TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 claims that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They assert that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 states this is not just their opinion, but can be verified by anyone who examines the FDA website, specifically the package inserts and underlying clinical trial documents.

Speaker 0 asserts that packaged DNA fragments have been found en masse as vaccine contaminants. Once they reach the nucleus, short DNA sequences have an increased propensity to insert into chromosomal DNA. The possible consequences are unending, including disruption of the exquisitely tuned network that controls cell division and differentiation, which can lead to cancer and developmental defects. Mutations in sperm and fertilized egg cells could render altered traits inheritable. Speaker 0 further states that cost effective procedures to reliably separate mass produced RNA from plasmids do not exist, and therefore contamination of RNA vaccines with plasmid DNA must be expected to be the rule and not the exception. Whoever propagates RNA vaccines as being safe and effective, whoever claims that nothing can happen to your genome is either incredibly ignorant or endlessly evil. That person is turning his back on the horror scenario that is unfolding in front of our very eyes. Fellow citizens and physicians of the world are urged to turn away from the perpetrators of this monstrous crime against humanity. Speaker 0 concludes with admonitions to do this to save yourself, your descendants, and to rescue the name of your family or go down in history as one of the greatest criminals of all time. Speaker 1 responds: Thank you very much, professor Bhakti. You continue to be an inspiration both scientifically and ethically for all of us.

The speaker questions why the press is not covering the fact that a senior scientist at the CDC, Dr. Bill Thompson, has claimed that the CDC lied about their science. They challenge the credibility of doctors and organizations that support vaccine safety, stating that real science is found in published research papers. The speaker offers a $100,000 reward to anyone who can provide a study supporting the safety of vaccines. They compare the situation to the Catholic Church's handling of the pedophile scandal, emphasizing the importance of looking at the science and being skeptical of those in power.

The speaker claims adverse events from the vaccine rollout were covered up and dismissed as rare and coincidental. They state that regulators approved the vaccines based on relative risk data (95%), which they describe as misleading, while the absolute risk reduction was only 0.84%, meaning 120 people had to be vaccinated to prevent one infection. The speaker alleges that Pfizer has 31 convictions, including withholding data, presenting false data, and bribing clinicians and regulators. They claim over 100 doctors have written to various health organizations, including the NHS and MHRA, about the vaccine program, but received only one response. The speaker concludes that science is dead because discussion, analysis, and debate are no longer allowed, and decisions are being made without scientific basis.

Danish study on aluminum in vaccines should be retracted, scientists say. The article by doctor Hvid, an apologist for aluminum in vaccines from Denmark, was caught. The first appendix published with the journal was not the right one; after press hoopla, the correct statistics were published. Senior scientist Collie Blanowski analyzed and said, 'they lied.' There is a 'statistical correlation between higher doses of aluminum' in their data, showing that people who got more aluminum had higher rates of autism, ADHD, and other neurodevelopmental problems, and it should be retracted. If you remember back in COVID, the surgosphere study was 'completely laced with fraudulent data, and it was retracted.'

A speaker states that a large segment of the public feels betrayed by scientists who won't admit fault regarding COVID-19. They want to know why they were lied to and no longer care about lab funding. The speaker asks what the scientific community needs to say about lockdowns, masks, and vaccines to restore trust. Another speaker responds that they were a vocal advocate against lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and the anti-scientific approach of public health during the pandemic. They also believe that scientific institutions should be transparent about their involvement in dangerous research that may have caused the pandemic, referring to the lab leak hypothesis.

In the past, medical advice on eggs, aspirin, and other issues has been corrected without retracting articles. However, during the COVID pandemic, poorly researched articles were used to attack individuals like us. Now, as COVID cases decrease, these articles are being withdrawn from public view. If evidence is being buried, shouldn't that raise a red flag for you?

Speaker 0 describes a controversial 2000 study and its alleged connections to Monsanto. The speaker asserts that Monsanto staff helped write the article, and that the authors were likely receiving large sums of money from Monsanto. They claim much of the data in the study was unpublished, describing it as secret data from Monsanto, and label the paper “basically a complete fraud.” The study supposedly claimed that glyphosate was safe and not linked to cancer. The speaker then references subsequent studies released recently, which purportedly found that glyphosate increased or caused ten distinct types of cancer in rats when the rats were exposed at so-called safe levels. Despite these findings, the speaker notes that the original paper was used by agencies around the world to claim glyphosate was safe and to support approval processes. The speaker concludes that the entire foundation of those safety assurances was built on “a complete fraud and lie,” and states that the retraction of the 2000 paper is, in this context, something they are happy about, remarking that it is probably the only time they will be happy about a retraction.

