TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I think we all know how important the COVID vaccine was. It was scientifically, critically studied to prevent severe disease. I think where people started to get confused is when we started to make potential claims that the vaccine did more than what it was studied to actually show. And remember all of those original studies, we didn't test patients unless they had symptoms. We only looked for disease, and so we don't know how many people were asymptomatic. We don't know about protection against infection. What we did know about is protection against severe disease. And clearly, if you look at the mortality in individuals 75 before vaccination and after vaccination, there was a dramatic difference even through, Amicrom and Delta. So, yes, the vaccine was highly effective for what it was intended to do, was prevent Shouldn't the health secretary know that? You know, I'm not sure that there's so much confusion about the COVID vaccine, what it was studied to do. I just want to make it very clear. It was studied to prevent severe disease, and that's what it does. And then I think the question is, well, who's who's susceptible to severe disease and who should continue to get the COVID shots? I think that's what needs to be clearly laid out to the American people.

When the government told us vaccinated people couldn't get the virus, were they guessing or lying? There was evidence of natural reinfection during the pandemic. Since the vaccine was based on natural immunity, one can't definitively say vaccination is superior to natural infection, even if it's often slightly better. I can't rule out the possibility that the government wasn't truthful when they stated vaccinated individuals couldn't contract the virus. While I ensured my susceptible family members were vaccinated, we still used layered protection during surges, knowing vaccine immunity could wane. The hope was that the vaccine would prevent transmission. Scientists and public health leaders must clearly communicate what's known versus what's hoped. When the government said the vaccinated couldn't get it, it wasn't the truth, but possibly a guess, a lie, or just hope.

The speaker believes mandating vaccines and negating natural immunity from infection was a big mistake. They agree that the general public's negative sentiment towards vaccines is now greater than when they became CDC director in 2018 or 2019. This increased negativity is largely due to how the COVID vaccines were positioned on the American public.

As a scientist, it's important to be criticized and hold science to a high standard. However, this doesn't work well in the public health arena. The example of the bivalent vaccine showed that it wasn't any better than the previous vaccine due to the original antigenic sin problem. Public health officials kept pushing it as better, causing a divisive climate. The recent recommendation for boosters also sparked controversy, as the United States recommends it for everyone over 6 months, while other countries have targeted recommendations for high-risk groups. Nuanced messages get lost in the current climate, but it's important to explain recommendations carefully to the public.

The discussion around vaccines is often oversimplified, leading to distrust in government recommendations. For instance, the hepatitis B vaccine is given to newborns, despite the disease primarily spreading through drug use and sexual contact. This raises questions about the necessity of immediate vaccination. While vaccines are generally beneficial, there should be room for individual choice and discussion. The COVID vaccine presents similar complexities, especially regarding its necessity for healthy children. It’s crucial to have open debates about vaccine safety and efficacy, rather than adhering strictly to consensus. Science evolves, and we should remain open-minded about potential links between vaccines and conditions like autism and schizophrenia, as we still lack definitive answers. Ultimately, it’s about following the science without preconceived notions.

Questions were raised about the vaccine mandate: "Why was it mandated for young men? Why is the COVID vaccine when we knew relatively early on that it causes myocarditis at some rate?" It was argued that it "didn't stop you from getting or spreading COVID," so we asked why we should "act as if it does." The speaker felt frustrated: "if you said those things in public, you were cast as an anti vaxxer. It's not an anti vaxx to say, Here's what the scientific evidence says." They claim to have "advocated during the pandemic for older people to take the vaccine" but "didn't advocate to force older people to take it." Personally, they were "relieved when my mom took the vaccine in March 2021" and, overall, "I took it, but I was indifferent."

Paul Offit said that I'm going to do everything I can to make vaccines less available and affordable, which will hurt the vaccine infrastructure in this country. I'm supposedly joining hands with Donald Trump to march into measles land. But I'm not going to take away anyone's vaccines. People should be able to get them if they want. I want to give people good science. We don't have good safety studies on almost any of the 72 vaccines mandated for children. HHS admitted there are no pre-licensing safety studies for any of them, except the COVID vaccine. We need to know the risk profiles of these products. We also don't have good data on adverse effects from the COVID vaccine, which is a crime. The CDC's surveillance system captures less than one percent of vaccine injuries. Congress and the National Academy of Sciences have repeatedly ordered the CDC to put together a better vaccine. We will do that right away.

