TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims that the flu vaccine's purpose has shifted from preventing the flu to only lessening symptoms. A Cleveland Clinic study allegedly found the flu vaccine had a negative efficacy of 26.9% last winter. According to the speaker, this means that individuals who received the flu vaccine were 26.9% more likely to contract influenza. The speaker notes the study doesn't detail the pharmaceutical industry's profits from the vaccine or list its side effects. They state the side effects would be less than an mRNA vaccine, as it is a dead virus vaccine. The speaker reiterates that taking the flu shot allegedly makes one almost 27% more likely to get sick than not taking it.

The transcript reports that the largest single study on vaccines and dementia, involving over thirteen million people, found that vaccinated adults who received flu shots and pneumococcal shots faced a 50% increased risk of Alzheimer's disease and a 38% increased risk of dementia. It is claimed that the risk increased the more doses participants received, with individuals who lined up to receive more flu shots over the years experiencing the highest risks of neurodegenerative conditions, and that the risk persisted for more than ten years. The narrative states that once a person receives many of these shots, it is inducing neuroinflammatory injury, dementia, and Alzheimer's in vaccinated adults. Additionally, the transcript asserts that not only does the flu shot not work, according to colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic, but flu shots increase the risk of flu by 27%. It concludes by saying that flu shots, in addition to increasing flu risk, appear to increase the risk of dementia.

A 19-year-old died after receiving his first flu shot, leading to speculation about the vaccine's role. Doctors couldn't pinpoint the exact cause of death, with one suggesting a possible link to the vaccine. Health officials emphasize the rarity of such cases and stress the importance of flu shots in preventing thousands of deaths annually. Despite this tragedy, federal regulators continue to recommend the vaccine for its life-saving benefits.

Doctors admit flu vaccine can be ineffective and harmful in larger doses, but still recommend it for elderly and chronically ill. Government criticized for not informing public about ineffective vaccines. Division of biologic standards tests vaccine safety, not effectiveness. Scientists found flu vaccine ineffective in the 1960s but were silenced. Adenovirus vaccine with cancer-causing contaminant given to soldiers despite scientists' warnings. Division director defends vaccine use, saying it took 3 years to assess risks. Troops injected with cancer-causing vaccine for 3 years. Some scientists prevented from publishing ineffective vaccine findings. Control officer raised concerns about flu vaccine potency in 1960.

Over 20 years, flu shot rates among seniors rose from 15% to 65%, yet flu deaths continued to climb. An NIH study adjusting for various factors confirmed that flu shots haven't reduced deaths in the elderly. We were astonished by these findings, which hold true in other countries like Australia, France, Canada, and the UK. Despite billions spent, current research suggests flu shots in seniors haven't had the desired impact. The CDC is exploring new strategies but maintains that seniors should still get vaccinated, as it may lessen flu severity or prevent other complications. The CDC may shift towards vaccinating more children and others around seniors to protect them indirectly.

I would never take the flu shot. Research from Cochran and BMJ shows that while the flu shot protects against that specific strain, it increases the likelihood of getting a non-flu infection by 4.4 times. Many people who receive the flu shot end up feeling sick, often experiencing symptoms similar to the flu. This reaction is due to a phenomenon called pathogenic priming.

We're taking a closer look at protecting seniors from the flu, following studies questioning the effectiveness of flu shots for older people. Despite millions of seniors getting vaccinated annually, and 90% of flu deaths occurring in those 65 or older, mass vaccinations haven't reduced deaths. Over twenty years, flu shot rates in seniors rose from 15% to 65%, but flu deaths continued to climb. NIH research confirmed flu shots haven't reduced deaths in the elderly. A study, soon to be published, finds the same poor results in Australia, France, Canada, and the UK. The CDC is exploring new strategies, but still recommends flu shots, as they may lessen flu severity. A likely shift may involve indirectly protecting seniors by vaccinating more children and others around them.

I would not take the flu shot in a million years. Cochrane and BMJ found that people who take the flu shot are protected against the flu, but are 4.4 times more likely to get a non-flu infection. Many people get sick after the flu shot, and that's usually because they are getting something indistinguishable from the flu because the flu shot gives you something called pathogenic priming. The Pentagon published a study by Wolfe in January of this year, that said that the flu shot primes you for coronavirus. The people who got the flu shot were 36% more likely to get coronavirus, and there were six other major studies that say the same thing.

