TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I'm running out of time. You seem to be pro-vaccine but have started a group, Children's Health Defense, which sells baby clothing with anti-vaccine messages, like "unvaxxed, unafraid" for $26. Can you assure us that your organization will stop selling these products? I have no control over that organization; I resigned from the board. You founded it just a few months ago. Are you supportive of these onesies? I support vaccines and want good science. Will you tell your organization to stop selling those items?

Vaccines don't cause autism. The science is clear. Vaccines don't cause autism. Vaccines do not cause autism. I do not deny that we need to do more about autism, but it has nothing to do with vaccines. We have thoroughly debunked any association between autism and these vaccines. Robert, it is nearly consensus in the scientific community that there's no link there. To deny a mountain of scientific evidence, which has already taught us that the combination of measles, mumps, rubella, or MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism, Vimerosal, an ethylmercury containing preservative that wasn't a number of vaccines doesn't cause autism, and that too many vaccines given too soon, if you will, doesn't also cause autism. We know that the schedule is safe. Are there peer reviewed scientific reports that indicate a link between No. Between vaccines and autism? No. Not only is there not a peer reviewed work, this is probably the most studied public health issue involving children. Vaccines are really the one thing we have looked at as causing autism. The Institutes of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control have repeatedly investigated this. Vaccines do not cause autism. We don't need more research. At some point, enough is enough. It's fine to continue to collect data, but at some point, you have to take note for an answer. We're not sure what causes autism, but we know that vaccines do not. Mountains of evidence. No, you know, this has been looked at extensively. Nothing's been more studied in the world than this connection between vaccines and autism. We'd heard it. We've heard it for decades. You know, actually almost a century now, if you want to get into it. This has been the battle cry of the pharmaceutical industry and every shill that works for them. But whether you know it or not all the way back in 2020 for those of you that were watching then we actually disproved this myth right then. Debunked it with a lawsuit where we went at the CDC and said really if the head of your page on the CDC website says vaccines plural meaning all vaccines do not cause us to do we have that original website. This is what it said: vaccines do not cause autism. There it is. All vaccines doesn't say one of them or two of them all vaccines by the plural s at the end of vaccines. If vaccines do not cause autism will you please provide us with all of the evidence and studies that show that vaccines don't cause autism. Send us that evidence. Well they didn't and we sued them and we went to court. Back in 2020, we won the case. Here it looks like in the document. They gave us the list. It's actually 20 studies. 20 total studies make up the entire list of what they look to when they say that these childhood vaccines, the five, and the cumulative effects of them given in the first six months of life, do not cause autism. The first one is an MMR study. The second one an MMR and a DTaP study. The next ones are MMR, these four are MMR and Thimerosal studies. Then the next all the way through to 20 are all just Thimerosal studies. Lastly, we have one antigen study. Of the 20 studies, the first MMR studies are not in the first six months of life; Thimerosal studies show none of the vaccines in the first six months of life had Thimerosal. There was only one study relevant to the first six months of life, the IOM review of the DTaP vaccine, and it said there are no studies that prove or disprove the association with autism. Therefore, that was the only one that was relevant to the first six months of life, and it proved that they had no answers. And so for everyone that's ever sent Mountain of Evidence, that's been a lie. We won in court. It's a lie. You can take that to the bank. And actually just months after winning that lawsuit, that was in May, by August they pulled down the statement vaccines do not cause autism. We celebrated it but five months later it went back up and we've been stuck there with this propaganda statement that have no basis in science up until last night when this happened to the website. Let's see the new page. Here it is. It now says autism and vaccines and right under that it has the key points. So we read those key points. The claim vaccines do not cause autism is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism, meaning those vaccines in the first six months of life. Meaning the IOM lawsuit that proved that. Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities. HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links. It does have an explanatory statement I want to read right now. It says this about why you will still see it with an asterisk the header vaccines do not cause autism has not been completely removed due to an agreement with the chair of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that it would remain on the CDC website. Apparently, this was that backroom deal that was made with Senator Cassidy, of course, when Robert Kennedy Jr. was up there. But now you can see on the page it is clear we are making the statement or it's being made by the CDC that this is not a scientific statement and so ultimately this is a massive change. I tweeted out about it today and to every parent of an autistic child that's been out there. For every one of you that did interviews, whether in the film Vaxxed or when we toured the nation and for everyone that's ever been gaslit, the days of gaslighting are over. We are now moving into science-based, evidence-based statements on the CDC website. It's a beautiful day.

