TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker describes a Henry Ford Medical Center study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children (2000–2016). Dr. Marcus Servis agreed to conduct it, recruiting a chief epidemiologist and two statisticians. Using medical records, the study followed about sixteen thousand vaccinated and two thousand unvaccinated children and aimed to show the CDC vaccine schedule is safe to reduce vaccine hesitancy. Findings showed higher rates in the vaccinated group for several conditions: four point two nine times asthma, three point zero three times atopic disease, five point nine six times autoimmune disease, and five point five three times neurodevelopmental disorders. ADHD: two hundred sixty cases in the vaccinated group, none in the unvaccinated. After ten years, seventeen percent of the unvaccinated had a chronic health issue versus fifty seven percent of the vaccinated. The study’s publication was blocked because its findings did not fit the belief and policy that vaccines are safe.

All vaccines, including COVID vaccines, are causing harm to children. There has never been a study comparing fully vaccinated kids following the CDC schedule to unvaccinated kids. The difference in health outcomes is dramatic, with unvaccinated kids being consistently healthier. A 10-year study by Dr. Paul Thomas, which was retracted unethically, showed that vaccinated kids were more likely to get the diseases they were vaccinated against. Being unvaccinated should be applauded because vaccines are causing chronic diseases in America. A study with over 1,000 unvaccinated people showed significantly better health outcomes compared to fully vaccinated individuals. The CDC promised to conduct a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals but never followed through. No vaccine is safe or effective, and no study has proven otherwise.

It is claimed that ethical concerns prevent double-blind placebo trials for childhood vaccines already on the schedule that never underwent safety testing. The first step should be honesty about the clinical trial data underlying childhood vaccines. One proposed method involves comparing health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals using existing datasets. If unvaccinated children are equally or less healthy than vaccinated children, this should be published to reassure parents. However, if vaccinated children are less healthy, the claim that these products cannot harm anyone should be reconsidered. It is asserted that comparative studies between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have been conducted, but not published because they allegedly show that the unvaccinated are healthier. Publishing a study showing vaccinated individuals are healthier would have discredited Robert Kennedy Jr., but the fact that it wasn't published suggests a problem.

Speaker 0 argues that to determine whether smoking causes lung cancer, you must compare smokers to non-smokers. They recount a sequence of flawed study designs that would falsely conclude no link: comparing two smokers with different consumption levels and finding the same cancer rates; comparing different cigarette brands among smokers and again finding no difference; comparing people in different towns who all smoke and finding no difference. The point is that all these comparisons fail because they do not include a non-smoker control group; thus they cannot establish causation. They then contrast this with vaccine studies, asserting that studies claiming vaccines don’t cause chronic diseases or autism do not compare vaccinated to unvaccinated children. Instead, such studies compare vaccinated children to other vaccinated children, with variations in vaccines received (e.g., MMR, DTaP, multiple vaccines in one visit) and with differing aluminum exposures (e.g., four milligrams vs two milligrams). They emphasize that these studies never examine the actual outcome of interest by comparing vaccinated against unvaccinated children. The speaker maintains that this flaw in vaccine studies mirrors the earlier tobacco example. The essential argument is that the only way to determine causation is to compare the exposure group (vaccinated children) to an appropriate control group (unvaccinated children). They reference the Henry Ford trial as an example of an unvaccinated-versus-vaccinated comparison, but note that no one has published or accessible data from it. They call for someone brave enough to conduct and publish a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study to settle the issue. Finally, they challenge proponents of vaccination to conduct such a study to prove their position, insisting that if vaccines are truly safe and non-causal for chronic diseases or autism, the study should be done and the data published to demonstrate that the claim is correct. The overall message is a insistence on direct, unambiguous vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated comparisons to establish causality, highlighting perceived gaps in current vaccine research and urging transparent data publication.

We analyzed all patients in my practice, no cherry-picking. Stratified by vaccines, 500 had 0, 3,700+ had some. Results showed more vaccines correlated with worse outcomes: infections, ADD, ADHD, neurodevelopmental issues, eczema, allergies, anemia. Data is powerful. Access to this info would have changed my choices for my daughter. Every parent deserves all information for informed decisions. Translation: We examined all patients in the practice without bias. Results showed a correlation between more vaccines and negative outcomes. Access to this data would have influenced my decisions for my daughter. All parents should have access to complete information for informed choices.

