TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

"The mRNA vaccines, you know, from COVID don't work against upper respiratory infections." "There are two problems with them." "One is they target a single protein, which drives what what's called an antigenic shift." "If it drives the virus to mutate, and it actually can prolong the pandemic." "We saw that during COVID, people took shots, mRNA shots for the original COVID variant and immediately, mutated into the Omicron virus to which the vaccine was ineffective, and that's what it does." "And the other issue is, that it the way that distributes in the body, the way that it migrates in the body, there's no control over and no predictability." "So it goes to every organ." "It turns your body into a an antigen factory where you're manufacturing antigens, and different people need different loads of antigens." "And we've seen now these epidemics of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in kids."

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.

"it's modified mRNA, and it's designed not to degrade. And there are studies that show it sticks around the body." "The lipid nanoparticle. Do you realize that it was designed to permeate difficult to permeate barriers? Like the blood brain, like placenta barrier." "Japanese FOIA of the study that was conducted about distribution where in rats, biodistributed all over the body, accumulated in the adrenal glands, in the ovaries." "it's messenger RNA, modified RNA, this encapsulated lipid nanoparticle that distributes all over the body." "when it attaches to a cell, it unloads its mRNA into the cell and turns the cell into a manufacturing cell of a protein that is toxic to it." "Are you aware of that? I mean, just yeah. Yes or no? I mean, do you know that or not? Because I talk to a lot of doctors, don't have a clue."

The symposium covers the potential safety and threat of “replicating” vaccines, especially LepriCon (leprecon) vaccines, in the context of Covid-19 vaccines and genome‑editing concepts. The speakers present a chain of claims and concerns, some drawing on reports and others presenting theories about how these next‑generation vaccines could behave in humans and populations. Key points and claims presented - Emerging mechanisms and risks: The panel notes that blood vessel inflammation and thrombosis mechanisms are increasingly observed, including in vaccine contexts, with examples from individuals who needed limb amputation and others who developed severe vascular events after vaccination. One case involved a 70‑year‑old man who, after a third dose, developed embolic events necessitating shoulder joint surgery, and another where a 60‑year‑old man developed acute limb ischemia and died; both are presented as suggesting a serious vascular mechanism linked to vaccination, though causal connections are not established. - Replicating/vector vaccines and their concerns:荒川博士 and others discuss LepiCon vaccines as vaccines that replicate inside the body. The concept involves “replicating viral vectors” where the genome can mutate and evolve during replication. The green‑highlighted segment in a slide (the antigen gene) plus a blue/orange segment (replicating gene cassette) is used to describe how LepriCon vaccines are designed to carry viral genes and replicate, with the assertion that replication, mutation, and recombination can occur, potentially generating new variants inside the host. - Differences from conventional vaccines: The discussion contrasts LepriCon vaccines with standard mRNA vaccines. In conventional mRNA vaccines, messenger RNA is delivered and translated into antigen proteins, then degraded; in LepriCon vaccines, replicating RNA/DNA can persist and continue producing antigen, with mutation and recombination possible. The panel emphasizes that LepriCon vaccines use replicating/copying mechanisms and that the genetic material can be copied in ways that differ from natural human biology, potentially creating unpredictable variants. - Central dogma and exceptions: The speakers reference the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) but note exceptions in viruses, including RNA viruses that can reverse‑transcribe to DNA (retroviruses) and RNA viruses that replicate RNA directly. They discuss how LepriCon vaccines would rely on