaccine injury system: Tenpenny explains the Injury Compensation Act and the existence of VAERS as a tracking system, along with a separate pathway created under the PREP Act (the Preparedness and Readiness Act). She states that during the COVID era a separate program, the Covered Countermeasure Program (CICP), existed under the PREP Act, but it had no funding and a one-year statute of limitations, leading to under-compensation and very few adjudicated cases; she contrasts this with the earlier 1986 act, which funded vaccine injury compensation through the Federal Court of Claims and VAERS. - Perceived safety and effectiveness concerns: The speakers discuss studies suggesting that the flu shot might not prevent flu and that some studies indicate vaccines including pneumonia vaccines may be associated with higher risk of the conditions they aim to prevent. Tenpenny frames this as evidence of cracks in the vaccine program and argues that vaccines are linked to a broad spectrum of health issues, including autoimmune diseases, infertility, and cancers, which she says have been increasing. - Pediatric vaccination schedule and “pediatric poisoning program”: Tenpenny asserts that infants receive multiple injections early in life, with claims that by age two they will have thousands of micrograms of aluminum and other compounds that remain in the body, including in the brain. She characterizes the pediatric schedule as a systematic poisoning program for children and a parallel “adult assault program” for adults receiving vaccines. - COVID-19 vaccine controversy and health impacts: The conversation covers the COVID vaccines, including assertions about adverse effects such as myocarditis, strokes, kidney injury, autoimmune diseases, neurological issues, and cancers. Tenpenny describes long-term concerns (long COVID, autoimmune diseases) and claims of widespread injury and death, contending that the pandemic revealed how the health-care and pharmaceutical systems operate, including alleged corruption and profit motives. She discusses the difficult experiences of families during the pandemic, including restrictions on care and the use of alternate treatments like ivermectin in some cases. - The claim that COVID vaccines were not properly evaluated and that mandated vaccination reflected coercion: The speakers discuss mandates and the experiences of individuals in workplaces and educational institutions who faced pressure to receive vaccines, including religious exemptions and disputes about mandates. Tenpenny suggests a broader pattern of overreach in public health policy and questions about the balance between individual rights and mandates. - History and philosophy of public health programs: They discuss the Healthy People initiatives, arguing that the program’s goals have expanded in scope (from 15 goals to 1,200 for Healthy People 2030) and that the expansion is associated with greater surveillance and control over personal lives. Tenpenny claims that this is part of a broader trend toward data collection and governance of individual health and behavior. - The economics and incentives around vaccines: The conversation notes how physicians are compensated in part through vaccine administration, implying financial incentives influence clinical decisions. Tenpenny emphasizes the profit motive behind vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry’s financial interests, citing extreme examples like the one boy in a photo who allegedly became heavily medicated due to vaccines. - The role of media and information control: They discuss the influence of advertising in media since the 1990s and the difficulty of reporting critically on vaccines when major advertisers are pharmaceutical companies. They also mention AI and misinformation concerns, including examples of AI fabricating sources and the need to verify information. - Personal stakes, accountability, and political possibilities: Tenpenny discusses personal cost for challenging the vaccine paradigm, including an earlier period of potential licensing scrutiny and professional pushback. She names figures such as Fauci and Birx, argues that accountability has not yet occurred, and expresses hope that public interest in accountability could shift through advocacy and political leadership, citing RFK Jr. as a potential ally though acknowledging political and institutional obstacles. - Treatment and detoxification approaches: For those who have already received vaccines, Tenpenny outlines two separate tracks: detoxification for childhood vaccines and detox for COVID vaccines. For detox, she mentions products such as PureBody Extra (PBX), a zeolite-based supplement she says helps remove metals like aluminum and mercury from the body. She notes it is usable across age groups and even for pets, and she personally uses it. She also discusses non-specific detox approaches such as vitamin D optimization, lymphatic stimulation, exercise, and a diet focusing on avoiding white foods and reducing inflammation. She cautions that there is no proven blood or urine test to quantify spike protein after a COVID vaccine, and that detox strategies aim to support overall health rather than remove embedded spike protein from tissues. - The role of faith and resilience: The interview includes discussions of faith as a guiding force for Tenpenny, including her personal journey toward Christian faith in 2020. They reflect on fear, hope, forgiveness, and the idea that one can act with integrity and do the right thing even when faced with controversy or personal cost. They discuss existential questions about meaning, purpose, and moral responsibility, including the belief that life has a spiritual dimension that informs how to respond to public-health challenges. - Community and parenting: The conversation emphasizes the importance of community networks for new parents, including seeking mentorship from experienced parents and trusted health advocates, and maintaining parental agency in decisions about vaccines, medical interventions, and child-rearing. They discuss the value of critical thinking, asking questions, and avoiding blind trust in professionals or institutions. - Closing notes and resources: Tenpenny provides her websites and a Substack for ongoing information, including dr10penny.com, dr10penny.substack.com, and 10pennywalkwithgod.substack.com, as well as her X profile busy doctor t. The episode closes with a call to viewers to stay informed and to seek second opinions, while thanking the audience for supporting independent journalism. Overall, the dialogue centers on a critical, conspiratorial framing of vaccines, public-health policy, and the medical establishment; it weaves together testimonies about personal experience, policy history (notably the 1986 Act and the PREP Act), alleged systemic failures in compensation for vaccine injuries, criticisms of COVID-19 responses and vaccine mandates, and practical detoxification and faith-based guidance. The promotional content for GiveSendGo lightly interrupts the core discussion, but the majority of the exchange remains an extended argument about vaccine safety, accountability, and the perceived influence of big pharma on health care and public policy.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