Are you a conspiracy theorist? That label has been used against me to silence tough questions about powerful interests. I pointed out early on that the COVID vaccine didn't prevent transmission or infection, contrary to government claims. I was labeled a conspiracy theorist for saying red dye causes cancer, which the FDA has now banned. I also mentioned that fluoride lowers IQ, and a recent JAMA review confirmed a direct correlation between fluoride exposure and IQ loss. Is there any claim you can say was truly a conspiracy theory, or do you stand by your position?

Speaker 0: I don't have it because I don't want it. Speaker 1: I don't trust you. I need proof of vaccination to exist. Some of us resist the lies and pseudoscience on TV. The government abuses power, confuses and scares people. I may be wrong, but I won't complain. I'm a singer who uses my brain and middle finger. I won't take anything. Vaccine passports won't affect me. Hell no, I won't get it. Hell no, I don't trust the government. Hell no, I won't comply.

I am Dr. Brian Hooker, a vaccine safety scientist. The law shields vaccine manufacturers, leading to an expanded vaccine schedule. Research shows vaccinated children have higher rates of developmental delays, ear infections, gastrointestinal disorders, and asthma compared to unvaccinated children. Unvaccinated children have significantly lower rates of autoimmune, neurodevelopmental, and other disorders.

All of this cannot be true. Are you lying to Congress about being pro-vaccine, or did you lie on those podcasts? We have it all on tape. Senator, that statement from the Lex Fridman podcast has been debunked. I was asked if there are safe and effective vaccines, and I said some live virus vaccines are. I also stated that no vaccine is universally safe and effective, as every medicine has individuals who may react negatively, including vaccines. I was interrupted before I could elaborate. I've clarified this multiple times, including on national TV, so bringing it up now is misleading.

Vaccines eradicated smallpox and polio. The speaker was taught that vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary, and there's no reason to question it. Medical school rotations reinforced that vaccines are safe and effective, and the speaker was told to ignore the inserts because that's lawyer jargon. Medical school provided no education about vaccine contents, safety records, informed consent, or the vaccine injury compensation program. The speaker assumed the science was settled and didn't question vaccines.

I serve on the FDA's vaccine advisory committee because I don't have relationships with pharmaceutical companies, as that would be a conflict of interest. I actually agree with some of the things my counterpart says, such as we are too obese as a country, and we overmedicate our children. I wrote a book about this called Overkill When Modern Medicine Goes Too Far. However, I don't agree with claims that vaccines are harmful, as has been said. RFK Jr. continues to claim that vaccines cause autism, which is untrue, and he's now targeting childhood vaccines, which will only hurt children.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify and restate the speaker’s claimed credentials (or lack thereof). - Capture the core activity described (deposing leading vaccine experts) and the basis for claims (actual evidence). - Note the courtroom principle contrasting titles versus evidence. - Outline the asserted strategic actions (legal action against specific agencies) and purported results. - Preserve the exact claim about the outcome of the lawsuits regarding vaccine safety science. - Present statements verbatim where feasible, and otherwise closely paraphrase to retain meaning. - Avoid adding judgments, external context, or evaluative commentary. Summary: The speaker introduces himself as Mister Siri and immediately clarifies that he is not a medical doctor, and not an immunologist or biologist or any kind of vaccinologist. He adds that despite lacking these titles, he “depose[s] them regularly, including the world’s leading ones with regards to vaccines,” and that he must base his claims on “actual evidence.” In describing his courtroom approach, he asserts that when he goes to court regarding vaccines, “I don’t get to rely on titles.” He then recounts a proposed strategic path he characterizes as a “genius way forward”: “We’re gonna sue the government agencies, HHS, FDA, NIH,” and he states that “we started winning.” The narrative then turns to the alleged outcomes of those legal actions, posing the question, “And what did we prove in those lawsuits?” followed by the claimed conclusion: “That the entire science behind vaccine safety was nothing but a complete fraud.” Throughout, the speaker frames the process as a shift from deference to credentials to a reliance on evidence obtained through deposition and litigation, culminating in purported victories against major federal health agencies. He presents the lawsuits as the mechanism by which the foundational science of vaccine safety was challenged, and he asserts that the result of these proceedings is a definitive statement that the science underpinning vaccine safety is fraudulent, as claimed within the transcript’s courtroom-centered account. The emphasis remains on the contrast between claimed authority and evidence-based legal challenges, as well as on the asserted procedural successes and the sweeping conclusion about vaccine-safety science.

