TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I think we all know how important the COVID vaccine was. It was scientifically, critically studied to prevent severe disease. I think where people started to get confused is when we started to make potential claims that the vaccine did more than what it was studied to actually show. And remember all of those original studies, we didn't test patients unless they had symptoms. We only looked for disease, and so we don't know how many people were asymptomatic. We don't know about protection against infection. What we did know about is protection against severe disease. And clearly, if you look at the mortality in individuals 75 before vaccination and after vaccination, there was a dramatic difference even through, Amicrom and Delta. So, yes, the vaccine was highly effective for what it was intended to do, was prevent Shouldn't the health secretary know that? You know, I'm not sure that there's so much confusion about the COVID vaccine, what it was studied to do. I just want to make it very clear. It was studied to prevent severe disease, and that's what it does. And then I think the question is, well, who's who's susceptible to severe disease and who should continue to get the COVID shots? I think that's what needs to be clearly laid out to the American people.

When the government told us vaccinated people couldn't get the virus, were they guessing or lying? There was evidence of natural reinfection during the pandemic. Since the vaccine was based on natural immunity, one can't definitively say vaccination is superior to natural infection, even if it's often slightly better. I can't rule out the possibility that the government wasn't truthful when they stated vaccinated individuals couldn't contract the virus. While I ensured my susceptible family members were vaccinated, we still used layered protection during surges, knowing vaccine immunity could wane. The hope was that the vaccine would prevent transmission. Scientists and public health leaders must clearly communicate what's known versus what's hoped. When the government said the vaccinated couldn't get it, it wasn't the truth, but possibly a guess, a lie, or just hope.

Twenty percent of Americans did not take the COVID vaccine because it was not safe enough. The mRNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines has been chemically modified to resist breakdown by enzymes. The mRNA and spike protein are found in the heart and brain, and the spike protein circulates in the blood for six to nine months post-vaccination. The speaker claims the lethal part of the virus circulates in the blood of vaccinated individuals, especially after boosters, and that it is a killer protein. The speaker asserts safety trumps efficacy and objects to claims that vaccines, specifically the COVID-19 vaccine, saved millions of lives. They state that consent forms do not guarantee the vaccine will save lives and that there has never been a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial showing that COVID-19 vaccines reduce mortality or hospitalization.

The White House blames a few bad actors for spreading online misinformation. The speaker disagrees with the idea that wearing masks is the best way to prevent infectious diseases. They mention that getting vaccinated provides the best protection against infection. The speaker also addresses the misconception that vaccines can make people worse. They mention the possibility of future challenges in infectious diseases and the need for rapid response to new threats. The speaker denies funding gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology and denies lying before Congress.

Speaker 0 asks if the vaccine prevented people from getting COVID. Speaker 1 believes it lessened symptom severity and reduced emergency room visits, a view supposedly held by 90% of objective experts. Speaker 0 regrets getting vaccinated, fearing he would miss his son's birth. He got COVID a couple of weeks after vaccination and received conflicting test results, questioning the competence of the testers.

The speaker acknowledges that the vaccine did not completely stop the spread or infection, but clarifies that initially it did for the Wuhan strain and the alpha strain. Early data and literature published in the New England Journal showed that those who were vaccinated and didn't get infected were not transmitting the virus to others. The vaccine had a high efficacy of up to 96% early on and this efficacy did not change over time.

The White House blames a few bad actors for spreading online misinformation that is causing harm. It is important to get vaccinated not only for personal protection but also to safeguard society. A member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands recently had a viral exchange with a Pfizer executive regarding whether the vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before being released. The executive clarified that the vaccines were extensively tested in clinical trials, but their specific effectiveness in stopping transmission was not known prior to market entry.

Vaccinated individuals are still at risk of getting COVID, but may have milder symptoms. Vaccines were introduced late in the pandemic, and early treatment and natural immunity were key in saving lives. There is controversy over vaccine safety, with reports of deaths following vaccination. Some studies suggest vaccinated individuals are at higher risk of severe outcomes. Calls have been made to remove vaccines from the market due to safety concerns. Translation: Vaccinated people can still get COVID, but may have less severe symptoms. Early treatment and natural immunity were important in saving lives. There are concerns about vaccine safety, with reports of deaths after vaccination. Some studies indicate vaccinated people may be at higher risk of severe outcomes. There are calls to remove vaccines from the market due to safety concerns.