After 1989, the U.S. administers twice as many vaccines as other Western countries. Parents should educate themselves on vaccine choices, questioning the necessity of certain shots like the hepatitis B vaccine at birth. There is concern that public health officials may not always prioritize individuals' best interests. The speaker questions why doctors wouldn't want to learn more about life-saving vaccines, suggesting financial ties between pharmaceutical companies and medical institutions influence vaccine promotion. Advocating for children's well-being may clash with the profit-driven pharmaceutical industry.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the hepatitis B vaccine agenda and controversy around its use for newborns. Speaker 1 describes an upcoming September meeting where hepatitis B vaccine is on the agenda, predicting an effort to change the birth dose so that children wouldn’t receive it at birth. They say that if a mother has good prenatal care and known hepatitis B status, that may not matter, but if a mother does not attend prenatal care, the child would have only one opportunity to receive the vaccine. Speaker 0 reacts strongly, arguing that the person promoting the vaccine is inappropriately chosen to advocate for it. They state that the vaccine “was made for people who partake in promiscuous sex with multiple partners or share heroin needles,” and disclaim any direct accusation about the person’s needle-sharing, while asserting that this individual fits a certain group. They question why this person should mandate a hepatitis B vaccine for their child, insisting that in the United States people should be allowed to live freely, but not have the government or advocates push a vaccine tied to a particular lifestyle onto a newborn. Speaker 0 contends that the day-one vaccination would not provide long-lasting protection, especially if the person’s argument is framed as addressing a disease tied to sexual activity. They point out that the majority of pregnant individuals in America are not hepatitis B positive (citing a statistic they recall), and ask why their child should receive an injection for a sexually transmitted infection on day one of life. Speaker 0 challenges religious leaders who support the vaccination program, asking what they would say to families who do not plan for their child to engage in the behaviors associated with hepatitis B transmission. They question the alignment with religious beliefs, asking believers of various faiths whether they intend for their child to share heroin needles. They suggest a paradox in relating the injection to the condition of being created in the image and likeness of God, and conclude with a provocative remark about losing sight of religious or moral principles. Throughout, the speakers frame the hepatitis B vaccination strategy as an ideological fight over who should decide what is injected into newborns, juxtaposing public health goals with concerns about personal freedom, lifestyle, and religious beliefs.

Most doctors can't tolerate being called quacks or having their reputation destroyed. "can we stop giving vaccines to my sick patients, to people who are having, chemotherapy while they're having chemotherapy to my patient before I've even seen them on the ward? Can we just can we just hold this up and give it to them on the day of discharge?" That was my request in the beginning. "do you know that they're giving COVID vaccines to six month old children now?" "We know how bad it is. We know that it ruins stem cells in pregnant women. They don't give stem cells to their babies. The industry is upset because the placentas no longer have stem cells." "There were two snake genes in there." "Nope. We gotta put it on the vaccine, the baby vaccine schedule, because any doubts whether or not well funded about the vaccination must not be allowed to exist." "Well, that that's been the case since, you know, basically, the the medical profession was infiltrated in the early nineteen hundreds by, you know, high level interests that that didn't want us thinking for ourselves and carrying along with the natural cures that actually work."

People should not take medical advice from non-physicians and should be skeptical of all medical advice, doing their own research. Experts could form a technocratic class funded by Big Pharma, which influences information. The aim could be to turn humans into a cattle class controlled by corruption, rather than relying on inner connection or nature. Living in a democracy requires doing your own research and being skeptical of authority, as people in authority and the media lie. Critical thinking was shut down during COVID, with media complicity. The CDC no longer recommends vaccines for pregnant women, suggesting those who took them may have a case, but Big Pharma has immunity. The public paid for COVID research, media campaigns promoting vaccines, and will pay for lawsuits related to vaccine injuries, while an elite class evades justice. The solution is to reject the corrupt system and embrace a higher divine power.

The vaccine discussion is overly simplified. People distrust the government because they recommend a Hepatitis B vaccine for one-day-old infants, despite it being contracted through drug use and sexual transmission. I believe in vaccines, but not a one-size-fits-all approach. I delayed my children's Hepatitis B vaccine until they started school. On the COVID vaccine, there's a huge difference in risk between the elderly and children. The science doesn't support mandating it for healthy six-month-olds. For those over 65 or with risk factors, the vaccine was advisable. We should openly debate these issues. There isn't any clear scientific evidence about what causes autism, so shouldn't we keep an open mind about potential causes like vaccines? We need to follow the science without presuppositions.

"I don't know what happened in 1990. There was no plague that was killing children that we had tripled the amount of vaccines." "Happened after 1989? The vaccine schedule mourn to 26 more vaccines. Agreed. Are all of them absolutely necessary? They wanna make money." "It's twice as many as anywhere else in in 30 countries in the Western world." "But We give twice as many shots as any of those countries." "Should you should educate yourself. We wanna empower parents to educate themselves." "Do we need to have the chickenpox? Do we need the hepatitis b shot on the second day of life?" "I don't think we can afford to assume that the people who are charged with our our public health any longer have our best interest at heart all the time." "Parents have to take have to make their own decisions, educated decisions."