TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Some batches of the vaccine may have serious side effects or be degraded. The batch number can be checked to see what to expect. Documentation shows that certain batches have more serious adverse effects. Even the best batches from Pfizer and Moderna had a high rate of serious adverse events in the short term, around 1800.

Speaker 0: This is Prevenar, made by Pfizer. There are several products on the market, but the concept is the same. This is one of the studies that brought this product to market. Here’s what I want to show you. You’ll notice up here, this is the number of patients in the placebo group. This where my finger is is the control group that was treated, and then this is the placebo group. Notice how many there are. What it says is you need to treat forty two thousand two hundred forty patients with the vaccine Prevenar in order to prevent forty one cases of pneumonia. And they all get the benefits of the potential side effects of the drug. Let’s look at that quickly. Section 6.2 in the package insert, lymphadenopathy cyanosis in the pediatric population, anaphylaxis, hypotonia, reduced tone in kids that get this vaccine, skin and subcutaneous disorders, vascular disorders, etcetera. In this vaccine is polysorbate 80 and aluminum as an adjuvant. Aluminum neurotoxin. Of course, there’s section 13.1. The product has not been evaluated to see if it causes cancer or interferes with reproductive health. Pretty important information to know.

Robert Kennedy Junior fired the advisory committee on immunization practices. A video shows the committee discussing a new hepatitis B vaccine and the potential for administering it simultaneously with other adjuvanted vaccines. One member states there is "no data" to support a recommendation, and another says that mixing multiple adjuvanted vaccines is not done in Europe. Despite this, the committee votes unanimously to support the recommendation. A committee member expresses concern about a "myocardial infarction signal," noting the risk of acute myocardial infarction in the trial was thought to be seven times greater with the new vaccine. The speaker claims the FDA rubber-stamped the vaccine knowing it causes seven times the amount of heart attacks and was never tested for simultaneous administration with other vaccines, yet the vote was unanimous. The speaker asserts Dynavax celebrated the unanimous recommendation, leaving doctors blind to the risks and turning patients into a test group.

They classified the post-vaccine troubles into three categories: immediate effects like pain, swelling, and redness; symptoms resembling COVID-19; and post-COVID injection syndromes. The latter includes inflammatory and multisystemic syndromes with various complications such as cardiac, neurological, hematological, vascular, immune system, reproductive health, cancer, and congenital issues. It is important to consult a doctor if experiencing any of these symptoms.

The largest COVID study found a link between the vaccine and heart/brain disorders. Data from 100 million people in 8 countries showed slight increases in conditions like myocarditis and Guillain Barre syndrome. The study does not prove the vaccine caused these issues. Despite concerns, experts say the vaccine's benefits outweigh the risks. People like Elizabeth Foster question the vaccine's impact on their health. It's important to consult with a doctor before deciding to get vaccinated.