replicative processes that do not follow the usual linear flow and why this could complicate predictions about safety and behavior in humans. - Potential for unintended spread and environmental impact: A major concern raised is that self‑replicating vectors could spread beyond the vaccinated individual, via exosomes or other intercellular transport, creating secondary infections or non‑target spread. Exosomes could ferry replicating genetic material, raising fears of new infection chains or “outbreaks” stemming from the vaccine itself, and even suggesting the possibility of vaccination‑induced spread akin to an attenuated or modified pathogen. - Safety signals and immunology concerns: The discussion touches on immune system risks, including immune dysregulation, autoimmune phenomena, and unexpected inflammatory responses. IGG4‑related disease is highlighted as a potential adverse outcome post‑vaccination, with descriptions of glandular and systemic involvement and the idea that high IGG4 levels could have immunosuppressive effects that alter responses to infection or vaccination. The panel notes observed increases in certain immunoglobulin subclasses after multiple LepriCon doses and discusses the possibility of immune tolerance or enhanced immune responses that could be harmful. - Historical and theoretical context: References are made to past epidemics and speculative pandemics caused by misused or dangerous vaccine platforms, drawing on central molecular biology concepts and historical anecdotes about how vaccines can be designed and misused. The discussion frames LepriCon vaccines as a high‑risk platform that could, in theory, generate recombinants, escape mutations, or cause unintended immune and inflammatory consequences. - Clinical and regulatory implications: The speakers call for caution, arguing that more evidence is needed before approving or widespread use of LepriCon vaccines. They emphasize the need for long‑term observation and transparent communication about risks, and criticize the potential for insufficient understanding among healthcare workers and the public. They also urge that any future vaccine development should consider the possibility of genome editing, recombination, and exosome‑mediated spread, and stress the importance of not underestimating possible adverse effects. - Real‑world observations and skepticism about hype: Several speakers underscore that the danger is not merely hypothetical; there are reports of adverse events, including stroke‑like conditions, inflammatory diseases, and immune dysregulation in vaccinated individuals. They stress that the evolution and mutation of replicating vaccines could outpace current surveillance methods, and that “information manipulation” or lack of transparent reporting could mislead the public about risks. - Final reflections and call to action: The concluding messages advocate recognizing the potential failures of messenger RNA vaccines and acknowledging that both conventional and replicating platforms may carry risks. The speakers urge ongoing critical analysis, cautious progression, and robust verification of claims through transparent, independent investigation. They close with thanks to the organizers and a hope that the discussion may contribute to broader public awareness and informed decision‑making. Notable emphasis and unique considerations - The core concern centers on LepriCon vaccines’ replication, mutation, and potential to spread beyond the vaccinated person; exosome transport and genomic/cellular integration are highlighted as mechanisms that could generate new risks not present with non‑replicating vaccines. - The discussion stresses that IGG4 responses could become alarmingly high after certain doses, potentially leading to immunosuppressive effects or autoimmune phenomena, and presents IGG4‑related disease as a potential complication to monitor. - The speakers insist that safety and transparency are paramount, and that misinformation or optimistic narratives about rapid vaccine development could lead to harm if new platforms are adopted without comprehensive evaluation. Overall, the symposium foregrounds cautious scrutiny of replicating vaccine platforms, frames potential biological and regulatory risks, and calls for careful, evidence‑based assessment before broader deployment.