The speaker claims that in Pfizer's initial vaccine trial with 20,000 vaccinated and 20,000 unvaccinated participants, the vaccinated group had 23% more deaths from all causes than the placebo group after six months. The speaker states that the claim of 100% vaccine efficacy was based on the fact that two people in the placebo group died from COVID versus one person in the vaccine group. The speaker asserts that people believed the vaccine would prevent them from getting COVID, which they now realize is false.

In a study of 1,000 people in Israel, it was found that those who received two vaccine doses were 27 times more likely to get reinfected. The vaccine does not prevent infections or transmission, as seen in studies from England, Scotland, and other European countries where triple-vaccinated individuals are most likely to die. On the other hand, natural immunity from previous infections, such as SARS CoV-one, can last for 18 years and provide long-lasting and broad protection. In conclusion, natural immunity should be considered as an important factor moving forward.

They watched every meeting of the advisory committees in 2021–2023 when COVID shots were authorized. "the CDC's own research showed that the protection from the vaccine, if any, was between months two and six. And by six months, it showed negative efficacy." They assert, "The COVID shots have negative efficacy after six months" and question, "how a shot with negative efficacy is saving lives, and it has the worst side effect profile of any vaccine in human history." "So how exactly is a vaccine with the worst side effects and negative efficacy saving lives?" They claim, "What ended the COVID pandemic was the Omicron variant that was more transmissible but less lethal." They question, "the vaccine, how many people it helped? It could be a net negative." They cite trial data: "'twenty one people died in the in the vaccinated group and seventeen died in in the, placebo group.'"

I was upset with the CDC for stopping tracking of infections in vaccinated individuals. Vaccines should not have been mandated, and side effects should have been acknowledged. The vaccines do not fully protect against infection. The spike protein in the vaccines can cause harm. I now prefer using a protein-based vaccine by Novavax, as it provides a known amount of spike protein without the risk of prolonged impact seen with mRNA vaccines.

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.

The speaker was upset when the CDC stopped tracking vaccinated people who were infected, suspecting it was to avoid making the vaccine seem ineffective. They believe mandating the vaccines was a mistake and that there should have been more honesty about side effects and the fact that vaccines don't protect against infection. The speaker recalls that while serving as a public health advisor in Maryland, two-thirds of infected individuals had been vaccinated, contrary to claims that it was an epidemic of the unvaccinated. They state the vaccine's efficacy lasts only 4-6 months and that some patients are experiencing long COVID symptoms from the vaccine. In the speaker's opinion, the spike protein is immunotoxic, whether from infection or vaccination. They express concern that mRNA vaccines cause the body to produce an unknown quantity of spike protein for an undetermined duration. They now prefer and use the Novavax protein vaccine, where the amount of spike protein is controlled and its decay curve is known. They believe the mRNA vaccines may cause prolonged spike protein production or negative consequences in some individuals, although it is rare.

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.

They claimed high effectiveness based on one COVID death in the vaccinated group versus two in the unvaccinated, out of 22,000 people. But effective for what, exactly? They kept saying it was a certain percentage effective, but the point was to negate the severity. I remember seeing videos of Fauci, Biden, Gates, and Bourla saying that if you take the vaccine, you can't get or pass COVID. If you want, I can even play the video for you. Regardless, it doesn't matter what Rachel Maddow says.

The United States government has been the main source of misinformation during the pandemic, spreading false claims about COVID transmission, vaccine immunity, and mask effectiveness. The Cochrane review, the most authoritative evidence body in medicine, disproves these claims. Myocarditis is actually more common after vaccination, and young people don't benefit from boosters. Vaccine mandates didn't increase vaccination rates, but instead created never vaxxers who are now missing out on childhood vaccines. The CDC manipulated their own studies on natural immunity and masking to fit their desired outcomes, showing intellectual dishonesty and lying to the American people.

The speaker acknowledges that the vaccine did not completely stop the spread or infection, but clarifies that initially it did for the Wuhan strain and the alpha strain. Early data and literature published in the New England Journal showed that those who were vaccinated and didn't get infected were not transmitting the virus to others. The vaccine had a high efficacy of up to 96% early on and this efficacy did not change over time.

