TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

We were all hopeful when we heard the vaccine was 95% effective, thinking it was our way out. But maybe we were too optimistic and not cautious enough. We didn't consider the possibility of the vaccine wearing off or being less effective against future variants.

The speaker emphasizes the lengthy process of developing a safe and effective vaccine, usually taking 10 to 25 years. They mention a potential safety issue with coronavirus vaccines, where immunization may lead to immune enhancement when exposed to the virus. This phenomenon has been observed in laboratory animals. Despite this concern, the speaker expresses enthusiasm for the approval of the second vaccine, stating that if enough Americans get vaccinated, virus transmission could be halted. They also mention the availability of new boosters, recommending anyone who is safe to get them for added protection.

The speaker expresses disappointment that the existence of myocarditis was known very early on. They claim to have written to Fauci in 2020 and 2021 about lymphopenia and the failure to clear the virus, asserting that this failure was also known early on. The speaker states the perception of 95% efficacy was inaccurate and suggests there were perverse incentives at play, and now the consequences must be recognized. Another speaker then states that this is why Fauci needed a pardon.

Vaccines are seen as magical but expectations should be tempered. Pfizer's vaccine is 95% effective, but efficacy drops over time. Boosters may be needed annually. Moderna is working on a combined flu and COVID vaccine. The future is uncertain, but we must adapt.

Speaker 0 asks if the vaccine prevented people from getting COVID. Speaker 1 believes it lessened symptom severity and reduced emergency room visits, a view supposedly held by 90% of objective experts. Speaker 0 regrets getting vaccinated, fearing he would miss his son's birth. He got COVID a couple of weeks after vaccination and received conflicting test results, questioning the competence of the testers.

The speaker acknowledges that the vaccine did not completely stop the spread or infection, but clarifies that initially it did for the Wuhan strain and the alpha strain. Early data and literature published in the New England Journal showed that those who were vaccinated and didn't get infected were not transmitting the virus to others. The vaccine had a high efficacy of up to 96% early on and this efficacy did not change over time.

The speaker expresses a deep loss of optimism, stating that they are no longer optimistic and attributing a specific cause. They claim that the RNA vaccines, specifically modRNA vaccines, have already accomplished their supposed function, and that this outcome was not anticipated by the planners. According to the speaker, the vaccines’ effects were not understood at the time the programs were designed. The speaker asserts that the vaccines have caused vessels throughout the body to be attacked from head to toe, describing a systemic process never seen in any other disease. They characterize this as systemic vasculitis, which they say leads to the destruction of brain cells. The speaker warns that billions of people are experiencing brains that are not functioning as they should, stating that those individuals “are altered” and that they do not have the willpower or the intelligence to perform basic actions. A central claim is that the only chance to address the situation is to stop what the speaker terms this “modRNA crime.” They describe the situation as a crime and suggest it will destroy humanity if not halted. The speaker emphasizes that these RNA vaccines are being rolled out broadly, asserting that people do not realize the extent to which this is being done. The overall message conveys a fear that widespread deployment of RNA vaccines is causing systemic vascular and neurological damage, and that urgent action is necessary to stop it.

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 speaker discusses the arrival of the vaccine and its effectiveness in preventing transmission. They mention that the vaccine was a pleasant surprise for the medical community, as it initially seemed to protect against severe forms of the virus and transmission. However, further observations revealed that the vaccine's duration of protection was relatively short, especially in older individuals, and its ability to limit transmission was limited. The speaker acknowledges that they and the scientific council may have made mistakes in their understanding of the vaccine's effects. They also address concerns about the vaccine's safety and emphasize the importance of ongoing monitoring. Overall, the vaccine provided some protection against severe forms of the virus but did not meet expectations in terms of transmission prevention.

The speaker describes unbridled enthusiasm and irrational exuberance for life as sacrificing safety. They state they presented autopsy work on death after COVID-19 vaccination at the American Society of Microbiology, where thousands of microbiologists, vaccinologists, and immunologists attended. As people visited, the speaker was stunned by what they call scientific seduction by messenger RNA technology. They predict a cataclysmic recognition that mRNA platforms are unsafe, claiming there is no way to break down pseudourrogenated messenger RNA. The speaker asserts that circulating messenger RNA from Pfizer or Moderna remains in patients’ bloodstream three years after the shots, described as intact.

