TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The FDA, NIH, and CDC recommended vaccinating pregnant women at any time, leading to a rise in maternal mortality. A recent paper showed a concerning increase in maternal deaths in the US, erasing decades of progress in obstetrics. Pregnant women are dying with no mention of COVID or vaccines in the report. This alarming trend should be a cause for concern for everyone.

Speaker 0 asked how many of his patients or pregnant women he knows experienced miscarriages after receiving COVID-19 vaccines. Speaker 1 responded with observational data from his practice. He said that in fall of the previous year, about 60% of pregnant patients in his practice were vaccinated, which he noted is commensurate with Florida’s overall vaccination rate of about 60–65–70%. Most of his pregnant patients received three injections, with very few receiving four or more, and the majority received their injections in 2021 and early 2022. He referenced a Substack by Jessica Rose from November 2022 that presents his data pictorially, and noted that his data runs from January 2020 to November 2022. In 2020, he observed many newly registered obstetric patients (represented by blue bars for first-trimester new pregnancies). He stated there were the most deliveries, suggesting a lockdown-related effect. He then discussed miscarriage rates. He noted that standard textbooks and articles quote a normal miscarriage rate of 13–15%, but he has never seen that clinically. A 2020 study by Nairt et al. reported the actual first-trimester miscarriage rate as 5–6%, and he considers that even that to be somewhat high. He reported his own average miscarriage rate in 2020 as 4% month-to-month. He stated that his miscarriage rate from year to year increased: in 2021, the average month-to-month rate was 7–8%, with a peak in November that year, when a non-clinical staff member told him there had been eight miscarriages in a single month in a practice that delivers 20–25 patients, a “huge number.” In 2022, the average month-to-month rate rose to 15% (up to November). In December 2022, there were 41 newly registered patients, and 13 of them lost their babies, which is 25% for that month. In January and February 2023, the rate remained high, and only normalized around June, with a subsequent slight rise and fall by September. Regarding whether the miscarriages were associated with vaccination, he said it is hard to determine: he could tell that about 60% of his patients were vaccinated, but many new patients had not yet appeared in his practice, since he is the sole clinician who asks every patient about vaccination, brand, and timing, as well as prior COVID infection. He noted that asking a patient who miscarries if they received an injection could come across as accusatory, so obtaining complete data is challenging. He concluded with the observation that the information is difficult to ascertain precisely and that not wanting a patient to feel blamed complicates collecting definitive links between vaccination and miscarriage.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for pregnant women, with no impact on fertility. Clinical trials did not initially include pregnant women, but there is no biological reason for concern. Data shows that antibodies are passed through breast milk to infants. Health organizations like Health Canada and the FDA recommend vaccination for pregnant women to protect themselves and their babies. There is no evidence of negative effects on fertility or pregnancy outcomes from the vaccines.

Immunologist Brigitte Autrand, a member of the scientific committee on Covid-19 vaccines and the vaccine strategy committee, discusses the safety of vaccines for pregnant women. She states that pregnant women were not included in clinical trials, but after nine months of observation, it has been determined that there is no danger to pregnant women. In fact, vaccines are beneficial as they protect both the mother and the baby. Autrand emphasizes that there are no side effects and that these vaccines are excellent. Another study conducted in the United States on over 52 million adolescents aged 12 and above revealed a risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly for boys, with a risk of one in 5,000.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for pregnant women, with no impact on fertility. Clinical trials did not initially include pregnant women, but there is no biological reason for concern. Data shows antibodies are passed through breast milk. Health authorities worldwide recommend vaccination for pregnant individuals to protect themselves and their babies. There is no evidence of negative effects on fertility or pregnancy outcomes from the vaccines.

Clinical trials are essential to determine a product's safety and effectiveness, especially for vaccines intended for pregnant women. For a vaccine to be licensed for this demographic, specific trials must be conducted. A request was made to the FDA for the clinical trials used to license the flu shot for pregnant women, but after much delay, it was revealed that no such trials exist, as the flu shot has never been licensed for pregnant women. Consequently, promoting the flu shot for this group is considered off-label use, which pharmaceutical companies cannot legally advertise. Instead, the CDC handles this promotion.

