TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Vaccines don't cause autism. The science is clear. Vaccines don't cause autism. Vaccines do not cause autism. I do not deny that we need to do more about autism, but it has nothing to do with vaccines. We have thoroughly debunked any association between autism and these vaccines. Robert, it is nearly consensus in the scientific community that there's no link there. To deny a mountain of scientific evidence, which has already taught us that the combination of measles, mumps, rubella, or MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism, Vimerosal, an ethylmercury containing preservative that wasn't a number of vaccines doesn't cause autism, and that too many vaccines given too soon, if you will, doesn't also cause autism. We know that the schedule is safe. Are there peer reviewed scientific reports that indicate a link between No. Between vaccines and autism? No. Not only is there not a peer reviewed work, this is probably the most studied public health issue involving children. Vaccines are really the one thing we have looked at as causing autism. The Institutes of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control have repeatedly investigated this. Vaccines do not cause autism. We don't need more research. At some point, enough is enough. It's fine to continue to collect data, but at some point, you have to take note for an answer. We're not sure what causes autism, but we know that vaccines do not. Mountains of evidence. No, you know, this has been looked at extensively. Nothing's been more studied in the world than this connection between vaccines and autism. We'd heard it. We've heard it for decades. You know, actually almost a century now, if you want to get into it. This has been the battle cry of the pharmaceutical industry and every shill that works for them. But whether you know it or not all the way back in 2020 for those of you that were watching then we actually disproved this myth right then. Debunked it with a lawsuit where we went at the CDC and said really if the head of your page on the CDC website says vaccines plural meaning all vaccines do not cause us to do we have that original website. This is what it said: vaccines do not cause autism. There it is. All vaccines doesn't say one of them or two of them all vaccines by the plural s at the end of vaccines. If vaccines do not cause autism will you please provide us with all of the evidence and studies that show that vaccines don't cause autism. Send us that evidence. Well they didn't and we sued them and we went to court. Back in 2020, we won the case. Here it looks like in the document. They gave us the list. It's actually 20 studies. 20 total studies make up the entire list of what they look to when they say that these childhood vaccines, the five, and the cumulative effects of them given in the first six months of life, do not cause autism. The first one is an MMR study. The second one an MMR and a DTaP study. The next ones are MMR, these four are MMR and Thimerosal studies. Then the next all the way through to 20 are all just Thimerosal studies. Lastly, we have one antigen study. Of the 20 studies, the first MMR studies are not in the first six months of life; Thimerosal studies show none of the vaccines in the first six months of life had Thimerosal. There was only one study relevant to the first six months of life, the IOM review of the DTaP vaccine, and it said there are no studies that prove or disprove the association with autism. Therefore, that was the only one that was relevant to the first six months of life, and it proved that they had no answers. And so for everyone that's ever sent Mountain of Evidence, that's been a lie. We won in court. It's a lie. You can take that to the bank. And actually just months after winning that lawsuit, that was in May, by August they pulled down the statement vaccines do not cause autism. We celebrated it but five months later it went back up and we've been stuck there with this propaganda statement that have no basis in science up until last night when this happened to the website. Let's see the new page. Here it is. It now says autism and vaccines and right under that it has the key points. So we read those key points. The claim vaccines do not cause autism is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism, meaning those vaccines in the first six months of life. Meaning the IOM lawsuit that proved that. Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities. HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links. It does have an explanatory statement I want to read right now. It says this about why you will still see it with an asterisk the header vaccines do not cause autism has not been completely removed due to an agreement with the chair of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that it would remain on the CDC website. Apparently, this was that backroom deal that was made with Senator Cassidy, of course, when Robert Kennedy Jr. was up there. But now you can see on the page it is clear we are making the statement or it's being made by the CDC that this is not a scientific statement and so ultimately this is a massive change. I tweeted out about it today and to every parent of an autistic child that's been out there. For every one of you that did interviews, whether in the film Vaxxed or when we toured the nation and for everyone that's ever been gaslit, the days of gaslighting are over. We are now moving into science-based, evidence-based statements on the CDC website. It's a beautiful day.