The speakers emphasize the importance of vaccination in reducing transmission and returning to normalcy. They express confidence in the effectiveness of vaccines, stating that vaccinated individuals do not carry the virus or get sick. Getting vaccinated and receiving booster shots are seen as life-saving measures that protect family and friends from serious illness and infection. The goal is to break the chain of transmission and become a dead end for the virus. Vaccinated individuals do not become infected and cannot spread the virus further. However, it is noted that the initial emergency use authorization did not have sufficient data on the vaccine's impact on transmission. The speed of scientific progress necessitated quick action.

The speaker reflects on the difficulty of understanding COVID-19 due to being misled by trusted authorities, leading to public avoidance of the topic. Stories about COVID-19 don't perform well, not because of a lack of strong feelings, but because it's "triggering." People are angry that nothing changed, children were "screwed over," and some feel unhealthier after vaccination, with worries about their children. The speaker admits to not getting everything right about COVID-19, giving themselves a "B plus," citing the challenge of widespread deception from previously trusted entities.

Some people love the vaccines, while others hate them. The speaker acknowledges that vaccines have saved lives, but also mentions concerns about their safety. Reports vary on the effectiveness and problems with the vaccines, but the speaker claims to have saved 100 million lives. They argue that those who get very sick and go to the hospital are usually the ones who haven't taken the vaccine. The mainstream media is accused of stifling information about adverse reactions. The speaker believes the vaccines have saved millions of lives but criticizes the media for pausing the Johnson and Johnson vaccine over a small number of cases.

The speakers discuss the importance of vaccination in reducing transmission and returning to normalcy. They express confidence in the vaccines' ability to prevent illness and transmission. They emphasize the need for people to get vaccinated for their own protection and to break the chain of transmission. Vaccinated individuals are seen as dead ends for the virus, preventing further spread. However, it is mentioned that initial data on vaccine effectiveness against transmission was limited at the time of emergency use authorization. A question is raised about whether the Pfizer vaccine was tested for transmission prevention before its release, to which the response is that they had to move quickly based on scientific progress.

During the pandemic, the development of vaccines surprised many due to its speed. The government's Operation Warp Speed invested $11 billion to accelerate the process, taking the risk out of it for pharmaceutical companies. Within 11 months, large phase three trials were conducted for Pfizer and Moderna's mRNA vaccines. Comparatively, the development of the polio vaccine took several years. Despite the rapid development and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, there was a significant portion of the population, around 30%, who chose not to get vaccinated. This resistance was unexpected and only strengthened the anti-vaccine movement. The speaker expresses frustration at the missed opportunities to prevent hospitalizations and deaths, particularly among unvaccinated children.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the COVID-19 vaccine episode, challenging why the vaccine was pursued as a public health solution and exploring deeper incentives behind the program. - A knowledgeable figure at the stand answered a burning question: did they know the vaccine wouldn’t be effective from the start and could be dangerous? The answer given was that it was “a test of a technology.” The exchange suggests the broader aim was testing an entire program of control previewed in Event 2019. - They ask whether inoculation was necessary on billions, noting it could have been tested on a much smaller population. If shots had been basically empty or inert, the data could have been spun to claim success and end the pandemic, preventing injuries from appearing. The absence of that approach remains a mystery. - The speakers point to high pre-vaccine seroprevalence in 2020, including studies from South Dakota showing 50-60% seroprevalence before vaccine release, implying that a saline shot or no shot could have achieved “indomicity” (immunity) without a vaccine. - They discuss why people might fear vaccines and interpret the broader impact: the public is waking up to something terrible having occurred, as it revealed readiness to lie, potential data quality concerns, and risk to pregnant women and healthy children who might get little justification for risk. - The disease’s lethality is framed as greatest among the very old or very sick; for others, it was less deadly, with natural evolution potentially reducing vulnerability over time. - The mRNA platform was touted as a means to outrun mutations, but the timeline to release was still insufficient to stay ahead of natural change. They note accelerated development was the fastest vaccine in history, from detection to inoculation, reducing the timeline by about a year or two, yet not fast enough. - Political and logistical factors delayed release; there is mention that it would not have appeared under Trump and that Eric Topol argued to delay the rollout. Fauci reportedly sent Moderna back to trials due to insufficient racial diversity in participants. - The discussion questions whether the vaccine qualifies as a normal consumer product, given ongoing subsidies, mandates, indemnifications, wartime-like supports, and propaganda. They wonder if there has been an ongoing two-century revolt by industry against public scrutiny, with public interest repeatedly leading to pushback and rebranding. - A central theme is the sophistication of pharma: the “game of pharma” involves owning an IP-based health claim, crafting supportive research, convincing it is safe and effective, achieving standard-of-care status, securing mandates and government funding, and leveraging ongoing propaganda. They describe pharma as a long-running arms race with deep institutional knowledge, implying that it is far more capable of shaping reality than the public realizes.