The symposium covers the potential safety and threat of “replicating” vaccines, especially LepriCon (leprecon) vaccines, in the context of Covid-19 vaccines and genome‑editing concepts. The speakers present a chain of claims and concerns, some drawing on reports and others presenting theories about how these next‑generation vaccines could behave in humans and populations. Key points and claims presented - Emerging mechanisms and risks: The panel notes that blood vessel inflammation and thrombosis mechanisms are increasingly observed, including in vaccine contexts, with examples from individuals who needed limb amputation and others who developed severe vascular events after vaccination. One case involved a 70‑year‑old man who, after a third dose, developed embolic events necessitating shoulder joint surgery, and another where a 60‑year‑old man developed acute limb ischemia and died; both are presented as suggesting a serious vascular mechanism linked to vaccination, though causal connections are not established. - Replicating/vector vaccines and their concerns:荒川博士 and others discuss LepiCon vaccines as vaccines that replicate inside the body. The concept involves “replicating viral vectors” where the genome can mutate and evolve during replication. The green‑highlighted segment in a slide (the antigen gene) plus a blue/orange segment (replicating gene cassette) is used to describe how LepriCon vaccines are designed to carry viral genes and replicate, with the assertion that replication, mutation, and recombination can occur, potentially generating new variants inside the host. - Differences from conventional vaccines: The discussion contrasts LepriCon vaccines with standard mRNA vaccines. In conventional mRNA vaccines, messenger RNA is delivered and translated into antigen proteins, then degraded; in LepriCon vaccines, replicating RNA/DNA can persist and continue producing antigen, with mutation and recombination possible. The panel emphasizes that LepriCon vaccines use replicating/copying mechanisms and that the genetic material can be copied in ways that differ from natural human biology, potentially creating unpredictable variants. - Central dogma and exceptions: The speakers reference the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) but note exceptions in viruses, including RNA viruses that can reverse‑transcribe to DNA (retroviruses) and RNA viruses that replicate RNA directly. They discuss how LepriCon vaccines would rely on replicative processes that do not follow the usual linear flow and why this could complicate predictions about safety and behavior in humans. - Potential for unintended spread and environmental impact: A major concern raised is that self‑replicating vectors could spread beyond the vaccinated individual, via exosomes or other intercellular transport, creating secondary infections or non‑target spread. Exosomes could ferry replicating genetic material, raising fears of new infection chains or “outbreaks” stemming from the vaccine itself, and even suggesting the possibility of vaccination‑induced spread akin to an attenuated or modified pathogen. - Safety signals and immunology concerns: The discussion touches on immune system risks, including immune dysregulation, autoimmune phenomena, and unexpected inflammatory responses. IGG4‑related disease is highlighted as a potential adverse outcome post‑vaccination, with descriptions of glandular and systemic involvement and the idea that high IGG4 levels could have immunosuppressive effects that alter responses to infection or vaccination. The panel notes observed increases in certain immunoglobulin subclasses after multiple LepriCon doses and discusses the possibility of immune tolerance or enhanced immune responses that could be harmful. - Historical and theoretical context: References are made to past epidemics and speculative pandemics caused by misused or dangerous vaccine platforms, drawing on central molecular biology concepts and historical anecdotes about how vaccines can be designed and misused. The discussion frames LepriCon vaccines as a high‑risk platform that could, in theory, generate recombinants, escape mutations, or cause unintended immune and inflammatory consequences. - Clinical and regulatory implications: The speakers call for caution, arguing that more evidence is needed before approving or widespread use of LepriCon vaccines. They emphasize the need for long‑term observation and transparent communication about risks, and criticize the potential for insufficient understanding among healthcare workers and the public. They also urge that any future vaccine development should consider the possibility of genome editing, recombination, and exosome‑mediated spread, and stress the importance of not underestimating possible adverse effects. - Real‑world observations and skepticism about hype: Several speakers underscore that the danger is not merely hypothetical; there are reports of adverse events, including stroke‑like conditions, inflammatory diseases, and immune dysregulation in vaccinated individuals. They stress that the evolution and mutation of replicating vaccines could outpace current surveillance methods, and that “information manipulation” or lack of transparent reporting could mislead the public about risks. - Final reflections and call to action: The concluding messages advocate recognizing the potential failures of messenger RNA vaccines and acknowledging that both conventional and replicating platforms may carry risks. The speakers urge ongoing critical analysis, cautious progression, and robust verification of claims through transparent, independent investigation. They close with thanks to the organizers and a hope that the discussion may contribute to broader public awareness and informed decision‑making. Notable emphasis and unique considerations - The core concern centers on LepriCon vaccines’ replication, mutation, and potential to spread beyond the vaccinated person; exosome transport and genomic/cellular integration are highlighted as mechanisms that could generate new risks not present with non‑replicating vaccines. - The discussion stresses that IGG4 responses could become alarmingly high after certain doses, potentially leading to immunosuppressive effects or autoimmune phenomena, and presents IGG4‑related disease as a potential complication to monitor. - The speakers insist that safety and transparency are paramount, and that misinformation or optimistic narratives about rapid vaccine development could lead to harm if new platforms are adopted without comprehensive evaluation. Overall, the symposium foregrounds cautious scrutiny of replicating vaccine platforms, frames potential biological and regulatory risks, and calls for careful, evidence‑based assessment before broader deployment.