Over the past few weeks, BARDA reviewed 22 mRNA vaccine development investments and began canceling them. Here's the problem: mRNA only codes for a small part of the viral proteins, usually a single antigen. One mutation and the vaccine becomes ineffective. That's because a single mutation can make mRNA vaccines ineffective. After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses. To replace the troubled mRNA programs, we're prioritizing the development of the safer, broader vaccine strategies like whole virus vaccines and novel platforms that don't collapse when viruses mutate. Let me be absolutely clear: HHS supports safe, effective vaccines for every American who wants them.

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 that. mRNA vaccines are a prime example of this shift towards innovation in healthcare.

When was the last time you saw a strand of DNA? It's the genetic code in almost every cell, defining who you are. Recently, there's been a rumor that COVID-19 vaccines alter your DNA. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use messenger RNA (mRNA) technology. After injection, the vaccine instructs your cells to prepare for an incoming virus, prompting your immune system to create antibodies. Importantly, the vaccine never enters the nucleus where your DNA resides, and once your cells use the vaccine, they destroy it. While these vaccines are new, mRNA technology has been in development for over a decade. So, if you're concerned about the vaccine changing your DNA, there's no need to worry. You remain unchanged.

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.

A new version of mRNA technology called self-replicating mRNA is emerging. This platform was a competitor to the mRNA platform that was settled upon. There are protests in Japan over self-replicating mRNA vaccines, also called replicons. The original mRNA platform turned people's cells into vaccine factories. To make the mRNA vaccines work, the mRNA transcript was stabilized with pseudouridine. All of the uracils were replaced by something chemically similar to stabilize the molecules. The claim that the mRNA molecules were short-lived was false, as they had been hyper-stabilized. Self-replicating mRNAs borrow machinery from alphavirus. They include the gene for the antigen along with genes for proteins that allow the RNA to copy itself. Instead of stabilizing a single mRNA molecule, the mRNA is allowed to duplicate itself.

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.

Moderna's patents acknowledge that DNA integration is a risk, necessitating the invention of new methods to remove DNA. According to the speaker, Moderna is approximately tenfold more effective than Pfizer at removing DNA. The speaker claims that the manufacturers' patents indicate that the vaccines pose an oncogenic risk. The speaker suggests that one need not consult external papers to recognize this risk, as it is evident from the manufacturers' own patents.

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.

There are three basic vaccine technologies, none of which are safe. The three technologies are live attenuated vaccines, killed-virus/virus-fragment vaccines with adjuvants, and mRNA vaccines. Live attenuated vaccines can cause one person a tiny mild infection while another may suffer a more serious one, and they can evolve and spread; though not supposed to be contagious, they can produce contagious effects. For example, the polio vaccine, live attenuated, has created many polio cases, an intolerable downside. The killed-virus approach doesn't reliably stimulate immunity unless an adjuvant is used; adjuvants are nonspecific and can trigger widespread immune activation. The mRNA approach is unsafe because it moves haphazardly through the body, causing cells to produce foreign antigens, which the immune system may attack as virally infected, potentially deadly in the heart, and tissue destruction elsewhere. In sum, three technologies, none fundamentally safe, with severe downsides.

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.

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 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.

- The mRNA vaccines, you know, from COVID don't work against upper respiratory infections. - There are two problems with them. - One is they target a single protein, which drives what what's called an antigenic shift. - If it drives the virus to mutate, and it actually can prolong the pandemic. - And we saw that during COVID, people took shots, mRNA shots for the original COVID variant and immediately, mutated into the Omicron virus to which the vaccine was ineffective, and that's what it does. - And the other issue is, that it the way that distributes in the body, the way that it migrates in the body, there's no control over and no predictability. - So it goes to every organ.

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 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.

