TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker asks if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. They request a clear yes or no answer and the data to be shared with the committee. The response states that they did not have prior knowledge of stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market and had to rely on scientific research. Another speaker expresses outrage, claiming that people were pressured to get vaccinated based on the false belief that it would protect others.

Speaker 0 states that one of their three children experienced health issues, including heart inflammation, after receiving the vaccine and subsequently lost their job for refusing further vaccination. This adverse reaction is officially registered. The speaker recounts a doctor advising their son against further vaccination outside a hospital setting, but later denying having said so. Speaker 1 says there is a good system for reporting side effects in New Zealand and finds no clear evidence of suppression of medical side effects of the Pfizer vaccine. Speaker 0 questions why the vaccine is still in use given the side effects. Speaker 1 responds that society decided to tolerate a certain number of adverse effects for the greater good, characterizing the speaker's family member's reaction as "taking one for the team."

The discussion revolves around the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines. Speaker 0 believes vaccines have done more good than harm, citing personal experiences. Speaker 1 argues that vaccines did not reduce severity, hospitalization, or death, as the virus became milder and early treatment improved outcomes. They claim misclassification bias in reporting vaccine-related deaths and point to high post-vaccine mortality rates. Calls are made to remove vaccines due to safety concerns.

Speaker 0 is hesitant about getting the vaccine, but Speaker 2 explains that getting vaccinated protects others. Speaker 3 is skeptical due to the quick vaccine development. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of vaccination to stop the virus spread. Speaker 3 believes there is fear-mongering around the pandemic.

Michael Kane shares his positive experience with the COVID vaccine, while a grieving mother urges people not to take it. Morgan Freeman, though not a doctor, trusts science and encourages others to get vaccinated. The importance of vaccinating as many people as possible is emphasized, especially to prevent the spread of variants. Concerns about vaccine safety and side effects are raised, with personal stories of adverse reactions shared. The need for long-term safety data, especially for children, is highlighted. Some individuals question the existence of COVID and criticize the vaccine rollout. A doctor argues against current vaccination strategies, citing lack of scientific evidence. The transcript ends with a humorous exchange about getting vaccinated.

Speaker 0 questions understanding of vaccine causing myocarditis, mentioning Pfizer's awareness. Speaker 1 doubts if vaccine was tested for stopping transmission before market release. Speaker 0 believes vaccination was optional, not forced.

Speaker 1 expresses skepticism about the COVID-19 vaccine due to lack of clarity and the speed at which it was developed. Speaker 2 counters by explaining that 20 years of scientific research contributed to its creation. Speaker 0, who is vaccinated, argues that if more people refuse the vaccine, the virus will continue to spread. Speaker 1 questions the accuracy of COVID-19 death numbers and suggests ulterior motives behind vaccine incentives. Speaker 0 emphasizes the importance of protecting health and the city. Speaker 1 accuses the pandemic of being fear-driven.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the importance of getting vaccinated to protect family members. Speaker 2 is hesitant due to lack of clarity and the quick development of the vaccine. Speaker 1 explains the extensive scientific research behind the vaccine. Speaker 0 emphasizes the need for vaccination to stop the virus from spreading. Speaker 2 expresses concerns about fear tactics and incentives for vaccination. The conversation highlights the importance of vaccination in preventing the spread of COVID-19.

Speaker 0 is pleased about vaccination effectiveness in preventing severe COVID and long-term effects. They mention rare side effects from vaccines and emphasize the importance of ongoing monitoring. Speaker 1 questions the safety of products on the market without complete testing. The TGA lacks data on adverse events due to underreporting, leading to audience frustration.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they got the vaccination and if they are okay. Speaker 1 confirms they got vaccinated and that it worked. Speaker 0 then mentions trusted sources and compares it to finding out about the moon landing or aliens. Speaker 1 responds by saying that Speaker 0's statement is idiotic and lacks rational thought. Speaker 1 concludes by saying that nobody in the room gained anything from listening to it.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is vaccinated, to which Speaker 1 responds that they are not. Speaker 1 explains that they advised their family and loved ones against getting vaccinated because they believed the vaccine was experimental, not tested on humans, and had concerns about the company behind it. They also mention that most vaccines typically take several years to gather safety data before approval. Speaker 1 expresses their intuition that Operation Warp Speed, the vaccine development initiative, seemed rushed and lacking in safety protocols. However, Speaker 1 did not anticipate the widespread propaganda campaign promoting vaccination, and they were horrified to see everyone around them rushing to get vaccinated without proper testing.