The speaker claims epidemiological studies are easily manipulated and that proper studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated groups are lacking, except for a CDC study in 1999. This CDC study, led by Thomas Verstraten, allegedly compared children who received the hepatitis vaccine within the first thirty days of life to those vaccinated later or not at all. The speaker asserts the study found a 1,135% elevated risk of autism in vaccinated children, which "shocked" researchers. The speaker alleges the CDC then kept the study secret and manipulated it through five iterations to bury the link.

The CDC has not conducted studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children over time. In my practice, we analyzed data from all patients over 10.5 years, comparing those who followed the CDC vaccine schedule with those who did not. We included over 500 unvaccinated children and around 3,700 who received some vaccines. The findings were surprising; unvaccinated children experienced significantly fewer health issues, including infections and chronic conditions. The data showed a clear trend: the more vaccines a child received, the worse their health outcomes, including conditions like ADHD and allergies. Shortly after publishing this data, my medical license was suspended, with claims that I posed a threat to public health.

All vaccines, including COVID vaccines, are causing harm to children. There has never been a study comparing fully vaccinated kids following the CDC schedule to unvaccinated kids. The difference in health outcomes between these two groups is dramatic, with unvaccinated kids being consistently healthier. A 10-year study by Dr. Paul Thomas, which was retracted unethically, showed that vaccinated kids were more likely to get the diseases they were vaccinated against. A study by the control group with over 1,000 unvaccinated people also revealed significantly better health outcomes compared to fully vaccinated individuals. Despite promises, the CDC has never conducted a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. No vaccine is safe or effective, and no study has been able to prove otherwise.

The speaker claims that the CDC commissioned six epidemiological studies using fraudulent techniques, instead of comparing health outcomes between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. According to the speaker, a 1999 CDC study led by Thomas Verstraten compared children who received the hepatitis vaccine within their first thirty days of life to those vaccinated later or not at all. This study allegedly found a 1,135% elevated risk of autism among vaccinated children. The speaker states that the CDC kept the study secret and manipulated it to bury the link by removing older children and stratifying the data. The speaker asserts that over 100 external studies indicate a link between vaccines and autism.

The speaker claims that no childhood vaccine has ever undergone a safety trial using a double-blind, placebo-based study. They assert that this type of study, involving a saline injection as a placebo, is the only way to determine the safety of a pharmaceutical product. Furthermore, the speaker states that there has never been a study comparing the health outcomes of children who receive the full schedule of 72 (or potentially up to 90) vaccines to those who receive none. Because of the lack of safety studies and comparative data, the speaker chooses not to inject themselves or their children with vaccines. They want evidence that vaccines are safe and make people healthier.

"Chronic disease has gone from twelve point eight percent in our children in the nineteen eighties to over fifty four percent of our kids now." "72 times we are altering the immune system of our children with our vaccine program." "There'd be one easy study to rule it out, compare vaccinated children to completely unvaccinated children." "But we don't know because they've never done the study." "The vaccinated subjects were over four times more likely to have an asthma diagnosis." "Six hundred percent more acute and chronic ear infections." "Four point four seven times the amount of speech disorders in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated." "Amongst the unvaccinated group, there were zero. There was zero brain dysfunction, zero diabetes, zero behavioral problems, zero learning disabilities, zero intellectual disabilities, zero tics, and zero other psychological disabilities."

The speaker hired an expert to analyze data from 2,700 variably vaccinated and 560 unvaccinated patients in their practice, age-matched for comparison. The speaker claims the data, available at doctorsandscience.com, reveals significant differences in health outcomes. According to the speaker's slides, unvaccinated children had lower rates of asthma, allergic rhinitis, eczema, sinusitis, gastroenteritis, respiratory infections, otitis media, conjunctivitis, other infections, breathing issues, and behavioral issues like ADD/ADHD. The speaker states there were no cases of ADD/ADHD in unvaccinated patients over 10 years. The speaker suggests vaccines shift the immune system towards allergy and autoimmunity, leading to more infections. The speaker argues that the association between vaccines and negative health outcomes is not coincidental, citing multiple studies and mechanisms of action, including aluminum and immune activation from too many vaccines too soon. The speaker states that the medical board revoked their license in response to this study.

