TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The mRNA COVID vaccines were provisionally registered in 2018, allowing them on the market without full testing. The symbol on the box indicated reporting side effects was necessary, but many did not. The exact number of deaths and injuries is unknown. Rare side effects are being monitored after 14.7 billion doses administered. The lack of controlled data collection is criticized.

On October 6, 2021, I met with my manager, Conwell Gill, a principal scientist at Pfizer. We discussed the ethics of giving people experimental booster shots for money. mRNA vaccines have been around for 50 years but never made it to clinical use due to side effects. Pfizer and Moderna used the emergency of the pandemic to push through their vaccines. Pfizer collaborated with Beyond Tech on mRNA technology for COVID-19. Everything was new and rushed due to the pandemic. There was no time to think, only to act.

Over 1.6 million adverse event reports have been filed to VAERS for COVID-19 vaccines, with a significant increase in 2021. The underreporting factor is estimated to be around 31 for severe events like hospitalizations and death. The speaker believes the mRNA platform was used to gather data for future gene therapy applications.

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.

Many people who have received mRNA injections for COVID-19 may die within 3 to 5 years, even with just one dose. These mRNA vaccines were rushed into clinical trials without going through the usual testing phases. Normally, vaccines would go through phase one, phase two, and phase three trials, but these vaccines skipped phase two and went straight to phase three, which involves injecting the entire population. More than 60,000 people have died during these trials, and adverse events such as heart problems and organ failure have been reported. This is a dangerous experiment happening in real time on real people, including children and pregnant women. It is important to be honest and inform people about the risks involved.

mRNA vaccine recipients may face severe health risks, with predictions of significant mortality within 3 to 5 years. The COVID-19 vaccine trials are described as the most dangerous ever, with more deaths reported in one year than in 30 years of previous vaccine trials. Early treatments for COVID-19, such as vitamin D, hydroxychloroquine, and zinc, were overlooked in favor of vaccines. The mRNA vaccines are still in phase 3 clinical trials, having skipped critical phases, and many adverse events, including heart issues and organ failure, have been documented. The ongoing situation is likened to a large-scale experiment on the population, including vulnerable groups like children and pregnant women, which raises urgent concerns about safety and efficacy.

A year ago, the speaker requested data from Emma, including all clinical trials done by medical companies before they requested marketing authorization for the green certificate. Regarding Pfizer, the speaker notes the company submitted a clinical trial that started on January 14, 2020. The speaker questioned a Pfizer representative about how tests for the vaccine began so soon after the December 2019 emergence of COVID-19, but the representative declined to answer. The speaker also asked the CEO of Moderna how they submitted trials since 2017, years before the virus was discovered in the winter of 2019. The speaker states that the CEO of Moderna did not answer how this was possible. The speaker says these are legitimate questions that people are asking, but unfortunately, the companies are declining to answer.

In a meeting on October 6, 2021, questions arose about the ethics of administering experimental booster shots and whether financial motives influenced their rollout. The discussion highlighted that while mRNA vaccines have been researched for decades, they had not previously reached clinical trials due to known side effects. Pfizer and Moderna utilized the pandemic's emergency status to expedite their vaccines. A collaboration with BioNTech, initiated before COVID-19, led to the development of mRNA technology. The urgency of the pandemic required rapid action, leaving little time for thorough deliberation. Katherine Janssen, a key figure in vaccine development at Pfizer, emphasized the ongoing efforts to create effective vaccines against COVID-19.

Two years ago, most people would have refused gene or cell therapy, but the pandemic has changed perceptions of innovation. The COVID vaccine is not a traditional vaccine as it doesn't provide immunity or prevent transmission. The Pfizer vaccine wasn't tested for transmission prevention before its release due to the urgency. Vaccinated individuals can still get COVID-19. Countries with rapid mass vaccination have seen increased infections and deaths. A study from the Cleveland Clinic suggests that the more shots received, the higher the risk of getting COVID. Vaccination puts evolutionary pressure on the virus, leading to mutations. Epidemiological analysis shows a significant number of deaths related to the vaccines, with dangerous mechanisms of action and consistency with other fatal conditions. Temporal relation is also evident, with many deaths occurring shortly after vaccination.

Trump gave Moderna's COO a billion-dollar check to develop a vaccine quickly, bypassing FDA regulations. Human trials began after testing on mice. Many doubted the speed and safety of the process, but the vaccine was developed in 6 months. Concerns were raised by vaccine experts about the rushed development.

The mRNA vaccines received emergency use authorization, but concerns arose with myocarditis, particularly in boys aged 16 to 29 after the second dose. This condition was mostly transient and self-resolving. In contrast, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, based on adenovirus technology, was linked to severe clotting issues, including in the brain, leading to its market withdrawal by March 2023. This raised questions about the initial recommendations and eroded public trust. The aim is to foster realistic expectations about vaccine development, emphasizing that knowledge evolves over time, a fact often overlooked in personal experiences.

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

Recent Pfizer data reveals DNA contamination and acknowledges that liquid nanoparticles can spread throughout the body, contradicting previous denials. Concerns are raised about potential links between mRNA vaccines and cancer, referencing a 2006 FDA document warning about long-term cancer risks associated with mRNA gene therapies. Despite the push for mRNA in flu vaccines, long-term safety studies are lacking. Evidence suggests that these therapies may indeed pose cancer risks. The speaker expresses confidence that within five years, the connection to cancer will become undeniable, citing existing documents and admissions that indicate serious risks, even if they are not openly acknowledged.

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

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

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.

We discussed pandemic readiness and the speed of mRNA technology. I proposed a simulation to create a vaccine within 60 days, which was initially met with skepticism. However, due to our work on personalized cancer vaccines, we were prepared. When news of a new coronavirus emerged, we quickly got the sequence and began working on a vaccine. The conversation shifted to the need for disruptive entities to accelerate vaccine development, moving away from traditional methods like egg-based production. The urgency for innovative solutions to address outbreaks was emphasized.

The safety of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines, such as Pfizer and Moderna, is being questioned. Studies have shown that mRNA can be toxic to heart muscle cells and can remain in the human heart, bloodstream, lymph nodes, and injection site for extended periods. This raises concerns about the safety of mRNA technology for vaccines, as it may make flu shots and other vaccines more dangerous. Some argue for a ban on mRNA development due to the COVID-19 vaccine controversy.

We developed vaccines, like the Ameila vaccine, in just nine months. It's fast, considering the uncertainties surrounding vaccines. Initially, we made a mistake by claiming they protect against transmission, but they actually provide limited protection. As a result, repeated vaccinations are necessary due to their relatively short lifespan.

A year ago, the speaker requested data from Emma, including clinical trials from medical companies before they sought marketing authorization for their products. Regarding Pfizer, the speaker notes that the company submitted a clinical trial that started on January 14, 2020. The speaker questioned a Pfizer representative about how Pfizer started testing a vaccine in January 2020, just days after the Chinese government released DNA data about the virus in December 2019, but the representative declined to answer. The speaker also mentions that Moderna submitted trials dating back to 2017. The speaker asked the CEO of Moderna how it was possible to submit vaccine tests years before the virus was discovered in December 2019. The speaker states that these are legitimate questions that people are asking, but unfortunately, the companies are declining to answer.

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.

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.