TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Long-term impacts of vaccines need to be considered, as they can have injuries with extended diagnostic horizons and incubation periods. For instance, the DTP vaccine caused brain injuries or death in 1 in every 300 children, leading to its discontinuation in the US. However, it is still administered to 161 million African children annually. Bill Gates claimed it saved 30 million lives, but when asked for data, he couldn't provide any. Independent studies in Africa revealed that vaccinated girls were dying at a rate 10 times higher than unvaccinated girls, from unexpected causes like anemia, malaria, and respiratory diseases. The vaccine had protected against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, but compromised their immune systems, leaving them vulnerable to other illnesses.

“Day one of birth.” “they get one on day one of birth, they get another one a month later, they get another six months later.” It’s a “captive audience.” “How many babies are gonna be IV drug abusers or go out and have unprotected sex or get a blood transfusion from somebody who’s infected?” They claim “mom could have had hepatitis B” and that “mom was tested for hepatitis during her pregnancy,” so doctors would have known and could have “either treat it or do something about it or maybe prophylax the baby.” They ask, “Why would pediatricians go along with that? … money.” They warn, “If they’re giving infants treatment that the infant doesn’t need that has potentially harmful consequences and they’re doing it for money, then they’re criminals.” “there’s two hepatitis B vaccines that are in use.” They ask, “What the long term the follow-up study on those two hepatitis B vaccines is? No. Four days for one, five days for the other.” “Where’s the longitudinal study?” “They haven’t done it.” “That’s the vaccine industry.”

Dr. Menares and an interlocutor debate the science behind pediatric COVID vaccination and routine immunizations, focusing on transmission, hospitalization, and risk. - The interlocutor asks whether the COVID vaccine prevents transmission. Speaker 1 answer: the vaccine can reduce viral load in individuals who are infected, and with reduced viral load, there is reduced transmission. The interlocutor reframes, insisting that the vaccine does not prevent transmission and notes decreasing effectiveness over time, citing Omicron data showing around 16% reduction when there is a reduction. - On hospitalization for children 18 and under: Speaker 0 asserts the vaccine does not reduce hospitalization for 18-year-olds; statistics are inconclusive due to small numbers of hospitalizations in that age group (approximately 76 million people aged 18 in the country, with 183 deaths and a few thousand hospitalizations in 2020–2021; numbers have since dropped). The argument emphasizes a need to discuss the issue. - On death for children 18 and under: Speaker 0 says the vaccine does not reduce the death rate; claims there is no statistical evidence that it reduces deaths. Speaker 1 responds with a more cautious stance: “It can,” but Speaker 0 counters, calling that an insufficient answer. - The discussion references the vaccine approval process and ongoing debates in vaccine committees. The interlocutor states that when the vaccine was approved for six months and older, the discussion acknowledged no proof of reduction in hospitalization or death. The argument asserts that the justification for vaccination is based on antibody generation rather than clear hospitalization/death data. The interlocutor contends that immunology measurements (antibody production) do not necessarily justify vaccination frequency. - The core debate centers on what the science supports for vaccinating six-month-olds and the benefits versus risks. The interlocutor argues there is no hospitalization or death benefit for vaccination in this age group, and notes a known risk of myocarditis in younger populations, estimated somewhere between six and ten per ten thousand, which the interlocutor claims is greater than the risk of hospitalization or death being measurable. - The exchange then shifts to changing the childhood vaccine schedule, particularly the hepatitis B vaccine given to newborns when the mother is not hepatitis B positive. The interlocutor asks for the medical or scientific reason to give a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn with an uninfected mother, arguing that the discussion should focus on whether to change the schedule rather than declaring all vaccines as good or bad. - Speaker 1 says they agreed with considering the science and would not pre-commit to approving all ACIP recommendations without the science. Speaker 0 disagrees, asserting their position that the debate should center on the medical rationale for these specific vaccines and schedules, not on a blanket endorsement of vaccines. - Throughout, the dialogue emphasizes examining the medical reasons and evidence for specific vaccines and schedules, rather than broad generalizations about vaccines.

ACE has never turned away a single vaccine, even for diseases that are not casually contagious. The hepatitis B vaccine is recommended for babies when they're an hour old, despite the fact that it's transmitted through sexual contact or shared needles. While maternal transmission is possible, every mother is tested, so we know who is vulnerable. The speaker claims the risk to a one-day-old baby is one in seven million, and that financial incentives are a factor. Many of the targeted diseases' vaccines don't prevent transmission, making mandates questionable. Vaccines can cause chronic injuries that last a lifetime.

