TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

A lead regulatory scientist at Johnson & Johnson, Joshua Rees, allegedly admitted the company's COVID vaccine was "not safe and effective" and that they wanted to "just throw the vaccine creation to the wind and see what happens." According to the scientist, the federal government pressured pharmaceutical companies to quickly create the vaccine, prioritizing speed over safety and efficacy. He stated that typical clinical trials were skipped, and testing was limited to lab models. He also stated that the government made a deal with pharmaceutical companies to solve the problem. The scientist discussed side effects, stating that the question was whether the benefit outweighed the worst possible side effect, using cancer patients as an example where quality of life is prioritized. The CDC has pulled the J&J vaccine due to declining use and the company's strategic shift. The scientist was approached for clarification but denied his identity and evaded questions.

Speaker 0 asked for the impossible: to develop a vaccine in 8 months instead of 10 years without cutting corners. They emphasized safety. Speaker 1 questioned Pfizer's transparency in mutating COVID viruses. Speaker 0 stressed the importance of vaccination for public health. Pfizer's CEO discussed vaccine production and effectiveness. They thanked the US government for support. The CEO highlighted the vaccine's 95.6% efficacy. The conversation ended with a call for public vaccination.

We collaborated with Tony's team for years, working on various vaccine candidates. After analyzing different antigens for MERS, we found that the full-length spike protein with mRNA was the most effective. When we received the SARS CoV 2 sequence on January 13, both teams independently recommended the same vaccine design. We immediately ordered production, leading to the start of phase 1 trials on March 16.

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.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They wanted a clear yes or no answer and requested the data to be shared with the committee. In response, it was stated that no, they did not have knowledge about stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market. They had to act quickly.

In October 2020, the speaker was asked if Operation Warp Speed would use the expanded access use pathway to get on the market. The speaker responded that they would not be using that pathway because it requires an institutional review board (IRB) and informed consent, which they wanted to avoid due to the added complexity. The speaker expressed concern for the lack of informed consent in vaccine injuries and deaths. They mentioned that this scheme was designed to deceive professionals and took years to uncover. Both sides, including FDA staff, CDC staff, pharma staff, management, and lawyers, were aware of what they were doing.

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.

Many are surprised to learn that the vaccines did not undergo traditional clinical trials. Initially, they were manufactured using PCR for 44,000 people, but when scaling up, the process was deemed too costly and was replaced with DNA from E. Coli, which also introduced endotoxins. In pharmaceutical manufacturing, the process is crucial; changing it typically requires new trials. The EMA requested a new trial with 252 patients, but the data was never provided, and it was considered too late since vaccinations had already begun. Thus, the rationale for conducting the trial became irrelevant.

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.

Pfizer was asked if they tested whether their COVID-19 vaccine could reduce or stop the transmission of the virus before its approval. The Pfizer representative stated that the primary purpose of the vaccine was to protect the person who received it and prevent illness, severe disease, and hospitalizations. The senator then referred to a statement made by Pfizer's CEO on December 3, 2020, where he mentioned uncertainty about the vaccine's ability to reduce transmission. The Pfizer representative reiterated that their clinical programs were designed to demonstrate the vaccine's safety and effectiveness in preventing infections. Due to time constraints, the senator moved on without a definitive answer.

A lead regulatory scientist at Johnson & Johnson, Joshua Rees, allegedly admitted that the J&J COVID vaccine was "not safe and effective" and that the company wanted to "just throw the vaccine creation to the wind and see what happens." According to the scientist, the federal government pressured pharmaceutical companies to quickly create the vaccine, prioritizing speed over safety and efficacy. He claimed the typical clinical trial testing process was skipped, and the vaccine was tested on lab models instead. The scientist stated that the government made a deal with pharmaceutical companies to solve the problem. He also discussed weighing the worst potential side effects against the benefits for consumers, suggesting a different standard for cancer patients, who were "gonna die anyway." The CDC has previously announced they're pulling the J&J vaccine from use in The United States. J&J claims this is due to the vaccine's declining use and the company's strategic shift away from the vaccines.

In Davos, in January 2020, we had a conversation about a vaccine for COVID-19. At that time, COVID-19 wasn't a major concern, and we were focused on developing the vaccine.

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.

At the outset, a process was approved by the FDA for emergency use authorization. However, it was later discovered that the approved process was swapped out for one containing contaminants like DNA and a cancer-causing substance. Pfizer redacted 800 pages of the manufacturing process, hiding the fact that a carcinogen was included. This lack of transparency led to no informed consent and potential harm to individuals. The vaccine rollout included a trial with a 2.4 times higher adverse event rate, including the presence of a carcinogen.

We are generating real-time data on mRNA vaccines, which have been in development for years due to side effects. Pfizer and Moderna used the pandemic to accelerate their development. The collaboration with BioNTech on flu led to the quick rollout of the mRNA vaccine. Clinical trials skipped phases, causing uncertainty. Concerns arise about vaccine distribution and the need for booster shots. Politics play a role in decision-making.

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.

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 emergency use authorization (EUA) was crucial for normalizing the mRNA platform, which was seen as a significant advancement in vaccine technology. The fear surrounding COVID-19 helped facilitate acceptance of this new approach, despite existing treatments that could have mitigated the pandemic's impact. If doctors had been allowed to explore effective treatments, the reliance on mRNA vaccines would have been diminished, creating a control group that could reveal potential harms. While the EUA was important, it wasn't strictly necessary; they could have navigated around it. The rollout of the mRNA platform aimed to reshape public perception, and the legal complexities surrounding the EUA provided a layer of immunity for those involved. The backlash and discussions about vaccine injuries may complicate future implementations of this technology.

Big companies said it wasn't possible, but Trump gave Moderna's COO $1 billion to develop a vaccine quickly. They started human trials after testing on mice. Many were skeptical, but the vaccine was ready in 6 months. Some experts raised concerns about the rushed development process.

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.

RFK Jr. suggests retroactive placebo-controlled trials for all pediatric vaccines. However, this is impractical as no institution would support it. Regarding the COVID vaccine, some argue that a placebo-controlled trial was unnecessary due to the urgent need for a response to a virus causing significant daily deaths. Previous research on mRNA vaccines for SARS provided some data, allowing for a more rapid rollout. Similar to the Ebola outbreak, where a vaccine was deployed without a placebo trial due to the crisis, COVID vaccines could be administered widely to gather safety and efficacy data in real-time. Volunteers in trials often hoped to receive the vaccine, reflecting the urgency of the situation.