The CDC triggered a comprehensive review of all databases after seeing a signal in one small database regarding potential safety issues with the booster. However, no safety concerns were found in the review of all databases in existence. The speaker mentioned that their own investigation in Europe, Israel, and the US also found no safety issues. They have a team collaborating with scientific institutions to constantly review and analyze data, and no signals of safety concerns have been found.

The FDA has approved a new mRNA Moderna vaccine, despite known serious adverse events. The speaker expresses disappointment, suggesting the FDA is slow to change course. The approval letter concerns the speaker. The vaccine, MN spike, is an mRNA vaccine that produces spike protein, with lipid nanoparticles that will go everywhere. The manufacturer's data indicates serious adverse events were reported by 2.7% of participants receiving the new vaccine, compared to 2.6% for the older vaccine it replaces. The speaker finds it bemusing that a treatment with a 2.7% risk of serious adverse events would be authorized, unless there was a significant risk-benefit. The new vaccine (mRNA 1283) was compared to the old Moderna vaccine (mRNA 1273), not a placebo.

This vaccine has been widely used and is considered safe, with experience in over a billion people. While there is a very low risk of myocarditis, especially in young men, associated with the mRNA technology, the risk of getting myocarditis from COVID-19 itself is higher than the risk from the vaccine.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify the core topics: trial design and safety monitoring, absence of control group, list of reported adverse events, causality vs association, need for placebo-controlled trials, regulatory and review positions (CDC, IOM), and final stance on vaccine safety. - Preserve key factual claims and phrases (e.g., monitoring duration, lack of control group, listed adverse events, causality requirements). - Emphasize any surprising or unique points (no pre-licensure placebo trial, IOM stance on data, final assertion about safety assumptions). - Exclude filler, repetition, and off-topic chatter; keep a neutral, fact-focused summary. - Translate only if needed; retain precise wording where quoted. - Keep the summary within 378-473 words. Summary: In the discussion about Recombivax HB, the speaker confirms the product and its labeling, noting that Section 6.1 covers pre-licensure clinical trial experience and that safety was monitored after each dose for five days. It is stated that five days is not long enough to detect autoimmune issues or neurological disorders arising after vaccination. The conversation also points out that there is no control group in those trials. Turning to Section 6.2, the nervous system disorders subsection acknowledges reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome and multiple sclerosis, including exacerbation, myelitis including transverse myelitis, seizures and febrile seizures, peripheral neuropathy including Bell’s palsy, muscle weakness, hypothesia, and encephalitis. It is emphasized that these reports are included because they have been reported to authorities as occurring after vaccination, not because they prove the vaccine caused those reactions. To establish causality, a randomized placebo-controlled study would be needed, but none was performed for this hepatitis B vaccine before licensure. Without a control group, evaluating whether a phenomenon in the vaccine group is related is not possible. A speaker comments that the broader issue is that such safety placebo trials were not done before licensure; once injuries are observed, they argue that it’s unethical to conduct placebo trials, and doctors may claim there are no studies showing the injuries are caused by the vaccine, leading to an assumption of safety. The discussion then touches on CDC guidance, with a question about agreeing with the recommendation that babies receive hepatitis B on the first day of life. The responder concedes that hepatitis B doesn’t cause encephalitis “in my opinion.” The IOM review is cited as having determined it “couldn’t find science to support a causal determination one way or another.” In the absence of data, the conclusion cited is that “there’s no proof that causation exists,” which is distinguished from saying it doesn’t cause it. The transcript closes with a provocative remark: “Vaccine safety is not based on science and data. And that is the stalemate we find ourselves in.”