We're all talking about something here which isn't happening. I've heard time and time again members here talk of c o two as a pollutant. A pollutant is a life giving natural gas. It gives me the impression that some of our members haven't had the benefit of a formal education. Isn't this really just about the state being able to get its hand in ordinary people's trouser pocket to still get more tax from them? Isn't this all about political control? Isn't all this about politics and big business? The whole thing's a sham. This bogus hypothesis, this ridiculous nonsense that man made c o two is causing global warming. Enough, please, before we damage irrevocably the global economy.

We're not debating whether there's waste in government; everyone agrees on that. The issue is how we're addressing it. Firing staff overseeing nuclear weapons, only to realize the mistake and try to bring them back, seems clumsy. It's like using a sledgehammer to remove fat from a steak, making a mess. You're focusing on the messenger, not the results. Under the Biden administration, someone in charge of nuclear secrets, who stole women's luggage, wasn't questioned. Humans make mistakes, but these programs are bloated. People are upset about returning to work, but no one disagrees there's bloat. Why aren't you exposing wasteful spending like the $10 million for circumcisions in Mozambique? You only focus on Elon Musk and Donald Trump, which is why your ratings are down.

I don't think it's right to always take the concerns and worries of the population seriously. What concerns and worries do they even have? I don't understand.

For the last couple of weeks, Democrats have been attacking those who are exposing wasteful spending instead of focusing on stopping the spending. This underscores the fundamental difference between the left and conservatives. The left thinks bureaucrats are smarter than the American people. I'd rather trust the 77 million people who elected President Trump to identify the dumb things that taxpayer money is going towards. They're attacking the people President Trump put in charge. You can't question the bureaucrats, even though the smartest bureaucrat, Dr. Fauci, was wrong about many things. They even tried to set up a disinformation governance board to tell us what we can and can't say. I'll trust the guy elected by 77 million Americans to focus on stopping the stupid spending. We have a $36 trillion debt. We should pass Mr. Siskamani's bill again this year.

We should stop wasting time on the idea that male and female aren't real and focus on improving healthcare for everyone. Unfortunately, this thinking has infiltrated our institutions, particularly in American healthcare, and it's causing harm. Children are being misled and these lies are negatively impacting their mental health, happiness, and understanding of gender. This will have long-lasting effects on their lives. It's too late to stop it completely, but we need to limit its duration before realizing it's a serious medical and social scandal. This issue is present in schools and communities, so we must fight against it to prevent further spread.

Science can be incorrect, but progress is made by building on previous work. When doubt is cast on established science, it hinders advancement and keeps us stagnant. The issue lies in continuously questioning and revisiting settled science, which prevents us from moving forward.

We must push back against anti-vaxxers who pose a serious challenge. Vaccines work for adults, and we have evidence on our side. It's time to be more aggressive in countering their harmful actions, especially during the COVID pandemic.

People have been finding ways to prove that the Earth is flat, which may not seem serious. However, believing in something that isn't true can lead to real problems and bring society to scary places. It's important to ensure people have access to freedom of speech, expression, and information.

I support focusing on issues like obesity and overmedicating children. Bobby Kennedy is fighting against the incentive for pharma to profit from sick children. Hospitals benefit from full beds, and chronic disease is good for the health industry's economics. I'm lobbying for SNAP bills to remove soda, highlighting a conflict where public health may not prioritize children's interests. When the data doesn't support their argument, RFK Jr. resorts to personal attacks. My Merck chair is defined by Penn, with no obligations. This is a tactic used when the science doesn't support anti-vaccine claims. The science continually proves he's wrong about vaccines.

We strongly oppose the conservatives' resistance to evidence-based programs that save lives. We must not revert to the failed ideology of the past. The consequences could be dire.

Decisions have consequences, and if people are unaware of them, they must experience them. For example, not vaccinating against measles can lead to people contracting measles and children dying. Science and vaccines are victims of their own success. The point of using dandruff shampoo is that you don't have dandruff. Similarly, the reason there are no communicable diseases is because of vaccinations.

The reaction to the idea of opening the books on government spending is telling. People are freaking out about the possibility of seeing where our money is going and maybe even rolling back some of it. It's enjoyable to watch them spaz out over it and see what they're reduced to arguing. The US Federal Government spends more money and has more debt than anyone else in history. The moment someone suggests modest cuts or opening the books, everyone loses their mind, claiming it's the end of the world. They act like opening the books or cutting spending is corruption. Think about how backward that is.