Vaccines have a place, but the population has been scared into accepting them. It's frustrating that vaccines are being promoted as gene therapy to children who are not at risk. It's ethically questionable to recommend something dangerous to a certain group to protect the elderly. Personally, as a 70-year-old, I don't want young people getting vaccinated for my sake. If something happened to them, I would feel guilty.

Some people who raised concerns about vaccine side effects were silenced to prevent vaccine hesitancy. Vaccines are crucial for older individuals but may not be as critical for younger people. While vaccines have saved lives, some individuals have experienced significant side effects. It is important to acknowledge these issues despite the benefits vaccines provide.

My concern is that vaccine hesitancy will prevent us from achieving herd immunity. It's not just the small percentage of anti-vaxxers, but also millions of people who have concerns about the vaccine and don't understand its benefits. We need to clearly communicate that the vaccine is the key to returning to normal life. With states reopening at full capacity, we have a limited opportunity to link reopening policies to vaccination status. If everything is reopened without incentives for vaccination, people will enjoy their freedoms without getting vaccinated. The CDC and the Biden administration should boldly state the benefits of vaccination and the freedoms it provides.

Questioning why it was mandated for young men and why we were told to act as if it stopped you from getting or spreading COVID, when it didn't stop infection or spread and it causes myocarditis at some rate. "It makes no sense." The speaker says he was reading the scientific evidence saying things like this, and yet if you said those things in public, you were cast as an anti vaxxer. "It's not an anti vaxx to say, Here's what the scientific evidence says. Here's the situations when it's beneficial to use this vaccine. Here's the situations when it's less likely beneficial. Here's what we know and here's what we don't know, right?" He advocated during the pandemic for older people to take the vaccine, but didn't advocate to force older people to take it. He was relieved when his mom took the vaccine in March 2021.

I was upset with the CDC for stopping tracking of infections in vaccinated individuals. Vaccines should not have been mandated, and side effects should have been acknowledged. The vaccines do not fully protect against infection. The spike protein in the vaccines can cause harm. I now prefer using a protein-based vaccine by Novavax, as it provides a known amount of spike protein without the risk of prolonged impact seen with mRNA vaccines.

During COVID, I was on the board of my kids' school and initially supported a strict lockdown policy. However, I now realize that keeping kids out of school for longer had a greater negative impact than the risks. We all operated with imperfect information, including myself, the CDC, and the governor. Let's learn from this and hold each other accountable while showing grace and forgiveness. Unfortunately, about 1 in 5 US adults are unwilling to get vaccinated, making them the global runner-up in vaccine hesitancy. This means roughly 56 million Americans are 11 times more likely to die from COVID than the rest of the population. It's embarrassing that some Americans are playing Russian roulette with their lives and the lives of others. Despite this, America's healthcare response to COVID has been a victory, thanks to the vaccines.

Vaccines have a place, but the population has been terrorized with propaganda. It's frustrating that vaccines are being promoted as gene therapy with unknown risks for children who are at low risk. It's not ethically or morally acceptable to recommend something dangerous to them to protect the elderly. As a 70-year-old, I don't want young people getting vaccinated for my sake, and I would feel guilty if something happened to them.

We're seeing the tip of the iceberg. So right now, I think probably the most prominent, demonstration of that, is, what secretary Kennedy did with changing the childhood schedule for COVID nineteen. In that, we were directed that only children with underlying conditions would be the ones that should qualify for vaccination. That's not what the data shows. Six month old to two year old, their underlying condition is youth. Fifty three percent of those children hospitalized last season had no underlying conditions. The data say that in that age range, you should be vaccinating your child. I understand that not everybody does it, but they have limited access by narrowing that recommendation. Insurance may not cover it.

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.

I spoke with a congressperson who mentioned getting Guillain Barre from a flu vaccine. When discussing vaccination, it's crucial to address concerns and focus on the benefits, data, and safety of the COVID vaccine. Listening to people's worries is essential.