Many are surprised to learn that the vaccines did not undergo traditional clinical trials. Initially, they were manufactured using PCR for 44,000 people, but when scaling up, the process was deemed too costly and was replaced with DNA from E. Coli, which also introduced endotoxins. In pharmaceutical manufacturing, the process is crucial; changing it typically requires new trials. The EMA requested a new trial with 252 patients, but the data was never provided, and it was considered too late since vaccinations had already begun. Thus, the rationale for conducting the trial became irrelevant.

BioNTech's studies lacked clear guidance and evaluation of results from contract laboratories. The reproductive toxicology studies on pregnant animals showed side effects were dismissed as unimportant or already seen in control populations. This lack of seriousness in safety strategy was concerning.

We found that the FDA lied about a maternal rat study that was testing the safety of mandating a vaccine to pregnant women. In every litter, individual pups had horrible bone deformities. This signal was extremely prominent. Moderna submitted the rat study, as they were required to do. The FDA then lied about the study results by claiming there were no problems. It was a huge enterprise in lying.

Doctors administered untested gene therapy to infants, toddlers, and pregnant women, claiming it was safe. However, the mRNA jab was deemed the most dangerous medical product for pregnant individuals. Traditional medical principles were disregarded, including giving experimental drugs to pregnant patients and assuming any death or injury post-intervention was related. Regulatory authorities worldwide dismissed adverse events as unrelated until proven otherwise, leading to disastrous consequences.

Despite it being treated as an obligation to do so, physicians reportedly do not know these facts. The speaker expresses strong frustration about the situation. The speaker cites a famous medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, describing a study of vaccine researchers and stating that “the 12.6 percent user rate” was reported, and that the paper claimed there was no problem with the vaccine based on that figure. Using that paper as a basis, the San Fujikawa Society or a similarly named organization promoted vaccination for pregnant women. However, the actual content of the data is described as follows: of 827 people, 700 were in the late stage of pregnancy, and 127 were in the early stage (first trimester). For the subgroup limited to those under 20 weeks’ gestation, i.e., the 127 individuals, the reported miscarriage rate was 82 percent. From this, the speaker argues that the vaccine is dangerous, given the result for the early-stage group. It is claimed that the data were hidden or obscured, and that the later report combined the late-pregnancy group of 700 with the early-pregnancy group of 127 to produce a 12.6 percent miscarriage rate, which was then published. The speaker concludes that even a major medical journal could be influenced by external financial pressures, resulting in biased reporting that supports the other side’s interests.

Clinical trials for the COVID-19 vaccine didn't include pregnant women initially, but there's no biological reason the vaccine wouldn't be effective and safe during pregnancy. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommends vaccination for pregnant individuals. Data supports that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in pregnancy, and protective antibodies are transmitted through breast milk to the infant. The vaccines do not affect fertility in women or men, and there's no way they can. There's no reason to worry about impacts on fertility from the COVID-19 vaccines, theoretically or based on over a year's worth of data. Good safety data exists for vaccines in pregnancy, with no reason to believe there will be concerns related to pregnancy. The vaccine is safe, tested, and recommended by the World Health Organization and the FDA for pregnant women for their own protection and the safety of their loved ones.