I raised concerns about investing NIH resources to re-examine the link between the measles vaccine and autism, given the extensive existing research and limited resources. It's impossible to prove a negative, and re-plowing already examined ground distracts from addressing unknown causes or solutions to the chronic disease crisis. We risk children dying from preventable diseases if we keep pretending this link is an issue. I agree that we need to address the rise in autism. While I believe the literature shows no connection between the MMR vaccine and autism, distrust in medicine exists post-pandemic. Providing good data is key to addressing concerns, but I'm unsure what constitutes "good data" when it already exists. The focus should be on pressing childhood health problems like diabetes and obesity, which should be the priorities of the NIH director.

Some things are fake, and there are many unknowns. However, when something is obvious, there's little reason to argue about it, regardless of research done.

People need to understand science better. Attacks on experts are attacks on science. Magic is used for education, not black magic. The world is small in the universe. Going against facts makes you look crazy. Going to Bermuda and back isn't all it's cracked up to be. Not everyone can be a robot polisher. Use your head.

Do you think the government spends too much money? Absolutely, it's a given. Recently, they spent $750,000 to study whether it was one small step for a man or one small step for mankind during the moon landing. How is that justified? It's ridiculous. Then there's a million dollars spent to see if cocaine makes Japanese quail more sexually promiscuous. Who cares about quail? And $100,000 to determine if tequila or gin makes sunfish more aggressive? That's absurd. These expenditures are not a good use of taxpayer dollars, especially when you consider how much is spent on military funding.

Some folks might not see eye-to-eye with me – people disagree about all sorts of things. But just because someone's upset, should we divert precious taxpayer money from critical issues like obesity, heart disease, and cancer? There's a real opportunity cost to consider here. If we spend resources addressing concerns that have already been thoroughly investigated, what are we sacrificing? Is it wise to reallocate funds based solely on disagreement, especially when those resources could be used to combat major health crises?

I think it's one thing to criticize Elon Musk or Doge, but to only do that and criticize the way Elon talks about or uncovers fraud and waste, and not the waste and fraud itself, reminds me of a situation. Imagine you confront someone about cheating with evidence, and they respond with, "You went through my phone? How can we be together if you don't trust me?". Can we not talk about what was found now? It's the same thing here. If you find issues with the way things are being done, but there's no mention of what was found, which should bother you, then we have a problem.

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

I support discussing issues like obesity and overmedicating children. Bobby Kennedy is fighting against the incentive for pharma to profit from sick children, and he's supporting efforts to remove soda from SNAP. The problem is that organizations like Merck don't have children's best interests at heart, considering their history of criminal penalties for misleading information. When the data isn't on their side, RFK Jr. and personal injury lawyers attack the person. My Merck chair is defined by Penn, and there's no quid pro quo. The science continually proves RFK Jr. wrong about vaccines.

There is a small fringe element in this country that is angry and doesn't believe in science. They are lashing out with racist and misogynistic attacks. These voices, special interest groups, and anti-vaxxer mobs are not protesters.

Why is everyone so focused on measles when so many other health issues plague our country? The media breathlessly covers five measles cases while ignoring the obesity epidemic affecting 50% of teens. Sixteen percent of COVID deaths worldwide were Americans, but our health priorities seem misdirected. The focus on measles is overshadowing other critical health concerns. Bobby Kennedy's stance isn't anti-vaccine; he simply advocates for rigorous studies on vaccines, like any other product. He, and others, are concerned with the chronic conditions responsible for 92% of deaths in the United States, and want to address the bigger picture of health policy.

If I give an organization a billion dollars, I need to know where it went. Otherwise, that's wasteful and irresponsible. If you can't account for it, what am I supposed to think? Now, I'm not saying anyone is directly responsible for this. However, giving an $850 billion budget to an organization that can't pass an audit and explain where the money went seems like waste, fraud, or abuse to most people. They would naturally wonder why the money isn't properly accounted for.

At one time, not too long ago, one out of a hundred thousand children were diagnosed with autism. Now it's one in thirty one. The speaker calls that "ridiculous" and describes it as a "'massive spike in autism'." The opposition claims the rise is due to better ways of diagnosing it. The speaker counters that if that were true, then you would look into every single nursing home and they would be filled with autistic people, and you don't see that. If you personally had a child with autism, wouldn't you want someone to look deeply and widely at every possibility? I mean, that's just common sense.