The documentary follows a growing concern: the rise of chronic illness and neurodevelopmental disorders in American children, with speakers outlining striking statistics, personal stories, and contested science around vaccines. Key facts and patterns: - A shift from decades ago to today: more than forty percent of American children now have at least one chronic health condition; estimates cited include that over fifty-four percent of kids have a chronic disease, up from twelve point eight percent in the 1980s. One speaker emphasizes that in forty years there has been “the greatest decline in human health ever recorded.” - Autism rates have surged: just a few decades ago, one in ten thousand children had autism; today, one in thirty-one. Other listed conditions include ADD/ADHD, tics/Tourette’s, narcolepsy, sleep disorders, IBS, autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, lupus, Crohn’s), eczema, asthma, seizures, and various neurological issues. - The central question raised: what is causing this epidemic of chronic illness in kids? The film argues that rapid increases in incidence cannot be explained by genetic change alone, which would take generations. Story and study arc: - The narrative centers on a scientist who was willing to conduct a study into vaccine safety and vaccine injury, but who faced career-risking consequences when attempting to publish or disseminate results. - The film’s narrator and investigators say they compiled hidden-camera testimonies, interviews, and raw stories from parents whose children experienced serious adverse events after vaccines (eczema, seizures, chronic GI issues, sleep apnea, language loss, autonomic and neurological symptoms, and death in some cases). Stories include a child who lost language after vaccination, triplets who regressed into severe autism after their pneumococcal shot, and families describing chronic, ongoing medical crises following vaccines. - The film frames a broader debate: vaccines are safe and effective, with extensive global use and long-standing public health endorsement. Yet it argues that the vaccine safety narrative lacks certain types of trials, particularly double-blind placebo-controlled trials for childhood vaccines. It claims that, in some cases, no such trials exist prior to licensure, and that post-licensure safety surveillance is limited or incomplete. Vaccine safety testing and regulatory claims: - The film argues that none of the 72 vaccine doses on the childhood schedule has ever been subjected to a pre-licensure double-blind placebo-controlled trial, which is presented as the gold standard of safety testing. It asserts that safety assessments and post-licensure surveillance often rely on observational data rather than randomized trials. - A critical example is the hepatitis B vaccine (Recombivax HB): the FDA-approved trial cited shows safety monitoring for only five days after each dose, with no placebo control. The film argues this is insufficient to detect autoimmune or neurodevelopmental issues that could emerge years later. - Dr. Stanley Plotkin, a leading vaccine expert, is interviewed regarding whether five days of safety monitoring captures potential autoimmune or neurological adverse events; the dialogue suggests concern about the adequacy of such safety windows and controls. - The documentary presents the notion that the absence of a placebo-controlled vaccine safety trial is used to argue safety, while retrospective studies and unblinded cohort analyses hints at potential signals that would merit more rigorous testing. Henry Ford Health System and the “vaccinated vs unvaccinated” study: - Dell and others pursue a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study using Henry Ford Health System data, with the aim of comparing health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. They argue that this kind of retrospective cohort study can reveal safety signals when randomized trials are unavailable. - The study reportedly found that vaccination exposure was associated with higher risks of several chronic conditions, including asthma, atopic diseases, autoimmune diseases (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, SLE, Guillain-Barré syndrome), and neurodevelopmental disorders. They summarize that by ten years, 57% of vaccinated children had a chronic health condition versus 17% of unvaccinated children; overall, two to four times higher risks across several categories were reported, with notable differences in neurodevelopmental outcomes. - The study reportedly found zero chronic conditions in the unvaccinated group for several categories, though the vaccinated group showed higher incidence in many categories. Autism did not reach statistical significance in this study due to small numbers. The presenters emphasize that retrospective studies have limitations (confounding, follow-up length, healthcare-seeking behavior), but argue that the signal deserves publication and replication. - The Henry Ford study reportedly faced professional and institutional barriers: a threat of defamation, failed attempts to publish, and internal resistance. The documentary showcases a dinner meeting where Dr. Marcus Zervos expresses willingness to publish but ultimately faces career risk, leading to discussions about “Galileo moments” and whether data should be released despite pushback. Industry and public health responses: - The film juxtaposes the public health consensus—vaccines save lives, the schedule is well tested, and billions of people have been studied—with dissenting voices from physicians, scientists, and parents who argue that independent, large-scale vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated analyses are necessary to truly assess safety outcomes. - It includes testimonials from doctors who faced professional pushback after expressing concerns about broader vaccine safety questions or demonstrating adverse effects in patient populations. - The documentary frames a call to replicate the retrospective study in other large health systems (e.g., Kaiser Permanente, Harvard Pilgrim, CDC’s VSD) to determine whether the Henry Ford findings hold across populations, and whether impaired health outcomes correlate with the breadth of vaccination exposure. Conclusion and call to action: - The film asserts that if the data are valid, this would constitute a sea-change in our understanding of off-target and nonspecific effects of vaccination and would necessitate reconsidering how the vaccination program is designed and implemented. - Viewers are urged to consider the evidence, demand replication, and reflect on the moral and ethical implications of vaccine safety research, balancing public health benefits with potential risks, and exploring alternate strategies to protect child health.