Speaker 0 explains that even the obstetrics and gynecology association has reportedly pushed to vaccinate pregnant women as a duty, but doctors are the ones who do not know the facts. They reference a highly regarded medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, which published a study claiming a 12.6 percent user rate for the vaccine’s research results. Based on that paper, the 三 富 士 川 学 会 then attempted to vaccinate pregnant women. In reality, among the 827 individuals involved, 700 were in the postpartum period, 127 were in the antepartum period, and initial data were from that group. Specifically, for the group limited to those under twenty weeks (twenty weeks or less), which is 127 people, the miscarriage rate was 82 percent. Therefore, the argument is that, going forward, one can see how dangerous the vaccine is from those numbers. The speaker contends that data were hidden and later mixed into the 700-person postpartum group, yielding a miscarriage rate of 12.6 percent. Because of this, the claim is that even a leading medical journal has been influenced by money to publish such conclusions. Overall, the points presented are: - The obstetrics field is described as advocating vaccination of pregnant women as a duty, while physicians allegedly lack awareness of the underlying facts. - The NEJM published a study deemed to show a 12.6 percent user rate, which the speaker implies is problematic. - The 三 富 士 川 学 会 vaccinated pregnant women, but the data show that among 127 women under twenty weeks, the miscarriage rate was 82 percent. - The speaker asserts that this information was hidden and later combined with data from the 700 postpartum cases to produce a 12.6 percent miscarriage rate. - The implication is that even a top medical journal can be swayed by financial influence, resulting in biased reporting.

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.

Children and pregnant women were used as shields to protect the elderly, which was a violation of human ethics. Despite pregnant women being excluded from randomized trials, thousands of them were vaccinated when the vaccine program started in the United States. The maternal mortality rate in the country reached an all-time high, with women dying while pregnant or within 42 days after giving birth. The CDC reported that 65% of women who had a baby in the United States received a vaccine either before or during their pregnancy.

- The discussion opens with a critique of how public health authorities in the United States and much of the media discouraged experimentation with COVID-19 treatments, instead pushing vaccination and portraying other approaches as dangerous. The hosts ask why treatments were sidelined and treated as heretical to question. - Speaker 1 explains that the core idea was to stamp out “vaccine hesitation,” which he frames not as a purely scientific issue but as a form of heresy. He notes a broad literature on vaccine hesitancy and contrasts it with the perception of the vaccine as a liberating savior. He points to a Vatican €20 silver coin (2022) commemorating the COVID-19 vaccine, described by Vatican catalogs as “a boy prepares to receive the Eucharist,” which the speakers interpret as an overlay of religious iconography with vaccination imagery. They also reference Diego Rivera’s mural in Detroit, interpreted as depicting the vaccine as a Eucharist, and a South African church banner reading “even the blood of Christ cannot protect you, get vaccinated,” highlighting what they see as provocative uses of religious symbolism to promote vaccination. - They claim that the Biden administration’s COVID Vaccine Corps distributed billions of dollars to major sports leagues (NFL, MLB) and that many mainline churches reportedly received money to push vaccination, with many clergy not opposing the push. The implication is that monetary incentives influenced public figures and organizations to advocate for vaccines, contributing to a climate in which questioning orthodoxy was difficult. - The speakers discuss the social dynamics around vaccine “heresy,” using Aaron Rodgers’ experience with isolation and shaming in the NFL and Novak Djokovic’s experiences in Australia to illustrate how prominent individuals who questioned or fell outside the orthodoxy faced punitive pressure. They compare this to a Reformation-era conflict over doctrinal correctness and describe a psychology of stigmatizing dissent as a tool to enforce conformity. - They argue the imperative driving institutions was the belief that the vaccine was the central, non-negotiable public-health objective, seemingly above other medical considerations. The central question they raise is why vaccines became the sole priority, seemingly overriding a broader, more nuanced evaluation of medical options and individual risk. - The conversation shifts to epistemology and the nature of science. Speaker 1 suggests medicine often relies on orthodoxies and presuppositions, rather than purely empirical processes. He recounts a Kantian view that interpretation depends on preexisting categories, and he uses this to argue that medical decision-making can be constrained by established doctrines, which may obscure questions about optimization and safety. - They recount the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and discuss Sara Sotomayor’s dissent, which argued that liability exposure is a key incentive for safety and improvement in vaccine development. They argue that the current system creates minimal liability for manufacturers, reducing the incentive to optimize safety, and they use this to question how the system encourages continuous safety improvements. - The hosts recount the early-treatment movement led by Peter McCullough and others, including a Senate hearing organized by Ron Johnson in November 2020 to discuss early-treatment options with FDA-approved drugs like hydroxychloroquine. They criticize what they describe as aggressive pushback against such approaches, noting that McCullough faced professional sanctions and lawsuits despite presenting peer-reviewed literature. - They return to the concept of orthodoxy and dogma, arguing that the medical establishment often suppresses dissent, citing YouTube removing a McCullough interview and the broader pattern of silencing challenge to the vaccine narrative. They stress that the social and institutional systems prize conformity and punish those who deviate, creating a climate of distrust toward official health bodies. - The discussion broadens into metaphysical and philosophical territory, with references to the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. They propose that elites—whether religious, political, or scientific—tend to prefer “taking care” of people through control rather than preserving individual responsibility and free will. The Grand Inquisitor tale is used to illustrate a recurring human temptation: to replace personal liberty with a protected, paternalistic order. - They discuss messenger RNA (mRNA) technology as a central manifestation of Promethean or Luciferian intellect—humans attempting to “read and write in the language of God.” They describe the scientific arc from transcription and translation to mRNA vaccines, noting Francis Collins’s The Language of God and the idea of humans “coding life.” They caution that mRNA vaccines involve injecting genetic material and point to the symbolic and ritual power of vaccination as a form of modern sacrament. - The speakers emphasize that the mRNA approach represents both a profound scientific achievement and a source of deep concern. They discuss fertility signals and potential adverse effects, including myocarditis in young people, and cite the July 2021 NEJM case study as highlighting safety concerns for myocarditis in adolescent males. They reference the FDA deliberative-committee discussions, noting that some influential voices publicly questioned the risk-benefit calculus for young people, yet faced pressure or dismissal within the orthodox framework. - They describe post-hoc investigations and testimonies suggesting that adverse events (like myocarditis) might have been downplayed or obscured, and they assert that public trust in health institutions has eroded as a result. They mention ongoing debates about whether vaccine-induced changes might affect future generations, referencing studies about transcripts of mRNA in cancer cells and liver cells, and they stress the need for independent scrutiny by scientists not “entranced” by the vaccine program. - The dialogue returns to the broader human condition: a tension between curiosity and restraint, knowledge and humility. They return to Dostoevsky’s moral questions about free will, responsibility, and the limits of human knowledge, concluding that scientific hubris can lead to dangerous consequences when it overrides open inquiry and accountability. - In closing, while the guests reflect on past missteps and the need for integrity in medicine, they underscore the ongoing questions about how evidence is interpreted, how dissent is treated, and how society balances scientific progress with humility, transparency, and respect for individual judgment.