"Senator: 'We discovered is that Anthony Fauci was destroying federal records. He was encouraging other people to destroy federal records. That is a crime.' He testified to the house a year ago and said he wasn't doing that. 'That's a crime to perjure himself.' 'We will bring him back. I've asked him to come and testify this fall. If he doesn't come voluntarily, we will subpoena him.' 'The question is, is he immune because of the pardon? I think that that needs to be challenged in court.' 'I have encouraged the Trump administration that they should prosecute this case and challenge the auto pen. I don't think the auto pen is sufficient.' 'There were so many pardons that I'm not sure Biden was aware of all the people he did pardon.' 'There is not a direct link from the person running the auto pen to the president. The person that was running the auto pen never spoke with the president.' 'And I think a president's signature on something so as important as legislation or a pardon is absolutely required.'" "Susan Monarez will testify before the senate HELP committee tomorrow. This will be her first appearance since being ousted from the role. She will be joined by Deb Aury, a former chief medical officer and deputy director who was one of four CDC officials who resigned after Monarez was ousted." "The chair with the president of Moderna ... I asked him about the expectation that he'll be getting a lot less revenue from the vaccine for COVID perhaps this time around. The scientific evidence shows that the risks of taking the COVID vaccine for children exceeds the benefits, and the scientific evidence is abundant on this. There's a study out of Israel that showed that about six to eight kids 20 that are healthy will get an inflammation of the heart that is very dangerous, and that risk exceeds the benefits of a vaccine. Every kid at six months needs to get a COVID vaccination, and that defies the scientific evidence and shows me that she's not objective. It's the same with the hepatitis B vaccine. Unless the mom has hepatitis B vaccine, disease, there is no indication for the vaccine at birth, and we need to readdress that."

What's causing distrust in public health isn't the idea of public health itself, but the actions of its leaders. We need to address the conflicts of interest, like Dr. Offit taking millions from pharmaceutical companies while approving their products. It's also about holding people accountable when they make definitive statements about science, yet have approved products, like vaccines, that have later been recalled for causing harm. While measles is important, let's remember that before the vaccine, there were 300 deaths a year from measles. Today, we have a much bigger problem, with 38% of children having prediabetes. It is important that we focus on reorganizing the department to address issues like this, instead of being distracted.

I cannot understand how anyone can recommend the mRNA vaccination and sleep well at night. They seem afraid to admit they were wrong. I want to give you a chance to address your colleagues, fellow pathologists, and medical professionals. My advice is to always question what so-called experts say. You don't need top scientists, you need experienced doctors who think critically. In the past, people died from the flu without it being turned into a pandemic or locking people away.

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 made it clear that my children received childhood immunizations. The issue is we failed to communicate that COVID vaccines differ significantly from childhood vaccines, which typically provide lasting immunity after one dose. The COVID vaccine was not designed to prevent infection. Vaccine hesitancy has doubled since COVID, and we must address this. The mRNA vaccines should have prioritized individuals at high risk for severe disease, aligning with the scientific data. We should have protected the elderly and those in nursing homes first. Prioritizing young people in hospitals before the elderly was not following the science. Public health actions must align with scientific data to maintain the trust of the American people.

No children died from COVID in 2020, so there is no need for them to be vaccinated. The government's role in this situation cannot be denied, and many Americans are outraged and angered by the lack of accountability. The worst thing to happen to our country and the world, in my opinion, is the ongoing vaccine mandates.

What we need to do at our agency is to make sure the public believes in the things that we're saying. And the way that we do that is by telling the truth. There are many other countries that actually have a higher vaccination rates than ours where, there are no mandates, and it's because people trust their government. The Americans have lost faith in the federal government. Sixty percent of Americans say that they will not take that vaccine no matter what. And only thirteen percent of children although it's recommended for a hundred percent of children, only thirteen percent are complying. And that's after a billion dollar campaign to persuade people to take. It's the biggest campaign for a pharmaceutical product in history.

I said that the people who died should have been vaccinated. They were the ones we know are at risk. It's a true public health priority to prioritize them and take action, both collectively and individually.