Speaker 0 frames the issue as 'the corruption of science' and the 'capture of the agencies' by pharmaceutical industries, stating the goal is to restore integrity and credibility to science. Speaker 1 cites a CDC internal study: 'black boys who got the vaccine on time had a two hundred and sixty percent greater chance of getting an autism diagnosis than children who waited.' He adds that 'The chief chief scientist on that, Doctor. William Thompson, the senior said vaccine safety science at CDC, was ordered to destroy that data. And then they published it without that fact.' Finally, he asserts, 'So, you know that story. And you know of hundreds of stories like that. It happens all the time. We are being lied to by these agencies, and we're gonna change that right now.'

The transcript argues that deflating a “parasitic system” is necessary because oversized states and corporations cause decay, corruption, and injustice to the people, including workers, creatives, and the maimed and dying under elite rule. It cites examples such as Tanks for Kidneys RT Documentary, Organ Harvesting, Black Market Transplants, and Crimes Against Humanity to illustrate this destruction. On the mortality and harm claims related to Covid-19, the speaker estimates thirty-six million excess deaths from 2022 to 2023 plus half of 2024, totaling forty-five million excess deaths for four point five years of Covid killing protocols. They add nine million deaths from Covid killing protocols in 2020, arguing these figures reflect the impact of what they term “SARS CoV-two virus and vaccine bio weapons.” The speaker contends that terms like bio weaponized, propagandized, lured, coerced, and mandated depopulation and genocide should not be taboo because of mass propaganda, corrupted science, lack of truthful science, and censorship in mainstream media and on tech platforms. They claim that elites and many people still think SARS CoV-two is a naturally evolved virus, while “Truthful science” supposedly proves beyond any doubt that SARS CoV-two is designed and made by humans in a bio lab, pointing to the genetic code of SARS CoV-two as containing several lab-made inserts (PRRA, HIVGP120) that are described as too large and numerous and only appearing in other natural viruses that are genetically very different, making natural mutation or recombination “quasi zero.” They assert a substantial trail of documents and testimonies before and after the release of SARS CoV-two about these genetic codes, the existing biochemical technology to insert them, financing of the research, scientific documents, and patents. The speaker claims that GenTech Covid vaccines cause human cells to produce during months up to years huge amounts of the toxic spike protein of SARS CoV-two in all organs and tissues, implying greater production than typical mucosal infection in unvaccinated people, which they say would cause only cold-like illness. They describe these vaccines as “GenTech covid vaccines” and label them as bio weapons, allegedly worse than the virus itself. Finally, they claim that not only the produced toxic spike protein but also other components and contaminations of these vaccines cause serious health damage. The source is cited as Source2mia.org, with a request to like and follow.

Speaker 0: Asked about the system of retractions and whether retracting a paper discredits a hypothesis, and on what basis retractions occur. Speaker 1: Responded that quoting papers that are later retracted does not negate a hypothesis; there is no rule requiring a hypothesis to be retracted if a cited paper is retracted after publication. They note that the practice involves harassing journals rather than logically disproving a hypothesis. For example, they may present a dozen questions to the journal, answer all of them, and then continue harassing the journal to the point that the journal ignores the answers and retracts the paper to avoid further harassment.

Speaker 1 claims that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They assert that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 states this is not just their opinion, but can be verified by anyone who examines the FDA website, specifically the package inserts and underlying clinical trial documents.

Speaker 0 discusses the formation of FSOC’s new Household Resilience Working Group, which will focus on American households’ financial condition. She notes that communities nationwide, especially in Texas’s 29th district, have faced destabilizing climate-disaster effects, with property insurance providers leaving states like Texas, California, and Florida due to growing climate risks. She asks what the administration is doing to address the risk that mortgages and other credit could become unavailable in certain regions because of climate change. Speaker 1 responds: “Again, congresswoman, are you familiar with KLW 24? No. It it was the base for everything that was done with climate and with all the proposed climate legislation and it has been discredited. So everything that FSOC previously did based on climate—” He asks, “Who discredited it?” Speaker 1 clarifies: “Nature Magazine has retracted the economic commitment of climate change more than eighteen months after first learning that the paper was fatally flawed with officers acknowledging that its errors are too substantial for a correction.”