CBS did a report 20 years ago that may shock you. The percentage of seniors getting flu shots sharply increased from 15% to 65%. You'd think flu deaths among the elderly would decrease, but they continued to climb. The NIH did a study, but then suppressed it. CBS got their hands on it, and the study revealed flu shots have not reduced deaths among the elderly. The lead author was not available for comment but a co-author, Dr. Reichert, said they were astonished by the results. They also found the same poor results in other countries like Australia, France, Canada, and the UK. The CDC is now looking at new strategies, but still recommends flu shots. They may shift toward vaccinating more children to protect the elderly.

"People who take the flu shot are protected against the at strain of flu." "They're four point four times more likely to get a non flu infection." "and you might find, and a lot of people do, that they get the flu shot and then they get sick." "They're usually not getting the flu, they're getting something that is indistinguishable from the flu because the flu shot gives you something called pathogenic priming." "The flu shot not only primes you for flu, and it primes you for coronavirus." "What they found is actually the people who got the flu shot were thirty six percent more likely to get coronavirus and that's not a that's not a lone study." "We found six other major studies that say the same thing." "If you get the flu shot, you're more likely to get coronavirus."

"Over twenty years, the percentage of seniors getting flu shots increased sharply from fifteen percent to sixty five percent." "But no matter how they crunched the numbers, they got the same disappointing result. Flu shots have not reduced deaths among the elderly." "We realized that we had incendiary materials." "Doctor Reichert says they thought their study would prove vaccinations had helped." "Were you surprised?" "Astonished." "That study soon to be published finds the same poor results in Australia, France, Canada, and The UK." "Decades of promoting flu shots in seniors and the billions spent haven't had the desired result." "The CDC says they should still get their flu shots, that it could make flu less severe or prevent other problems not reflected in the totals." "But watch for the CDC to shift toward protecting the elderly by vaccinating more children and others around them who could pass the flu."

I would never take the flu shot due to findings from Cochrane and BMJ. Those vaccinated are 4.4 times more likely to get non-flu infections and often experience illnesses similar to the flu. The flu shot can cause pathogenic priming, weakening the immune system and increasing susceptibility to other viral infections, including coronavirus. A Pentagon study indicated that flu shot recipients were 36% more likely to contract coronavirus. Observational data suggests that life expectancy in the elderly has declined since flu shot mandates, and many COVID-19 fatalities were among those who received flu shots. While I oppose mandates, I believe individuals should have the choice to take the flu shot if they wish, similar to other medications.

We're taking a closer look at protecting seniors from the flu, following studies questioning the effectiveness of flu shots in older people. Despite millions of seniors getting vaccinated annually, and ninety percent of flu deaths occurring in those 65 or older, mass vaccinations haven't done the job. Over twenty years, senior vaccination rates rose from fifteen percent to sixty-five percent, yet flu deaths continued to climb. Research confirms flu shots haven't reduced deaths in the elderly in the US and similar results are seen in Australia, France, Canada, and the UK. The CDC is exploring new strategies but still recommends seniors get flu shots. The focus may shift to indirectly protecting seniors by vaccinating more children and those around them.

A Cleveland Clinic study found the influenza vaccine had a negative efficacy of 26.9% last winter. This means individuals who received the flu vaccine were 26.9% more likely to contract influenza. The report does not specify the pharmaceutical industry's profits from selling this vaccine.

For over 20 years, flu shot rates in seniors sharply increased, but flu deaths among the elderly continue to climb. NIH researchers conducted a study adjusting for factors masking the shots' benefits, but found flu shots haven't reduced deaths among the elderly. We sought out Dr. Reichert, who confirmed the study's surprising results, which were also found in Australia, France, Canada, and the UK. Despite billions spent, promoting flu shots in seniors hasn't had the desired result. The CDC is considering new strategies but still recommends seniors get vaccinated to lessen flu severity and prevent other issues. The CDC will likely shift towards protecting the elderly by vaccinating more children and those around them.

