TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speakers emphasize the importance of vaccination in reducing transmission and returning to normalcy. They mention that vaccinated individuals do not carry the virus or get sick. Getting vaccinated and receiving booster shots can save lives, protect loved ones, and prevent the spread of infection. The vaccines effectively stop the virus with each vaccinated person, preventing it from using them as a host to infect others. However, the speakers acknowledge that the initial data on vaccine transmission was limited, and they did not have a clear answer on whether the vaccines would stop infection. They stress the need for people to take the vaccines to break the chain of transmission.

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 speaker emphasizes the importance of getting vaccinated and states that it is a personal choice. However, they assert that unvaccinated individuals should not be allowed to travel on planes or trains with vaccinated people, as it poses a risk. They emphasize the need for strong decision-making in this regard.

The speaker argues that genetic vaccines are totally unacceptable and defines the introduction of transgenes into the human body as gene therapy, questioning how this can be considered acceptable practice for creating vaccines. They assert that encapsulating messenger RNA in nanoparticles and administering it leads to off-target effects, with the effects starting from the ovaries to the brain, liver, spleen, and bone marrow. They emphasize that the biggest problem is going to the bone marrow and the reproductive organs like the ovaries, and then every possible organ. Regarding spike proteins, the speaker states that spike proteins are still detected in the rash after more than a year, which they interpret as evidence that messenger RNA is producing spike proteins. They contend that there is no way for a year-old spike protein to remain in the rash and be detected. Personal choices are also mentioned: they did not choose to get vaccinated because they think it was a foolish decision from the beginning. They have not even opted for the flu shot because they consider it an unwise choice.

The speakers discuss the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the importance of getting vaccinated. They emphasize that vaccinated individuals are less likely to get infected, transmit the virus, or experience severe illness. They mention that vaccines slightly reduce transmission but do not completely prevent it. The speakers also mention the possibility of waning immunity over time and suggest that booster shots may be necessary. They encourage everyone to get vaccinated and highlight the goal of achieving high immunity levels to return to normalcy. The plan is for every adult to receive a booster shot.

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.

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.

The speaker questions why there hasn't been research done to show that natural immunity protects against recurrent infection. They mention that studies have shown that individuals with natural immunity have antibodies, T cells, and B cells that are considered adequate for protection. The speaker also mentions that the CDC has access to patient data. However, the other speaker responds by stating that their current stance is that everyone who has been previously infected should still be vaccinated, without directly addressing the question.

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 the person truly has the flu, they should not get the vaccine again because being infected is the most effective form of vaccination.

"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."

If someone has had the flu for 14 days, they are already protected and do not need a flu shot. The best protection comes from being infected with the flu virus. Getting the flu vaccine is not necessary if the person already has the flu.

"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."

The speaker claims that no childhood vaccine has ever undergone a safety trial using a double-blind, placebo-based study. They assert that this type of study, involving a saline injection as a placebo, is the only way to determine the safety of a pharmaceutical product. Furthermore, the speaker states that there has never been a study comparing the health outcomes of children who receive the full schedule of 72 (or potentially up to 90) vaccines to those who receive none. Because of the lack of safety studies and comparative data, the speaker chooses not to inject themselves or their children with vaccines. They want evidence that vaccines are safe and make people healthier.

If someone has had the flu for 14 days, they do not need a flu shot. Being infected provides the best protection, so getting the flu itself is like a strong vaccine. Therefore, if she truly has the flu, she should not get the flu vaccine again.

We should make it mandatory for everyone to get vaccinated and stop tolerating those who refuse. The speaker got COVID-19 and is upset about it. They can't believe they caught it despite wearing a mask and not going out much. They express gratitude to the scientists who developed the vaccine and criticize those who are against it. The speaker mentions a commercial urging people to get vaccinated for the new variant. They emphasize how important it is to get vaccinated and express their own relief for having done so. They describe their experience with COVID-19 as extremely severe and unlike anything they've ever experienced before.

The speaker claims the pertussis vaccine, recommended for pregnant women and family members to protect newborns, does not prevent infection or transmission. They state the pertussis vaccine is combined with tetanus and diphtheria, and now pregnant women are also urged to get the COVID and RSV vaccines, and sometimes hepatitis B, bringing the total to seven. The speaker asserts that none of these vaccines have been tested for safety on pregnant women and their fetuses.

The message we have been conveying from the beginning is that when you are vaccinated, you do not risk infecting others. Studies have shown that people who have received both doses of the vaccine have virtually no chance of contracting the disease. If everyone is vaccinated, there will no longer be any virus.

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.

Speaker 0 advises getting the shot, but it's optional. Speaker 1 agrees to get it and wear a mask. Speaker 0 plans to get the shot but won't wear a mask. Speaker 2 is surprised and asks how many shots Speaker 0 has had. Speaker 0 mentions having had six shots so far and will soon get the seventh. They also mention having had COVID three times.

The speaker argues that the vaccine program should stop and that injecting foreign matter into babies cannot be considered an improvement to their health. They reference Peter McCullough as someone who said the program needs to halt. They criticize the expansion of vaccine policy since the 1986 Act, which granted liability protection for the trio of vaccines (MMR, DPT, and polio) at the time, and suggest there was no foresight about expanding to multiple doses of many vaccines for little babies. Now that this has happened, they insist it must end. They point to polio as an example, noting that children still receive four polio vaccines even though polio has not appeared in the Western Hemisphere since 1991, and that the World Health Organization declared the region polio-free in 1994. They question why four doses of polio vaccines, which contain monkey kidney cells and formaldehyde, are given for a disease the region is no longer exposed to. They ask, “Why? To protect against what? That’s not even here.” They extend the argument to “the same thing” with other vaccines. The speaker asserts that measles has not been deadly since 1963 and explains that the measles virus has a life cycle in which an outbreak occurs roughly every four years regardless of vaccination rates. They make a similar claim about pertussis. They argue that injecting foreign matter into children does not improve their health and is not preventing deadly diseases that are now treated with antibiotics, steroids, inhalers, and other therapies. They point out that it is not a big deal to have multiple tetanus shots and still contract tetanus, using this as evidence about the effectiveness of tetanus vaccination. Overall, the speaker contends that the concept of deadly diseases being eradicated by vaccines is a multi-generational myth and that vaccines are not reliably protective. They argue that the practice has run its course and that it is overdue for the entire vaccine program to end, suggesting that it did its job and should now be discontinued. The concluding stance is that the multi-generational myth of deadly diseases and the safety and protection of vaccines should stop, and that the program should be ended.

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.

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.

The speaker expresses confusion about receiving a vaccine, given their perceived susceptibility to meningitis. They state that it "doesn't make sense" to administer a vaccine when they have been told all day that they are susceptible to meningitis.