Speaker 0 argues that billions of people were injected with an experimental vaccine, stating “it wasn't a bloody just no. It wasn't.” He rejects the notion of it being definitive or perfect, emphasizing that “it wasn’t” in terms of being a flawless solution. Speaker 1 counters, asserting “It was no one isn’t,” suggesting confusion or contradiction in the prior claim and challenging the certainty of the statement. He adds that there is a lack of a 100% success rate and questions the ultimate aim, asking what the core purpose is when it comes to giving your body a training of the immune system and technology. Speaker 0 reinforces the complexity, noting that there were “different types” to contend with and that the fact that they weren’t the same technology matters. He agrees there are various types of vaccines or approaches, indicating there is diversity in the technology or formulations used. Speaker 1 concedes the existence of different types and technologies, acknowledging that “there are different types of” vaccines, and that “There are different technologies.” He identifies mRNA as a type of vaccine but Speaker 0 interrupts, insisting “No. It was” and continuing his line of reasoning about the distinctions between the technologies and their evolution. Speaker 1 acknowledges change, saying “like this, and now it's like this,” recognizing a progression or shift in the approach. Speaker 0 rejects the suggestion that the transition is simple or uniform, insisting “No. No. No. It was like this, and now it's like this.” He asserts that the mRNA technology represented a radical, qualitative leap forward in technology, a claim about the significance of the development. Speaker 0 contends that naming the technology as mRNA can be acceptable only in a limited sense; he says “You can call it if if you want to, but it bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that.” The rationale for the term mRNA is tied to branding: “The reason it was called a scene was because was a brand name that had a track record of safety, and shoehorning it in that was one of the ways to make sure that people weren't terrified of the technology.”

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they got the vaccine, to which Speaker 1 confirms that they did. Speaker 1 explains that they felt pressured by their friends to get the vaccine and later discovered some concerning particles in their blood work. They underwent a plasma treatment to remove heavy metals from their blood. Speaker 1 believes that there may have been an overreaction to the pandemic and suggests that there may have been ulterior motives at play. Speaker 0 agrees and mentions that they kept their gym open during that time. They both express skepticism and question the consistency of the actions taken during the pandemic.

Speaker 0 confronts a pharmacist about their son's hospitalization due to myocarditis after receiving a COVID jab. Speaker 0 is upset that his wife was not informed about this potential side effect. Speaker 1 explains that they may not disclose the side effect to avoid scaring parents away from vaccinating their children. Speaker 0 expresses disbelief and insists that parents should be given accurate information to make informed decisions.

Speaker 0 acknowledges reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with the Pfizer vaccine but seems unsure about the mechanism behind it. Speaker 1 asks if the vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. Speaker 2 questions if people were forced to get vaccinated to keep their jobs and asks Speaker 0 to retract their statement. Speaker 0 clarifies that everyone had the choice to get vaccinated or not, and they don't believe anyone was forced.

An individual states they will not get vaccinated due to a lack of clear information and the speed of vaccine development, which they believe is insufficient. They claim nine months is not enough time for vaccine development. Another individual says they are only speaking in close proximity because they are vaccinated, and that not getting vaccinated will allow the virus to continue spreading. The first individual compares COVID-19 to the flu. Someone states COVID-19 is more serious than the flu, and that while 20-30,000 people died of the flu the previous year, 600,000 Americans have died from COVID-19. The first individual disputes the COVID-19 death toll, claiming it is "you all's number." The first individual believes there is something else going on when people are paid or incentivized to get vaccinated, and that the vaccination campaign incites fear in people, and that the pandemic is fear.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain why the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination but does not provide a clear explanation. Speaker 0 insists on understanding the mechanism and questions why the vaccine is considered safe without addressing the risks. Speaker 2 intervenes, suggesting that Speaker 1 will address the question later. Speaker 1 talks about the benefit-risk ratio and the global recommendation of health authorities. Speaker 0 reiterates the question, to which Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. Speaker 2 confirms this agreement.