There is a discussion about how public trust in vaccination has changed since the pandemic. The speaker notes that years ago there were “five people in the world who were prepared to talk about the thorny issue of vaccination.” Post COVID, however, “half the adult population of the world are now saying, hold on, we don't trust you. You lied to us. It's not what you told us, safe and effective.” This skepticism extends to vaccines given to children, with the question, “Does this apply to all the other vaccines you're putting into my kids?” The speaker then asserts that “safety studies haven't been done,” suggesting that important research behind vaccines is incomplete or lacking. This leads to the claim that “they've created this mess for themselves.” Despite the frustration, the speaker emphasizes the moral weight of deception, stating, “it's really tough to lie. I mean, lying gets you into real trouble.”

The speaker acknowledges that the vaccine did not completely stop the spread or infection, but clarifies that initially it did for the Wuhan strain and the alpha strain. Early data and literature published in the New England Journal showed that those who were vaccinated and didn't get infected were not transmitting the virus to others. The vaccine had a high efficacy of up to 96% early on and this efficacy did not change over time.

The speaker believes criticism of them is an attack on science. They stated vaccinated people don't need to worry about serious illness or transmission, but later acknowledged fully vaccinated people can transmit the infection. Masks were described as working "at the margins, maybe ten percent." School closures were considered an appropriate approach initially, but remote learning may have "forever damaged" kids, though the speaker doesn't believe it's "irreparably damaged anyone." The speaker claims they didn't recommend lockdowns, but recommended shutting the country down to the president, knowing it would have serious economic consequences. The speaker suggests the virus originated from the animal-human interface in wet markets, but that the place of origin was not within the market itself. Another intelligence arm concluded COVID began with a lab leak in China. The speaker denies the NIH funded gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute, while others claim NIH funded research that made a bat coronavirus more contagious. The speaker denies that this is gain of function.

The United States government has been the main source of misinformation during the pandemic, spreading false claims about COVID transmission, vaccine immunity, and mask effectiveness. The Cochrane review, the most authoritative evidence body in medicine, disproves these claims. Myocarditis is actually more common after vaccination, and young people do not benefit from boosters. Top vaccine experts resigned from the FDA in protest over this issue. The CDC withheld data on hospitalization rates among boosted Americans under 50. Mandates did not increase vaccination rates, but instead created more anti-vaxxers. The CDC manipulated research to support their desired outcomes, including studies on natural immunity and masking. Public health officials were dishonest and lied to the American people.

The speaker questions whether the government was guessing or lying when they said that vaccinated individuals couldn't get the virus. The other speaker, who was part of the previous administration, acknowledges that there was evidence of natural reinfection during the global pandemic and that the vaccine was based on natural immunity. They suggest that the vaccine may not necessarily outperform natural infection. The first speaker then asks if the government was lying when they said the vaccine couldn't transmit the virus, to which the second speaker responds that it was more of a hopeful belief. The first speaker concludes that the government's statements were not truthful, leaving the options of guessing, lying, or hoping as possible explanations.

A communication problem arose when it was intimated that vaccines would protect against getting COVID altogether, which wasn't supported by evidence. Vaccines protect against illness in the lower respiratory system, but the virus could still be carried in the upper airway and potentially spread. This led to distrust of mRNA vaccines, as people who got COVID after vaccination questioned the vaccine's effectiveness. Recent data shows that vaccines work well in preventing illness and infection, and make it unlikely that someone would pass the infection to someone else. The concern was that vaccinated people could be unwitting carriers, but recent data suggests this is very unlikely. Vaccinated people not wearing masks are not doing a disservice to their community. Unvaccinated people could be putting other unvaccinated people at risk. Institutions may require proof of vaccination, which will be a tough call.

In a study of 1,000 people in Israel, it was found that those who received two vaccine doses were 27 times more likely to get reinfected. The vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission. Similar studies in England, Scotland, and other European countries show that triple vaccinated individuals are most likely to die. Natural immunity, on the other hand, is long-lasting, wide-ranging, and durable. There are cases of SARS CoV-one patients still having immunity 18 years later. Therefore, natural immunity should be legally considered equal to vaccinated immunity, and it is likely to last a lifetime.