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.”

Experts, including the speaker, believe that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe for pregnant women based on extensive research. The vaccines have been proven safe and effective in the general population, without affecting fertility rates. They also provide protection against COVID-19 for pregnant women. The speaker, if pregnant, would definitely get vaccinated as the risks of the vaccine are much lower than the risks of the disease itself. Even children are eager to get vaccinated to regain their normal lives. However, another speaker raises concerns about fetal and chromosomal malformations, premature births, and respiratory issues after mRNA injections. They accuse pharmaceutical companies of hiding information about the deaths of two babies due to transplacental exposure to the vaccine. They call for attorney generals to investigate these claims. The Moderna documents are said to contain similar shocking information.

The speaker says that even for obstetrics and gynecology societies, vaccination during pregnancy has been pursued as a duty, but physicians do not know the actual facts. They reference the New England Journal of Medicine, a famous medical journal, where a study of a vaccine’s adverse outcomes claimed that the user rate was 12.6%. Based on that paper, the Sanpeshikawa (Sanbushikawa) Association reportedly promoted vaccination for pregnant women as well. In reality, the data were as follows: of 827 people, 700 were in late pregnancy, and 127 were in the early stages (first trimester). When restricting to the 127 people who were under 20 weeks, the usage rate was 82%. Therefore, the speaker argues that this data reveals how dangerous the vaccine is, and that the data were hidden and mixed with high-profile 700-person data to produce the 12.6% miscarriage rate that was published. This is presented as evidence of a situation where even in medical journals, information was handled to favor the other side due to money and other influences.