- For women entering menopause, hormone replacement therapy may decrease the risk of heart disease. However, a study found that women in their sixties who've already gone through menopause and take hormones increase their risk of heart attack and stroke. - The CDC is taking a closer look at how best to protect seniors from the flu, following studies questioning the effectiveness of flu shots given to older people. - Public health officials have reached a conclusion that mass vaccinations of the elderly haven't done the job. - Over 20 years, the percentage of seniors getting flu shots increased sharply, but flu deaths among the elderly continue to climb. - NIH researchers found that flu shots have not reduced deaths among the elderly. - A study soon to be published finds the same poor results in Australia, France, Canada, and the UK. - The current head of National Immunizations confirms CDC is now looking at new strategies. - The CDC says seniors should still get their flu shots, but may shift toward protecting the elderly by vaccinating more children and others around them.

Speaker 0 argues against the flu shot, citing Cochrane and BMJ. He says: people who take the flu shot are protected against the at strain of flu, but they’re four point four times more likely to get a non flu infection. He contends that after vaccination you might get sick, not from flu but from something indistinguishable from flu, because the flu shot gives you pathogenic priming that injures your immune system and makes you more likely to get a non flu viral upper respiratory infection. He references a Pentagon story, citing Wolfe (January), stating the flu shot not only primes for flu but primes for coronavirus. In the study, they had a placebo group and a vaccine group to test prophylaxis against coronavirus for military readiness, and they found people who got the flu shot were thirty six percent more likely to get coronavirus. He claims this is not an isolated finding, saying six other major studies report the same thing. Regarding longevity, he references Cochrane’s point about what has happened to longevity in the elderly since flu shot mandates began for elderly people, saying life expectancy has dramatically gone down as the flu shot proliferation increased. He adds an observational note about the COVID vaccine period: “during the COVID crisis” there’s no science on this, but observationally, it tended to be people who got their flu shots—nursing home residents who receive flu shots and first responders who get flu shots are implicated. Speaker 1 interruptions: asks for clarification, saying, “with all due respect, I don’t understand the implications of your position. If you’re right, why wouldn’t it follow that the flu shot should be illegal? You said it’s criminal.” Speaker 0 responds with a partial cut-off fragment, beginning to reply with “to” and then stopping.

Doctors at the Federal Communicable Disease Center admit the flu vaccine can be ineffective or harmful in large doses. Despite this, it is still recommended for older people and the chronically ill. A senate subcommittee criticized the government for not informing the public about ineffective vaccines. The division of biologic standards tests vaccines for safety but not effectiveness. Some scientists found the flu vaccine ineffective but were silenced. The adenovirus vaccine was taken off the market after causing cancer in animals, despite scientists warning about it. American troops were given a cancer-causing vaccine for 3 years. Some division scientists were prevented from publishing results showing vaccines were ineffective. A control officer in 1960 raised concerns about the flu vaccine's potency.

We're taking a closer look at protecting seniors from the flu, following studies questioning the effectiveness of flu shots for older people. While most flu deaths occur in those 65 and older, mass vaccinations haven't done the job. Despite a sharp increase in seniors getting vaccinated over twenty years, flu deaths among the elderly continue to climb. Studies adjusting for various factors still show that flu shots haven't reduced deaths in this group. This same conclusion has been observed in other countries, including Australia, France, Canada, and The UK. The CDC is exploring new strategies, but still advises seniors to get flu shots, as they might lessen flu severity or prevent other complications. The focus may shift towards vaccinating children and others who could transmit the flu to the elderly.

In a million years, I wouldn't take the flu shot. Research from Cochrane and BMJ shows that flu shot recipients are 4.4 times more likely to contract non-flu infections. Many people who get the flu shot often feel sick afterward, usually from something similar to the flu, due to a phenomenon called pathogenic priming, which weakens the immune system. A Pentagon study revealed that flu shot recipients were 36% more likely to contract coronavirus compared to a placebo group. This finding is supported by six other major studies indicating that receiving the flu shot increases the likelihood of getting coronavirus.

Welcome to this talk. Now let me give you the bottom line on this video so you can decide if you want to watch. A large study at the Cleveland Clinic found out that the flu vaccine, the influenza vaccine over last winter, wasn't that effective. In fact, it had a negative efficacy of twenty six point nine percent. In other words, if you took this flu vaccine, you were twenty six point nine percent more likely more likely to get influenza. Now unfortunately the paper doesn't give us details on how much money the pharmaceutical industry made from selling this vaccine with negative efficacy.

If someone has had the flu for 14 days, they do not need a flu shot. Being infected with the flu provides the best protection, so getting the vaccine is unnecessary. If they truly have the flu, they should not get the vaccine again because being infected is the most effective form of vaccination.