Speaker 0 asserts that the design of the molecular structures in vaccines and injections has no purpose other than to injure and kill. Drawing on 30 years of experience in rational drug design, they say every component in a vial is chosen by someone with specific objectives (e.g., how quickly absorbed, how long it lasts, where it distributes in the body) and that these components are not random or natural products. They declare the ingredients to be toxic by design and intentionally harmful. This, they claim, fits with what they call “the lie” about the pandemic, arguing there wasn’t a real pandemic. According to Speaker 0, the pandemic’s purpose was to damage the economy, train people to comply under a mock emergency, and compel people to get vaccinated. They warn that if people do nothing, speak up less, and simply follow directives, they will lose their freedom and then their lives. They allege that a self-appointed group of very rich people desires a much smaller global population than 8,000,000,000 people, and they claim to be able to deduce the script behind these events. The speaker urges listeners to start talking to anyone and everyone relentlessly, insisting that this situation is not going away. They warn that without protest and refusal, people will first lose their freedom and then their lives.

The speaker questions why the press is not covering the fact that a senior scientist at the CDC, Dr. Bill Thompson, has claimed that the CDC lied about their science. They challenge the organizations that claim vaccines are safe to provide scientific evidence to support their claims. The speaker believes that doctors are not scientists and argues that science is based on published research papers. They compare the situation to the Catholic Church's pedophile scandal, where the institution was prioritized over protecting children. The speaker offers $100,000 to anyone who can provide a study supporting the safety of vaccines. They emphasize the importance of skepticism and the need to question those in power.

Speaker 0 argues that "Big pharma is just not gonna sit there and go, this is wonderful. Bobby Kennedy, who's an anti vax wingnut, just canceled the most promising technology out there." He cites BARDA actions—"cancellation, descoping of various contracts and solicitations relate to mRNA vaccine development activities"—and says "We reviewed the science, listened to the experts enacted." He calls the "buried lead" that "you have to show the receipts here," warning that "the companies out there that are publicly traded" will pursue "massive lawsuits" and that critics are "a bunch of vaccine wingnuts." He urges HHS/BARDA to present "what we looked at" and "the underlying science" to back their conclusions, which he says are "180 degrees from what people have been spoon fed by the most credentialed class in the country." Speaker 1 adds that "over 3,500 peer reviewed papers" show harms and can be found at react19.org; "continued science comes out showing the harms." We should have done this research before immunization. Pharma will come back "guns blazing." We must "unify" scientists and, in court, "make the case that this was a good decision." He calls the stance an "opening salvo" and predicts the battle "is gonna be massive."

The speaker claims the assertion that red meat causes cancer was based on a vote, not science. The speaker's guest, a former WHO panel member, states the panel used observational studies to show association, not causation. Of 800 studies examined, 780 were allegedly not used. Of the 18 studies that were considered, only half showed a risk. The guest concludes there is no valid demonstration of cause and effect. The speaker suggests this raises concerns about how global health policy is made.

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.

Dr James Dunchwander, a physician with dual board certifications in emergency and integrative medicine, has spent 32 years evaluating thousands of children. He notes that parents, to their dying breath, say a vaccine caused their child to descend into autism, or a vaccine caused their child's neurologic disorder, asthma, eczema, or food allergy. He acknowledges a huge disconnect between what these parents are telling us and what is taught in the field. As an ER physician, he warns that ignoring mom or dad is perilous, but he is not here today to debate the safety and efficacy of vaccines. He will, however, challenge each member of the room to that debate and challenge the CDC, the NIH, and any university to a public forum, but he believes it will never happen because “The science isn't there.” He states that the biggest cause of vaccine hesitancy in this country is the lack of true vaccine science. He asks the committee to please the community council and to do their job. He admits he used to naively think that ASAP based all their recommendations on rigorous study of multiple trials determining safety and efficacy, but has since learned that ASAP is simply participating in an industry-wide phenomenon he terms junk science. He contends that junk science has allowed, with respect to colleagues in the room, the presentation of papers and studies that would never pass the rigors of a peer-reviewed journal if they were on any subject other than vaccines. He cites an example: a GSK paper on their MMR vaccine in which ten percent of these healthy 12-year-old babies ended up in an emergency room in six weeks, and two and a half percent of them developed a new chronic medical condition. He notes this was not compared to a placebo group or a delayed vaccine group, but to the current MMR two vaccine, describing the situation as the moral equivalent of comparing ten shots of whiskey to nine shots of whiskey and a shot of vodka, and saying vodka doesn’t cause intoxication. He also asserts that junk science allows vaccines we know don’t work to be doubled down, increasing the dose and frequency. He recalls seeing the committee in the last meeting look at the pneumococcal vaccine and say it doesn’t work, yet leave it on the schedule and leave it up to clinicians to determine whether to give it to a patient. He finishes by stating, “Please do your job.”