Sarah Brenner, who has worked deeply within the government at the FDA and through the COVID crisis, explains her roles and perspectives. She notes that she was the chief medical officer for diagnostics and was detailed to support White House operations during the COVID-19 response for the Biden administration, with beginnings during the Trump administration. When asked about her own vaccination status during her time at the FDA, Brenner states that she did not take the COVID-19 vaccine. Her primary reason was that it was unknown at the time what the biodistribution patterns of those products would be, and in particular what the excretion would be in breast milk. She expresses that this exposure was a major concern for her. The interviewer suggests that events since then have confirmed Brenner’s choice, framing her stance as implying that it’s a bad idea for women who are pregnant to take the vaccine, while noting that the FDA still recommends it. Brenner responds by emphasizing the importance of being honest, open, and transparent in providing informed consent to patients about what the known and unknown, as well as probable and less probable, benefits and risks are of any medical intervention. Throughout the discussion, Brenner highlights transparency as a central theme in medical decision-making and patient information. The exchange underscores tensions between evolving scientific understanding, regulatory recommendations, and individual risk considerations for pregnant individuals.

The trial data for the process 2 vaccine was limited, with only 252 people tested. Independent researchers confirmed this. The study was added during the phase three trials and was not intended to be meaningful. The comparison study between process 1 and process 2 doses was never conducted, despite initial plans. Only 4 people were tested for antibody response, and they were all under 23 years old. The study lacked clinical data and was approved for emergency use without sufficient evidence. The use of live cells in the manufacturing process added complexity and risk. Similar issues occurred with the swine flu vaccine in 2009. There was no public notification about the changes made to the vaccine.

For pregnant people who are at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-nineteen, we are strengthening our guidance and recommending that all pregnant people or people thinking about becoming pregnant get vaccinated. We now have new data that reaffirm the safety of our vaccines for people who are pregnant, including those early in pregnancy and around the time of conception. These data build on previous evidence from three safety monitoring systems that did not find any safety concerns for pregnant people who were vaccinated late in pregnancy or for their babies. Now, these new data found no increase in the risk for miscarriage among people who received an mRNA COVID-nineteen vaccine before twenty weeks of pregnancy. Clinicians have seen the number of pregnant people infected with COVID-nineteen rise in the past several weeks. The increased circulation of the highly contagious Delta variant, the general low vaccine uptake among pregnant people, and the increased risk of severe illness and pregnancy complications related to COVID-nineteen infection among pregnant people make vaccination for this population more urgent than ever.

Pregnant women who received COVID-19 shots experienced concerning effects, according to maternal fetal medicine expert Dr. Against Thorpe. The shots quickly spread throughout the body, crossing barriers like the placenta and blood-brain barriers in both the mother and fetus. Compared to the flu vaccine, COVID-19 shots led to more adverse events in women of reproductive age. Data showed a 27-fold higher risk of miscarriage and over twice the risk of negative fetal outcomes across six categories. Additionally, birth rates in several European countries dropped significantly after widespread COVID-19 vaccination. As a result, researchers are urging the immediate suspension of COVID-19 vaccination for individuals of childbearing and reproductive age.

RFK Jr. suggests retroactive placebo-controlled trials for all pediatric vaccines. However, this is impractical as no institution would support it. Regarding the COVID vaccine, some argue that a placebo-controlled trial was unnecessary due to the urgent need for a response to a virus causing significant daily deaths. Previous research on mRNA vaccines for SARS provided some data, allowing for a more rapid rollout. Similar to the Ebola outbreak, where a vaccine was deployed without a placebo trial due to the crisis, COVID vaccines could be administered widely to gather safety and efficacy data in real-time. Volunteers in trials often hoped to receive the vaccine, reflecting the urgency of the situation.

On COVID, there's a perception that credit isn't given where it's due. While the vaccines were developed quickly, they don't prevent infection or transmission and may have serious side effects. In hindsight, would anything be done differently? Studies on the vaccines are ongoing, and results will emerge over time. It's important to note that Pfizer marketed its vaccine as safe for pregnant women, but reports indicated that over half of the 458 pregnant women who received the vaccine experienced adverse events. The ongoing studies will help clarify these concerns.