In early 2017, the speaker and Robert Kennedy Jr. met with Tony Fauci and Francis Collins at the NIH to discuss vaccine safety concerns. They questioned the absence of double-blind placebo safety trials for childhood vaccines. According to the speaker, Fauci and Collins admitted that such trials are not conducted because they would be unethical. The speaker proposed a comparative study using the Vaccine Safety Data Link (VSD) to compare the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, assessing rates of cancer, diabetes, ADD/ADHD, autism, Tourette's, lupus, and leukemia. The speaker claims this study could be completed quickly, but alleges that NIH officials stated they would never conduct it. The speaker suggests that if vaccines were proven safe through such a study, concerns about vaccine safety would disappear. The speaker believes the study has been done, but the data was manipulated to make vaccinated people appear healthier.

I hired an expert to analyze data on 2,700 vaccinated and 560 unvaccinated patients in my practice. Vaccinated kids had more health issues like asthma, allergies, infections, and behavioral problems compared to unvaccinated kids. Vaccines may shift the immune system, leading to more infections. Despite this evidence, my medical license was revoked. The common argument that association does not equal causation dismisses vaccine injury stories. Multiple studies support these findings, indicating a need for further investigation into vaccine safety.

The speaker discusses the issue of unvaccinated individuals and the lack of studies conducted by the government. They argue that giving the vaccine to everyone absolves the government of understanding its effects. However, they found studies in plain sight that compared vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Over 100 such studies are featured in the book, with very few coming from the federal government. The FDA claims it is not their job to conduct these studies, but the problem lies in the funding of studies by those who stand to profit from the products. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should be evaluating the risks associated with vaccines, especially when given together, but they have been negligent in doing so. The speaker suggests that vaccines should undergo placebo-controlled trials like other drugs.

Kendall asks for an explanation of the process by which the MMR vaccine causes autism, referencing the movie Vaxxed. Speaker 2 responds that they are currently researching those questions, as parents and physicians have reported children developing autism immediately after the MMR vaccine. The speaker claims studies that should have been done long ago were not. Instead, the speaker alleges that captured researchers at the CDC, mainly people who work for the pharmaceutical industry, produced bad epidemiological studies. The speaker asserts that these studies deliberately avoided comparing health outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups. Speaker 0 states that this is one of the things they are studying now with gold standard science. Speaker 2 confirms they are doing gold standard science, which includes replication. They are allocating about 20% of their budget to replicating studies. Speaker 0 explains replication as an independent group repeating a study with the same parameters and data sets to achieve the same result. Speaker 2 agrees.

The speaker states they searched for years for a pre-licensing safety trial of the 72 vaccine doses effectively mandated for American children. They claim that every other medication requires a safety trial comparing health outcomes in a placebo group versus a vaccine group before FDA licensing. The speaker assumed this was also done for vaccines. They state they found out that vaccines were exempt from this requirement.

The speaker discusses various studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. One study found that vaccinated children had higher rates of nasal allergy, allergic rhinitis, autism, pneumonia, and ear infections compared to unvaccinated children. Another study examined medical records and found that vaccinated children had more developmental delays, asthma, and ear infections. The speaker also mentions the challenges faced in getting these studies published and the scrutiny they faced from fact-checkers. Additionally, the speaker highlights the impact of breastfeeding on vaccination outcomes, noting that not breastfeeding for at least 6 months increased the risk of asthma, allergies, eczema, developmental delays, and autism in vaccinated children.