The speaker asserts that COVID-19 shots do more than affect the immune system; they can damage the brain and worsen mental health. They claim a wave of studies shows sharp increases in various strokes: ischemic strokes up to 44%, hemorrhagic strokes up to 50%, and transient ischemic attacks (mini strokes) up to 67%. They also report increases in neurological and autoimmune conditions, including myasthenia gravis up 71% and Alzheimer’s disease up 22%. Cognitive impairment is claimed to have risen by nearly 138%, while depression is up 68%, anxiety disorders up 44%, and sleep disorders up 93%. The speaker links all of these increases to “toxic spike protein accumulation and persistence in the brain.” The speaker states this is not a conspiracy theory and cites what they describe as documented peer‑reviewed research and studies by experts. They name epidemiologist Nicholas Holcher, who allegedly says that using mRNA to hijack cells in various organ systems to produce a highly toxic spike protein that persists in the body for months or years was “one of the worst ideas in medical history.” The speaker then asks, “So what can you do?” as a transition to presumably recommendations or actions, though no specific actions are listed in the provided segment.

Speaker 1 states that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They claim that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 asserts this is not an opinion, but can be verified by anyone reviewing package inserts and clinical trial documents on the FDA website.

Speaker emphasizes 'no interference in research' and urges that 'this government or who or we, the people, stand up for, you know, righteous research and no retraction of data and no interference in research.' They argue that while the public may be educated by podcasts, 'doctors, the scientists are gonna be educated by watching by reading the data.' Addressing labeling, they state that 'mislabeling that that, the the labels that mislead the consumers, we're never gonna fix our micro I agree.' They reference Kennedy, saying 'Kennedy's saying it's propaganda. This research has been basically propaganda. And, now, hopefully, he's going to put an end to it, but it's a it's a long row.'

Speaker 0 argues that 'the trustworthiness of the information that we actually receive from the news media' is a major problem and notes that 'the easiest thing for our democratic colleagues to do is to scare people.' He asks, 'COVID nineteen was politicized?' Speaker 1 answers, 'the whole process was politicized' and says 'we were lied to about everything... the vaccines would prevent transmission' and 'they prevent infection'—claims he says are contradicted by 'the animal studies and the clinical trial showed.' He accuses the CDC of letting 'the teachers union' write school-closure orders that 'hurt working people all over the country, and then pretend it was science based.' He adds examples: 'Martin Koldor from Harvard' was 'ejected [from COVID]... because he wasn't in the orthodoxy'; 'FDA during COVID' officials 'Gruber and Krausz' criticized Biden mandates; Biden said, 'I would never take that vaccine, the Trump vaccine' then mandated it and fired top FDA officials who said it had not been properly tested.' The exchange ends with 'Yes.'

The speaker claims previous studies indicating no link between certain factors and specific outcomes were flawed. They allege researchers eliminated older children from the data, stratified the data improperly, and used other "tricks." The speaker states that external literature shows over 100 studies indicating a link. They announce plans to conduct new observational, retrospective, and epidemiological studies, as originally recommended by the Institute of Medicine, using publicly available databases. They characterize this new approach as "real science."

The speaker believes COVID vaccine programs should be stopped. They are astounded by the number of papers critical of the vaccine or showing negative effects. The speaker claims a group of researchers funded by Pfizer and the NIH bullies editors to retract papers with negative findings about the vaccine. They assert the number of retractions is appalling. According to the speaker, in one instance where an editor resisted, Nature Springer bought the journal and retracted the paper. The speaker states that this is what they have been dealing with.