The Pfizer COVID vaccine was not tested for its ability to stop the transmission of the virus before it entered the market. The speaker acknowledges that they had to work quickly to understand the situation and move at the speed of science.

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.

The speaker acknowledges that the vaccine did not completely stop the spread or infection, but clarifies that initially it did for the Wuhan strain and the alpha strain. Early data and literature published in the New England Journal showed that those who were vaccinated and didn't get infected were not transmitting the virus to others. The vaccine had a high efficacy of up to 96% early on and this efficacy did not change over time.

There is a discussion about how public trust in vaccination has changed since the pandemic. The speaker notes that years ago there were “five people in the world who were prepared to talk about the thorny issue of vaccination.” Post COVID, however, “half the adult population of the world are now saying, hold on, we don't trust you. You lied to us. It's not what you told us, safe and effective.” This skepticism extends to vaccines given to children, with the question, “Does this apply to all the other vaccines you're putting into my kids?” The speaker then asserts that “safety studies haven't been done,” suggesting that important research behind vaccines is incomplete or lacking. This leads to the claim that “they've created this mess for themselves.” Despite the frustration, the speaker emphasizes the moral weight of deception, stating, “it's really tough to lie. I mean, lying gets you into real trouble.”

The speaker acknowledges that the vaccine did not completely stop the spread or infection, but clarifies that initially it did for the Wuhan strain and the alpha strain. Early data and literature published in the New England Journal showed that those who were vaccinated and didn't get infected were not transmitting the virus to others. The vaccine had a high efficacy of up to 96% early on and this efficacy did not change over time.

The speaker recalls where improvement was: when the CNN feed said, "it was ninety 5% effective on the vaccine." They note perhaps too little caution and too much optimism; many wanted this to be their ticket out. Nobody said waning, or that the next variant might be less potent. They discuss the 'area of gray' between science and decision-making: "we're gonna lead with the science. Science is gonna be the foundation of everything we do." The public heard that as science is foolproof, "Science is foolproof. Science is black and white." Yet, "Science is not always immediate," and it "sometimes it takes months and years to actually find out the answer, but you have to make, you know, decisions in a pandemic before you have that answer."

The speaker questions whether the government was guessing or lying when they said that vaccinated individuals couldn't get the virus. The other speaker, who was part of the previous administration, acknowledges that there was evidence of natural reinfection during the global pandemic and that the vaccine was based on natural immunity. They suggest that the vaccine may not necessarily outperform natural infection. The first speaker then asks if the government was lying when they said the vaccine couldn't transmit the virus, to which the second speaker responds that it was more of a hopeful belief. The first speaker concludes that the government's statements were not truthful, leaving the options of guessing, lying, or hoping as possible explanations.

The speaker asked about the long-term effects of the vaccine, but the response was unclear. The speaker mentioned that the effects at one year are known, but not at three to five years. They also mentioned that 93% of the population will be vaccinated. The speaker seemed unsure and mentioned feeling pressured at work.

The speaker discusses the impact of the vaccine on saving lives and acknowledges that there are side effects. They mention that both the virus and the vaccine have changed over the past two years, leading to transmission and infection. However, there is disagreement between the speakers, with one denying the effectiveness of the vaccine. The conversation becomes heated, with one person telling the other to be quiet.