02/2013, the Institute of Medicine, commissioned by HHS, reviewed the CDC's childhood vaccine schedule and concluded, "the studies designed to examine the long term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted." It also stated, "there is no evidence that the schedule is not safe," and noted, "The IRM report did say it is, quote, possible to make the comparison, meaning through vaccinated, unvaccinated children, through analyses of patient information contained in large databases such as the vaccine safety data link, end quote." Has it been done? I don't know. Has it been published? No. In 2017, ICAN sought this study; Del Bigtree met Dr. Marcus Zervos, who agreed to conduct it at Henry Ford. The study found vaccinated children had higher rates of asthma, atopic disease, autoimmune disease, and neurodevelopmental disorders; ADHD occurred in the vaccinated but not unvaccinated; about 16,000 vs 2,000. After ten years, 57% vs 17% had at least one chronic health issue. It was not published because its findings did not fit the belief and policy that vaccines are safe; "we can protect children from infectious disease, and we can protect children from vaccine harms."

Study: Impact of childhood vaccination on short and long term chronic health outcomes in children, a birth cohort study. 18,468 subjects. 'The vaccinated subjects were over four times more likely to have an asthma diagnosis.' 'Six hundred percent more acute and chronic ear infections.' 'Four point four seven times the amount of speech disorders in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.' 'Five and a half times risk. Six hundred and sixteen percent increase.' 'Learning issues, developmental delays, speech delays, language delays.' 'Amongst the unvaccinated group, there were zero. There was zero brain dysfunction, zero diabetes, zero behavioral problems, zero learning disabilities, zero intellectual disabilities.' 'This is devastating.' 'This is an inconvenient study for the entire vaccine agenda.'

An expert conducted a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated patients in a medical practice. The results showed that vaccinated children had higher rates of asthma, allergic rhinitis, eczema, sinusitis, gastroenteritis, respiratory infections, otitis media, conjunctivitis, breathing issues, and behavioral issues like ADD and ADHD. The speaker mentions that vaccines may shift the immune system towards allergy and autoimmunity, leading to more infections. The speaker also claims that the medical board revoked their license in response to this study. They argue that the association between vaccines and health issues is not a coincidence, citing other studies and explaining the mechanism of action involving aluminum.

"This study was based on actual medical records." "What these researchers found was that vaccinated children had four point two nine times the rate of asthma, three point zero three times the rate of atopic disease, five point nine six times the rate of autoimmune disease, and five point five three times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders, which included three point two eight times the rate of developmental delay, and four point four seven times the rate of speech disorder." "After ten years, seventeen percent of the unvaccinated children had a chronic health issue, while fifty seven percent of the vaccinated children had at least one chronic health issue." "The only real problem with this study and why it didn't get submitted for publication is that its findings did not fit the belief and policy that vaccines are safe." "We can protect children from infectious disease, and we can protect children from vaccine harms."

The speakers discuss the benefits of vaccines and the need to compare the number of children affected by vaccines versus those with adverse reactions. They mention the 99.7% survival rate of COVID-19 and the increase in chronic health issues among children. They suggest that vaccines may be a factor in the rise of these issues and call for further study. However, they clarify that they are not claiming vaccines cause these issues, but that it should be properly investigated. They also point out that the increase in chronic health issues does not necessarily mean vaccines have improved children's health. They emphasize the need for sufficient data before reaching conclusions.

I conducted a study using data from my practice, encompassing every patient born within a ten-and-a-half-year period. This real-world patient data compared vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Unlike the CDC, we didn't exclude anyone and looked at every office visit, stratifying patients by the number of vaccines received. We found striking differences. Over 500 patients had zero vaccines, while over 3,700 had some vaccines. The data clearly showed that the more vaccines a child received, the higher the rates of infections, ADD, ADHD, neurodevelopmental issues, eczema, allergies, and even anemia. These conditions were significantly worse compared to the unvaccinated group. The data was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. However, within five days of publication, my medical license was suspended due to supposedly being a threat to public health.