Speaker 0 discusses this year's flu shot and mentions that flu season is longer than usual. He references headlines about flu vaccine links to higher infections, citing a Cleveland Clinic study involving their employees and the influenza vaccine during this respiratory viral season. In the study, 53,402 employees were observed; 43,857 (82.1%) had received the influenza vaccine by study end. Influenza occurred in 1,079 individuals (2.02%). The cumulative incidence of influenza was similar for vaccinated and unvaccinated groups early on, but over time the cumulative incidence increased more rapidly among the vaccinated. The study includes an adjusted analysis controlling for age, sex, clinical nursing job, employment location, and reports that the risk of influenza was significantly higher for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated, yielding a calculated vaccine effectiveness of -26.9%. In other words, the data suggested a 26.9% greater chance of contracting the flu or other respiratory virus for the vaccinated group. The conclusion presented is that influenza vaccination of working-age adults was associated with a higher risk of influenza during the 2024-2025 season, suggesting the vaccine did not have the intended protective effect. Speaker 1 adds commentary, noting that the Cleveland Clinic study admits they effectively coerced over 80% of their staff to get the flu shot, implying these individuals are not biased against the vaccine and would be expected to defend it. They argue this makes the bias the opposite of what some might assume and suggest that the study should prompt reconsideration of vaccination. Speaker 1 then pivots to an appeal: they encourage viewers to sign up for their email list at thehighwire.com or ICANN, promising to deliver the study and related evidence in their inbox. They urge viewers to take the Cleveland Clinic document to their doctor and ask, “Should I get this year's flu shot?” If the doctor says yes, Speaker 1 counsels firing the doctor and presenting the document as a reason, claiming doctors may be unaware of the study. They emphasize firing doctors who do not know the study and assert that this week they wish to see doctors fired across the country if they cannot defend the use of the vaccine in light of the study. Speaker 1 concludes with a personal admonition to avoid doctors who, in their view, are not making informed decisions about health and the future of children. Speaker 0 revisits the broader context, noting that a flu vaccine with low effectiveness is not surprising since strains are guessed before the season and production is ramped up accordingly. He references Canadian headlines about low or no protection this year, and remarks that negative efficacy, such as -26.9%, is particularly noteworthy.

Vaccines were not expected to fully prevent infection, and this may have caused confusion about their effectiveness against severe disease and hospitalization. While vaccines do help reduce severe outcomes, it's important to note that a significant portion of those who died during the omicron surge were older individuals who were vaccinated. Therefore, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, the focus should be on testing and the use of paxlovid for treatment.

Doctors at the Federal Communicable Disease Center acknowledge that the flu vaccine and its recommended dosage are ineffective; in a larger dose, it can be harmful. Nevertheless, the flu vaccine is still recommended for older people and the chronically ill. A senate subcommittee headed by Abraham Rebikoff charged that the federal government wasn’t doing a good enough job of informing the public about ineffective vaccines. Scientists at the Division of Biologic Standards test vaccines for potency and safety before licensing them for public use. However, the division does not determine the effectiveness of the vaccine. That is left to the manufacturers. A case in point is the influenza vaccine. Four scientists in charge of work on the flu vaccine during the 1960s found it to be ineffective, and they refused to give it to their own families. Two were transferred to other work, a third left the division, and over the entire ten-year period, not one word of their unfavorable findings was allowed to be published. But a more serious case involving the relationship between the leaders of the division and their scientists involves the adenovirus vaccine, a vaccine given to thousands of American soldiers to prevent certain cold-like symptoms. When it was shown that the vaccine contained a contaminant which caused cancer in laboratory animals, it was taken off the market. But that was three years after the division’s own scientists had pointed out the danger. Doctor Murray justifies the use of the vaccine by saying it took three years to examine the evidence against it. "It is more important to use the vaccines than to take them off the market and remove the agent." "It is more important to use the vaccines" "than to take them off the market" "and to remove the agent." Thus, for three years, American troops were injected with a cold-preventing vaccine, which was causing cancer in laboratory animals. And some of the division’s scientists who charged they were prevented from publishing results of experiments which show some of the vaccines to be ineffective. "It's the control officer in 1960 who has grave doubts about the potency of influenza vaccine. These doubts were made known to the director of the division and through the proper channels."