Speaker 0 expresses clear personal hesitation about vaccines, stating that they are not jabbed and would not touch the experimental mRNA and gene therapy experiments, asserting there is a lot of concern about these technologies from many medical people. They reference political figures and media narratives, saying Kennedy in the United States will expose much of this material and that Donald Trump is keen to see it as well. Speaker 0 then recalls personal health concerns related to vaccination, mentioning friends who have experienced myocarditis, blood clots, strokes, and other problems after receiving the COVID jab, and emphasizes the idea of long-term effects being unknown. Speaker 1 counters by saying they still believe in vaccinations, but notes that no one on that side would discuss possible problems with vaccines, and they themselves got vaccinated multiple times and are now open to the idea that there might have been problems. They acknowledge the complexity of the issue and state they do not object to vaccines inherently. Speaker 0 clarifies their stance further, stating they are not a medical expert but their instinct was not to have the vaccine, and they acknowledge how difficult it was to avoid it since the state appeared to force people to receive it. Speaker 1 adds that their own vaccination status includes having been vaxxed several times, and they feel okay today, though they recognize the complexity of the situation and that long-term effects are uncertain. Speaker 0 then discusses the notion that the state and public health authorities pressured people to vaccinate, naming the NHS, Matt Hancock, and portraying the messaging as a duty to vaccinate “because you might kill granny,” mentioning Trudeau and the World Economic Forum Brigade as part of the broader narrative. Speaker 0 proposes an alternative approach: those who are vulnerable should isolate themselves. They reference Anders Tegnell’s approach in Sweden, which did not impose lockdowns. They claim Sweden’s economy hardly missed a heartbeat, in contrast to “ours,” and argue that the pandemic greatly disrupted young people’s lives and education, with knock-on effects described as huge. Speaker 0 concludes that those who made the lockdown decisions are not ready to admit they got it wrong, for a host of reasons.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss vaccines and vaccine technology. Speaker 0 begins by saying, “He injected billions of people with an experimental it wasn't a bloody just no. It wasn't,” expressing that the vaccine was experimental and not straightforward. Speaker 1 counters briefly with, “It was no one isn't,” then suggests uncertainty about the claim. Speaker 0 adds that “Yes. It is. It's Well, it doesn't have a 100%,” indicating skepticism about a perfect success rate. Speaker 1 asks, “You think it's a definition of all point of is to give your body a,” challenging the stated purpose of the vaccine in terms of its aim to train the immune system. Speaker 0 then states, “protein train on. The immune system works. Technology,” implying that the vaccine trains the immune system and works as a technology. Speaker 1 responds that “Who cares if it's not the same? There's plenty there's,” implying there are multiple vaccines or approaches enough to matter, suggesting diversity in types. Speaker 0 replies, “different so types that they didn't have to contend with the fact that it wasn't the same technology.” Speaker 1 acknowledges that “There are different types of,” and that “There are different technologies. Fine. The mRNA is a type of vaccine.” Speaker 0 firmly rejects that, saying, “Now this is No. It was,” indicating a disagreement about the classification. Speaker 1 clarifies that “like this, and now it's like this,” implying a progression from one form to another. Speaker 0 insists, “No. No. No. It was like this, and now it's like this. The m n r mRNA technology was a radical, qualitative leap forward in technology.” He asserts that mRNA technology represents a significant advancement compared to what existed before. Speaker 1 suggests naming it differently or acknowledging changes, but Speaker 0 continues that “You can call it if you want to, but it bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that.” The final point is that “The reason it was called a scene was because was a brand name that had a track record of safety, and shoehorning it in that was one of the ways to make sure that people weren't terrified of the technology.”

Speaker 0 asked about the visibility of the medium to long-term effects of the vaccine in three to five years. Speaker 1 responded that they cannot predict how things will be in three to five years, but mentioned that 92-93% of the population will be vaccinated. Speaker 0 expressed confusion, and Speaker 1 clarified that 92-93% is the current vaccination rate. Speaker 0 raised concerns about potential side effects, but Speaker 1 reassured them that if there are any, the majority of the population would be affected. Speaker 0 remained unconvinced and expressed hesitation about getting vaccinated.

A person states they won't get the COVID-19 vaccine due to a lack of initial clarity and the speed of its creation, arguing nine months isn't enough time. Another person explains that twenty years of science went into the approach used to create the vaccine and that vaccination is necessary to stop the virus from spreading. The first person compares COVID-19 to the flu, but is told COVID-19 is more serious. They then question the official death toll and suggest incentives for vaccination indicate ulterior motives. The second person states that millions of people were vaccinated to protect their health and community. The first person concludes that the vaccination campaign is based on fear.

Speaker 0 asks if people are not afraid of the side effects of the Covid vaccine. Speaker 1 responds that they are more afraid of long-term effects of Covid itself than the vaccine's side effects. They mention that billions of people have been vaccinated with no major side effects reported. Speaker 1 also addresses the concern that women are more affected by vaccine side effects, stating that there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. They mention not having any information from the COVAS (the organization responsible for scientific surveillance) or any published studies on this matter.

The speaker discusses the impact of the vaccine on saving lives and acknowledges that there are side effects. They mention that both the virus and the vaccine have changed over the past two years, leading to transmission and infection. However, there is disagreement between the speakers, with one denying the effectiveness of the vaccine. The conversation becomes heated, with one person telling the other to be quiet.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain the process of how the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination. Speaker 0 insists on an explanation of the mechanism, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. Speaker 1 emphasizes that all medicines have benefits and side effects and refers to the benefit-risk ratio. Speaker 0 continues to press for an explanation of the biochemical pathway, but Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. The transcript ends with Speaker 2 confirming Speaker 1's agreement to give a further response.

Speaker 0 assures that reported side effects of the vaccine are expected and not concerning. They urge people to report any unusual reactions. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of transparency and unbiased investigation into outbreaks following vaccination. They question the accuracy of recording underlying causes of death related to COVID-19. Speaker 0 dismisses these concerns, stating that spreading doubts about vaccine safety during a pandemic is dangerous and undermines public health. Speaker 1 finds the minister's response concerning and ends the conversation.