Hepatitis B is contracted through sexual activity and IV drug use. The speaker believes babies do not need the hepatitis B vaccine. The hepatitis B vaccine contains 250 micrograms of aluminum. The speaker states that after Thimerosal was removed from vaccines, the hepatitis B vaccine was moved from being given to teenagers to newborns. The speaker claims the amount of aluminum in the vaccine is five times the adult daily maximum.

Day one of birth. They get one on day one, another a month later, another six months later: 'They get one on day one of birth, they get another one a month later, they get another one six months later.' 'That's because it's a captive audience. That's the only reason.' He questions the rationale: 'How many babies are gonna be IV drug abusers or get a blood transfusion from somebody who's infected?' He argues mom 'was tested for hepatitis during her pregnancy,' and that if they had hepatitis B, doctors would know and 'could ... prophylax the baby.' He asks, 'Why would pediatricians go along with that? ... money.' He contends: 'If they're giving infants treatment that the infant doesn't need ... they're criminals.' He notes 'two hepatitis B vaccines' are in use, with 'Four days for one, five days for the other' follow-up, and asks, 'Where's the longitudinal study? ... They haven't done it. ... That's the vaccine industry.'

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify the core topics: trial design and safety monitoring, absence of control group, list of reported adverse events, causality vs association, need for placebo-controlled trials, regulatory and review positions (CDC, IOM), and final stance on vaccine safety. - Preserve key factual claims and phrases (e.g., monitoring duration, lack of control group, listed adverse events, causality requirements). - Emphasize any surprising or unique points (no pre-licensure placebo trial, IOM stance on data, final assertion about safety assumptions). - Exclude filler, repetition, and off-topic chatter; keep a neutral, fact-focused summary. - Translate only if needed; retain precise wording where quoted. - Keep the summary within 378-473 words. Summary: In the discussion about Recombivax HB, the speaker confirms the product and its labeling, noting that Section 6.1 covers pre-licensure clinical trial experience and that safety was monitored after each dose for five days. It is stated that five days is not long enough to detect autoimmune issues or neurological disorders arising after vaccination. The conversation also points out that there is no control group in those trials. Turning to Section 6.2, the nervous system disorders subsection acknowledges reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome and multiple sclerosis, including exacerbation, myelitis including transverse myelitis, seizures and febrile seizures, peripheral neuropathy including Bell’s palsy, muscle weakness, hypothesia, and encephalitis. It is emphasized that these reports are included because they have been reported to authorities as occurring after vaccination, not because they prove the vaccine caused those reactions. To establish causality, a randomized placebo-controlled study would be needed, but none was performed for this hepatitis B vaccine before licensure. Without a control group, evaluating whether a phenomenon in the vaccine group is related is not possible. A speaker comments that the broader issue is that such safety placebo trials were not done before licensure; once injuries are observed, they argue that it’s unethical to conduct placebo trials, and doctors may claim there are no studies showing the injuries are caused by the vaccine, leading to an assumption of safety. The discussion then touches on CDC guidance, with a question about agreeing with the recommendation that babies receive hepatitis B on the first day of life. The responder concedes that hepatitis B doesn’t cause encephalitis “in my opinion.” The IOM review is cited as having determined it “couldn’t find science to support a causal determination one way or another.” In the absence of data, the conclusion cited is that “there’s no proof that causation exists,” which is distinguished from saying it doesn’t cause it. The transcript closes with a provocative remark: “Vaccine safety is not based on science and data. And that is the stalemate we find ourselves in.”

I stumbled on data. This is hard to believe if you haven't heard this before. For every single vaccine on the childhood schedule, your risk of death, we're just looking at death, because that's what parents fear the most. I don't want my child to die of this disease for which we have a vaccine. How could I live with myself? Your risk of dying from the vaccine far exceeds your risk of death from the disease. You can say that unequivocally. Unequivocally. For every single disease for which we have a vaccine. Wow. So what you what are you afraid of? If you're afraid of your child dying, do not give them a vaccine. Right. Period. You should be afraid of some of these other things when severe autism is is just skyrocketing. These are kids who need lifelong care.

And so there are two hepatitis vaccines, and one of them was had a safety study that lasted for four days on a 143 kids, a product that's gonna be given to the seventy six million kids. The risk profile prior to the introduction of the vaccine, the risk of a baby dying from hepatitis B was one in seven million. That means you need to give 7,000,000 hepatitis B vaccines to prevent one death if you're gonna give seven million. So, mister Sikh, and guess before the press labels me wrong, I'm not anti vaccine either either. Think I MMR has been a great vaccine. The DPT has been a great vaccine. Polio has been a great vaccine. Small pot so there are great but it's it's the measured approach that we're after, the transparency you're trying to impal

The FDA approved Sanofi's meningococcal vaccine for infants aged six weeks to two years. According to the insert approved by the FDA, safety trials revealed serious adverse events (SAEs) in 5.3% of participants following MenQuadfi and 3.6% following Menveo during the study period. SAEs are defined as events with the potential to be fatal if unchecked. This suggests a rate of approximately one in twenty children experiencing a serious adverse event, a significantly higher rate than the previously claimed one in a million for vaccinations. The speaker questions the acceptability of this higher rate of adverse events.