I wouldn't label myself as anti-vaccine, but after watching your interviews and the guests you host, I'm disappointed. I believe you are anti-science and not pro-vaccine. Supporting vaccines like MMR or pertussis doesn't change the fact that denying the science behind the COVID vaccine makes you anti-vaccine. Rejecting COVID vaccine science equates to being anti-science.

I'm a doctor and scientist who has worked with the NHS and the World Health Organization. I sent an urgent report to the MHRA stating that the COVID vaccines were unsafe and causing harm. The yellow card scheme showed 250,000 adverse event reports and 1,253 deaths associated with the vaccines. The MHRA responded, suggesting that some reports may be coincidental. Since then, the Vigi access database has recorded over 5,000,000 reports of COVID vaccine harms, injuries, and deaths. These vaccines are genetic therapies, not safe or effective. Trust me, I am a scientist and doctor.

Speaker 0 argues that invoking “the science says this because CDC says it, because my doctor says it, or because FDA says it” is a “logical fallacy” and an “appeals to authority.” “You cannot show me a study that shows that the flu vaccine actually efforts more problems than it causes.” He says he can show many studies, “It’s in the Dear Sanjay Gupta letter.” “Show me that study, then I will walk away from that issue.” Speaker 1 concedes the CDC isn’t perfect but notes, “There are hundreds of millions of people who have gotten these vaccine vaccines who are perfectly healthy. Perfectly healthy in part thanks to the vaccines.” “The vaccines are not all bad.” and adds, “Just because we have suspicions about some of them, and in particular, the COVID vaccine, it doesn't mean we can and because you started this, Bobby, by saying, I am not anti vaxx.” Speaker 0 asks for “a scientific study for each vaccine that shows that this vaccine is averting for harm and it's causing.” Speaker 1 says, “They say the studies show no linkage of harm.” The exchange ends: “Let's advance the discussion. Okay?”

A PDF crowdsourced document that I believe CNN put out was sent to me by a New York Times reporter researching me, citing 200 different studies on vaccines that supposedly used placebo. I spoke with Dr. Joel Worsch, a pediatrician with an MS in epidemiology who wrote a book and is credible, neutral, and honest, and he says we don't know. There's not enough data to know. He breaks it down: the vast majority of these studies are not on the CDC schedule; many used active comparables, not inert placebo. After filtering, 25% of these studies pertain to vaccines on the schedule. Of those, inert placebo is used in about 5% of items. Longitudinal safety studies are zero; perhaps one or two were prelicensing. Journalists do their job: I spoke to doctor Joe; here's what I found. Cognitive dissidence is described as insecurity about flaws in the party.

This interview may seem unusual due to anticipated social media reactions, so let's clarify some key points upfront to avoid baseless accusations. Have you ever received funding or gratuities from Pfizer or any vaccine-producing drug company? No. It's important to address this since such claims often arise, regardless of their truth. Have you ever received funding or gratuities from Pfizer or any vaccine-producing drug company? No.

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.”

I am a toxicology expert who has worked on designing experimental molecules for medicines. Based on my expertise, I firmly believe that the materials used in these vaccines were intentionally designed to cause harm, injury, and reduce fertility. I will be presenting this argument in court soon. Therefore, I strongly advise against taking these injectables or any future mRNA-based materials as they are all dangerous. Additionally, we have all been deceived from the beginning, as there was never a true pandemic or public health emergency. The media and unreliable diagnostic tests have spread lies and propaganda.