The panel discusses replication (replicon) vaccines and their potential dangers, focusing on how they differ from conventional messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines and what new risks might emerge as this technology develops. Key points and concerns raised - Replicon vaccines concept and fundamental differences - Replicon vaccines use replication-capable genetic material, so the embedded genetic information not only makes antigen proteins but also multiplies inside the cell. They are described as having both constitutive function (the ability to make proteins) and, crucially, the capacity to replicate, which distinguishes them from traditional, non-replicating mRNA vaccines. - It is explained that replication introduces additional mutation and recombination opportunities, because the RNA genome is copied more than once, and the process can produce variants that differ from the original design. - Central dogma exceptions and viral biology - The speakers explain that while the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) generally governs biology, some viruses violate this, with RNA viruses that replicate via RNA-dependent replication and even some reverse-transcribing retroviruses that convert RNA to DNA and integrate into genomes. This context is used to frame why replicon vaccines could behave unpredictably. - Potential risks of replication and spread - A core concern is that the replicon approach might allow the vaccine genome to spread beyond the initial target cells, potentially reaching other cells and tissues, or even spreading to other people via exosomes or other means. Exosomes can transport DNA, RNA, and proteins between cells; thus, the replicon genome could in theory be disseminated. - The possibility of homologous or heterologous recombination between replicon genomes and wild-type viruses could yield new variants. The panel emphasizes the difficulty of controlling such recombination in a living system. - Specific material and design considerations - The use of viral components like spike protein genes in replicon vaccines raises concerns about how these proteins might mutate or recombine during replication, potentially altering antigen presentation or safety. - A concern is raised about the lack of repair mechanisms in RNA replication (as opposed to DNA replication), which could make error rates higher and lead to unpredictable changes. - The panel notes that current replicon vaccine designs (including those using alphavirus backbones) inherently carry high mutation and recombination risk, and that the replicating systems may encounter unpredictable evolutionary dynamics inside the human body. - Safety signals and clinical anecdotes - The speakers cite cases of adverse events temporally associated with vaccines, including vascular inflammation and thrombosis, stroke-like events, and myocarditis, to illustrate that immune responses to vaccines can be complex and occasionally severe. They emphasize that such observations do not establish causality, but argue they warrant careful scrutiny. - There are references to cases of acute vascular and neural complications following repeated vaccination, and to broader immune dysregulation phenomena, including IGG4-related disease and immune dysregulation syndromes that can involve multiple organs. - One example concerns a patient who developed sudden limb problems after the third dose, requiring surgery; another describes myocardial involvement after multiple doses and subsequent inflammatory sequelae. - DNA contamination and analytical findings - Kevin McKernan’s analysis of certain Japanese CoronaVac vaccines is cited: both DNA contamination and the presence of SV40 promoter elements were detected in some vaccine lots, with DNA amounts exceeding some regulatory benchmarks in at least one case. The concern is that DNA contamination, or the presence of promoter sequences, could influence integration or expression in unintended ways. - It is noted that vaccines using lipid nanoparticles can potentially deliver nucleic acids into cells; in the presence of exons or promoter sequences, there could be unintended cellular uptake and expression. - Implications for public health and policy - The panel underscores the need for caution, thorough investigation, and long-term observation of any replication-based vaccine platform before broad deployment. There is a call to evaluate risks, monitor long-term outcomes, and consider the possibility that replication-competent constructs could drive unforeseen evolutionary dynamics within hosts or communities. - There is contention about how information is communicated to the public, with particular emphasis on avoiding misinformation while ensuring that scientific uncertainties are transparently discussed. - Broader scientific context and forward-looking stance - The speakers discuss how the field’s approach to gene-based vaccines is evolving rapidly, and they stress that the compatibility of replicon systems with human biology is not yet fully understood. - They frame their discussion as not merely about current vaccines but about the trajectory of vaccine platforms: if replication-based or self-dispersing systems prove too risky or unpredictable, the prudent path might be to favor conventional, non-replicating strategies until safety, efficacy, and containment of unintended spread are more firmly established. Closing and takeaways - The session closes with emphasis on careful evaluation of replicon vaccines, awareness that viral genetics can behave differently in humans than in theory, and a call for continued discussion, independent verification, and transparent communication as the technology develops. - Throughout, speakers acknowledge the complexity of immune responses to vaccines, the potential for unexpected adverse events, and the importance of safeguarding public health while advancing vaccine science.

MRNA vaccines were hailed as medical breakthroughs in the fight against COVID. Now the US Department of Health and Human Services is slashing a half billion dollars in government funding from mRNA vaccine development. The current vaccines are not infection blocking. When new variants come up, you lose protection, and they have very short duration. There was never a vaccine made with mRNA. Lipid nanoparticles go everywhere in the body, to the brain, to the bone marrow, to the liver, to the spleen, most importantly to the reproductive organs. I regret it every single day that I walked into my local pharmacy to get that shot in my arm. The spike protein directly causes blood clotting and is found in the middle of large blood clots. This vaccine, the mRNA vaccine, has probably saved about three million lives.

The first speaker argues that messenger RNA vaccines were unprecedented compared to anything previously developed. They state there was never any justification given for not using a traditional vaccine, and there was never any evidence that the messenger RNA vaccine was as good as a ground-up virus—the old-fashioned type of vaccine—whose safety, efficiency, and cost are well known. They emphasize the importance of that point and note that a recent Korean study in young boys compared a booster using an antigen vaccine with a messenger RNA vaccine, and found the antigen vaccine to be more protective than the messenger RNA vaccine. From this, they conclude that there are currently data indicating there are no ongoing advantages to using these genetic vaccines. The second speaker adds that this situation is a huge mystery, questioning why the genetic RNA route was chosen in the first place. They suggest that someone made a lot of money, acknowledging that money is a factor, but saying they have never heard a scientific explanation for the decision-making process, describing it as a complete black box. They further point out that there are ongoing efforts by many people to transform vaccines beyond traditional forms to include self-replicating RNA, and that this discussion continues. They argue that the red flags from the first round have not been sorted out, and that there is no evidence these approaches are better; in fact, they imply they are clearly not better.

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.