Speaker 0 describes a study on the hepatitis B vaccine, stating it is loaded with mercury during the first thirty days of life and comparing infants who received it in that period to those who did not or who received it later. He claims that the relative risk of smoking a pack a day for twenty years leading to lung cancer is ten, with a figure of 11.35, and attributes this to Thimerosal. Speaker 1 asks if the claim is about Thimerosal, and Speaker 0 confirms, then recounts a story that motivated his involvement: a “secret meeting” held to avoid on-campus exposure to freedom of information requests. The meeting occurred at Simpson Wood, a remote Methodist retreat center on the Chattahoochee River in Norcross, Georgia. Over two days, 52 attendees included major vaccine companies, regulatory agencies (WHO, CDC, FDA, NIH, HHS), and leaders in academic vaccinology. Megan recorded the first day, and Speaker 0 says he obtained the transcripts in 2005, calling them horrific. He invites listeners to read them on the Children’s Health Events site to judge for themselves, arguing the transcripts reveal “panjarums of the American healthcare system” and that regulators claimed the science was bulletproof while suggesting vaccines cause autism. Speaker 1 notes that Speaker 0 has previously claimed the conference revealed that vaccines cause autism and that data should be buried, referencing a January 2011 Rolling Stone article and a Salon piece that later withdrew the article. He mentions an eighteen-month US Senate committee investigation that found allegations of CDC misconduct unsubstantiated and concluded there was no cover-up. Speaker 0 clarifies it was a two-year committee hearing led by Senator Burton at the Governmental Oversight Committee, and asserts that vaccines do cause autism, while encouraging listeners to research the science themselves rather than trust him or the organizations cited. Speaker 0 then attacks the credibility and funding of CDC, NIH, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, claiming they are “bought and paid for,” with statistics he cites: FDA is funded 45% by the pharmaceutical industry; the AAP allegedly gets 80% of its money from industry; and the CDC spends 4,900,000,000 of its 12,000,000,000 annual budget. Speaker 1 pushes back by noting that parents within these organizations vaccinate their own children against vaccines that include thimerosal, asking rhetorically whether they are willingly harming their children, and suggesting a broader government conspiracy. Speaker 0 then directs Speaker 1 to the movie Dopesick for further context, contrasting it with opioid prescriptions, and asserts that doctors treated patients and their own children with opioids because they believed FDA guidance. Overall, the dialogue centers on thimerosal in early vaccines, alleged hidden meetings and data suppression, controversial media coverage of vaccines-autism links, and critical claims about regulatory agency funding and conduct, culminating in comparisons to pharmaceutical and medical industry dynamics.

We couldn't find any prelicensing safety trials for the 72 vaccines doses that are recommended for American children. Unlike other medications, vaccines were exempt from conducting safety trials that compare health outcomes between a placebo group and a vaccine group. This lack of safety trials is concerning considering the widespread use of these vaccines.

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.

We couldn't find a prelicensing safety trial for any of the 72 vaccines doses recommended for American children. Unlike other medications, vaccines were exempt from conducting safety trials that compare health outcomes between a placebo group and a vaccine group.

I stumbled on data. This is hard to believe if you haven't heard this before. For every single vaccine on the childhood schedule, your risk of death, we're just looking at death because that's what parents fear the most. Your risk of dying from the vaccine far exceeds your risk of death from the disease. You can say that unequivocally. Unequivocally. For every single disease for which we have a vaccine. Wow. So what you what are you afraid of? If you're afraid of your child dying, do not give them a vaccine. Right. Period. You should be afraid of some of these other things when severe autism is is just skyrocketing. These are kids who need lifelong care. Yeah. Yeah.

FDA gave clearance to Sanofi Pasteur's MenQuadFi vaccine for meningococcal disease. Now you can give it to infants as young as six weeks old. serious adverse events affect five point three percent of participants. for every one hundred thousand infants, it affects between six and eight infants. So for every one hundred thousand infants that receive this, the serious adverse events can be fifty three thousand serious adverse events. That right there, guys, is supreme FDA logic. So make sure that you rush out and protect your infant and get that vaccine because, guys, we all know that vaccines are safe and effective.