Speaker 0: I was fired after thirty one years as an emergency room physician with not one single patient complaint against me in those thirty one years. I was fired for saying that somebody who had natural immunity didn't need to be vaccinated against the disease to which they were already immune. Fortunately, I still had my medical license even though I lost a significant part, at least 50% of my income and I couldn't work as an emergency room doctor anymore, I still had my private practice. So when I discovered from the the biodistribution studies that Pfizer had hidden, that we knew that these vaccines go around your entire body, they do not just stay in your arm. Pfizer's biodistribution studies on the lipid nanoparticles show that they literally take those messenger RNA strands into every part of your body that go into your brain and your lungs and your heart and your liver and your reproductive organs and your bone marrow and everywhere, which is, by the way, why these COVID shots have caused a a greater array of side effects than any other medical treatment in history because this toxic spike protein ends up in literally every every

I have 7 kids, and 5 of them have allergies. I was asked by Donald Trump to serve on a vaccine safety commission in 2016. During a meeting, I asked if there was any vaccine that had been tested for safety, but they couldn't provide any evidence. So, I sued them to show us a study on vaccine safety testing, but they said they didn't have any.

I'm asking if you will agree not to sue drug companies. I'm not agreeing to that. As secretary of HHS, you could influence lawsuits in many ways, such as promoting anti-vaccine views, appointing like-minded individuals, or changing vaccine schedules and compensation rules. You could even share FDA data with law firms for their benefit. I'm asking you to commit not to financially benefit from these lawsuits while serving as secretary. I will comply with ethical guidelines. You're trying to undermine vaccines. As secretary, you could harm vaccine access while profiting from it. I support vaccines and the childhood schedule; I just want good science. Then say you won't profit from your role as secretary.

I challenged the claim that I was dishonest about vaccine safety trials and asked for a single prelicensing placebo-controlled safety trial for any of the 72 vaccines required for American children. After searching, I was told they were in Bethesda, but I never received them. We then sued the HHS under the Freedom of Information Law. After a year, they confirmed they could not locate any prelicensing placebo-controlled safety trials for the mandated vaccines. These vaccines have zero liability. I am not anti-vaccine; I advocate for honesty and sound science. My efforts to remove mercury from fish were never labeled as anti-fish.

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

Speaker argues, "if this was a religion, if this was Christianity, this is their Jesus. Vaccines is their Jesus." He says Stanley Plotkin "has finally given in and admitted that ... we were all exactly right" and "We never did the safety trials on any of the vaccines." "We win lawsuits against government agencies." Aaron Siri and others testified before Congress, saying, "you've never done a proper safety trial." In cross-examination, it is asserted that "the issue of whether vaccines cause autism has been thoroughly researched and rejected" and "It's your testimony that MMR vaccine cannot cause autism." He also testifies that "hep b vaccine cannot cause autism?" "That's correct." The dialogue notes "There have been studies that have found an association between hepatitis B vaccine and autism," but "Not studies that I feel are credible." The speaker concludes: "This book is not worth the paper it's written on."

I ask if you intend to substitute your judgment for that of professional scientists. I won’t substitute my judgment for science. The New York Times reported on fraudulent studies by NIH regarding amyloid plaques and Alzheimer's. Are the scientists who disagree with you considered bad? The corrupt ones, like those behind the fraudulent amyloid studies. Do you have a medical degree? No. Your failed presidential campaign has raised money. How much from HHS's issues? Zero. I want to enter emails about your fundraising into the record. Without objection. You previously stated that Black people should not follow the same vaccine schedule as whites. Can you explain? Studies show Black individuals may have stronger reactions to certain antigens, suggesting they need fewer. That’s dangerous. Your views could mislead parents. Do you think science is dangerous? These are peer-reviewed studies. I yield.

I asked if they could provide a single prelicensing placebo-controlled safety trial for any of the 72 vaccines required for American children. After searching, they claimed the documents were in Bethesda, but I never received them. We then sued the HHS under the Freedom of Information Act. After a year, they acknowledged they could not locate any prelicensing safety trials for the mandated vaccines. These vaccines come with zero liability. I am not anti-vaccine; I believe in honesty and good science. I've spent 30 years advocating to remove mercury from fish, and no one ever labeled me as anti-fish.

I have over 30 years of experience in pharmaceuticals and biotech. Based on my expertise, I believe that vaccines were intentionally designed to harm, maim, kill, and reduce fertility. I advise against taking any injectables, including mRNA-based materials, as they are all dangerous.