There's no safe vaccine on the childhood schedule, period. So at this point, I'm also an anti vaxxer because we don't have a safe vaccine. We don't even have a single one that was properly tested for safety. However, if you aren't comfortable with how you want your child to die, I say in the book in the book Vax Facts that you are more likely to die from the vaccine than you are from the disease for which there is a vaccine. And this is true for every single vaccine on the childhood schedule. It's still a death. It's still super rare, but you're much more likely to die from the vaccine. So which do you want? You want a greater chance of dying from the vaccine or a lesser chance of dying from the disease? Of course, for many of these diseases, the risk is zero.

"There is not one longitudinal safety study on hepatitis b against unvaccinated kids versus vaccinated kids, inert placebo, does not exist." "The two studies that are cited most often, one is for MMR." "Hep B is not involved." "They're like, we did a huge study about this. No autism." "And I'm not suggesting there's a link. I'm simply saying that huge study is only MMR." "The other study they love to talk about involves thimerosal." "Not everything else about the hepatitis B vaccine." "There the there the reality is it's not settled science. Just it's okay." "Vaccines have like, we could but to even say that, anti vaxxer."

"Only half the children in the country got that vaccine, and the other half didn't." "no routine vaccine was tested for overall effect on mortality in randomized trials before being introduced." "The program we are talking about at this time, the vaccine program, was introduced sort of in the late seventies after the success with the eradication of smallpox." "When you come out here, you had two point three times higher mortality if you were DTP vaccinated." "So the moving cough vaccine or the pertussis vaccine was associated with two fold higher mortality." "You can have a vaccine which is fully protected against a specific disease, but associated with higher mortality." "Once they looked at it, they were dying at 5x the rate of all of these other issues."

Speaker 0 argues that getting the vaccine for pertussis (whooping cough) makes it more likely to contract the disease than if one does not get the vaccine, claiming it increases lifetime risk of pertussis multiple times. They state that the most damning evidence is the comparison of death risk: from pertussis, the death risk is “less than two million,” whereas from the vaccine, the death risk is “more than one in seventy six thousand.” They interpret this as “30 times more likely that the vaccine will kill you than the disease.” Based on this information, Speaker 0 states that they would not risk their baby’s life with a “dangerous product” and prefer natural approaches to immune protection. They claim there are things that can be done naturally to boost a child’s immune system so they can fight off any infection, not just pertussis, and not just whooping cough, but everything. They describe a preference for “natural immunity,” calling it the innate, god-given immunity and the bodies and immune systems as “beautiful, amazing” compared to relying on a product they describe as unsafe and lacking safety testing. In sum, Speaker 0 presents a comparison of disease risk versus vaccine risk, emphasizing that death from the vaccine is framed as significantly higher than death from the disease, and they advocate foregoing vaccination in favor of natural immunity.

As a child, there were only 3 shots in 1960, but today's kids face 108 shots. After 13 shots at one visit, there's a 40% chance of brain injury and autism if a child has a seizure.

The speaker claims the risk of death from whooping cough is less than one in 2.3 million, while the risk of death from the vaccine is greater than one in 76,000. They state the vaccine is killing far more children than the disease itself, estimating potentially 20 to 40 times more deaths from the vaccine. Another speaker emphasizes that any vaccine, specifically DTaP, carries the risk of death for a child.

The evidence shows that out of 344 babies in a Pfizer trial, only 3 completed it, with reasons like hospitalization and death leading to discontinuation. Less than 1% of babies finished the trial, yet it's claimed to be safe. The speaker questions the safety of these injections, citing reports of babies experiencing symptoms similar to sudden infant death syndrome.

In 1990, when the hepatitis B vaccine was introduced, I questioned the justification for administering it to one-day-old infants. My research revealed that the clinical studies supporting the vaccine involved older children, not infants, and lacked proper safety assessments. I found no credible evidence to support giving this vaccine to newborns, leading me to conclude that it was primarily driven by profit motives rather than health needs. With only about 200 women annually giving birth with chronic hepatitis, the rationale for widespread vaccination seemed flawed. This prompted me to investigate other vaccines, and I discovered that they also lacked proper placebo trials and comprehensive safety evaluations, raising concerns about their validity.

"What we're told is that the amount of aluminum in vaccines is completely safe. It's so miniscule. It would have no adverse effect on the human body." "Two hundred and fifty micrograms of aluminum are being injected into your day one old baby in that hepatitis b vaccine. Ten times the oral lethal dose in a rat study, and no one has ever checked it." "CBS reports United States Of America has the highest day one old birth rate in the world. In fact, we have more babies die in the first day of life than every other industrialized nation combined."