For biodistribution, Pfizer did not use the actual spike mRNA product in their studies. Instead, they substituted in a luciferase reporter mRNA packaged in the same lipid nanoparticles. This approach allowed them to track where the mRNA traveled in rodents. The studies showed that following intramuscular injection, most of the mRNA remained at the site of injection, but there was also notable levels detected in the liver. Despite the limitations of this approach, which can underestimate low level or transient distributions to other tissues, it nevertheless showed that the vaccine components do not remain confined to the injection site. Next slide. For Moderna, no dedicated biodistribution study was performed with the COVID mRNA itself. Instead, data was provided from a surrogate product, a CMV mRNA, mRNA-sixteen 47, which used the same lipid nanoparticle formulation. In their rat study, after intramuscular injections, high levels of the mRNA were detected at the injection site, but also in multiple organs such as the draining lymph nodes, spleen, eye, and liver. Lower levels were also found across a wide range of tissues, including the heart, lungs, testes, and brain. Importantly, this study clearly showed that the mRNA can cross the blood brain barrier. Next slide. Consistent with what is seen in animal studies, the vaccine mRNA and its spike protein have been detected in humans across multiple tissues, including blood, lymph nodes, the heart, and even the brain. These findings make it clear that the mRNA does not remain confined to the injection site. Importantly, persistence has been documented well beyond the initial hours or days, lasting weeks in some tissues, and in certain studies detectable for many months. Next slide. To summarize the biodistribution data, it's important to note that neither Moderna nor Pfizer used their actual commercial mRNA vaccine products in the preclinical biodistribution studies. Instead, they relied on surrogate construct packaged in same or similar lipid nanoparticles. Second, the results of those studies show that the mRNA and lipid nanoparticles were not confined to the injection site. Systemic distribution was observed with evidence that the mRNA can cross the blood brain barrier. Consistent with these findings, studies in humans have confirmed that vaccine mRNA can be detected in multiple tissues, including lymph nodes, the heart, the central nervous system, and blood. Finally, persistence is not just short term. In some reports, mRNA has been detected for weeks to months, and in certain cases as long as seven zero six days post vaccination. Taken together, these data highlight that biodistribution is broad and persistence is longer than initially expected, raising important questions and concerns for ongoing research and safety monitoring.

We have experience with this vaccine in a billion people, showing it is safe. The mRNA vaccine carries a very low risk of myocarditis, especially in young men. However, the risk of myocarditis from COVID is higher than from the vaccine.

The mRNA vaccines received emergency use authorization, but concerns arose with myocarditis, particularly in boys aged 16 to 29 after the second dose. This condition was mostly transient and self-resolving. In contrast, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, based on adenovirus technology, was linked to severe clotting issues, including in the brain, leading to its market withdrawal by March 2023. This raised questions about the initial recommendations and eroded public trust. The aim is to foster realistic expectations about vaccine development, emphasizing that knowledge evolves over time, a fact often overlooked in personal experiences.

Speaker 0 discusses the FDA approval of a new Moderna COVID vaccine, called MN Spike, for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease. The speaker notes, “the messenger RNA coronavirus vaccine doesn't prevent infection and doesn't prevent transmission,” and says, “Yet here we are.” In the warnings and precautions section, the speaker states, “This product can cause myocarditis and pericarditis usually within the first week following vaccination.” They remark on ingredients, asserting, “Ingredients include polyethylene glycol, antifreeze,” and add, “Sure. Put that right into your body.” They claim the vaccine “codes for the spike glycoprotein,” and emphasize, “Remember, folks, this is the first time in human history that we have injected a product into the body that have forced our ribosomes, protein manufacturing machinery, to produce a nonhuman protein.” The speaker highlights section 13.1, asserting, “This product has not been evaluated for the potential for it to cause cancer.” They then say, “Well, actually, it has. These products now have been around for several years. Multi boosted people are showing an increased risk of cancer, often termed turbo cancer.” They argue that the warning should be changed to reflect that the product may cause cancer. Regarding studies, they claim, “not a single, not one randomized controlled trial against a placebo,” and ask, “What do they compare it to? The earlier version of their vaccine.” They conclude, “This is perfect. In my opinion, all COVID vaccines should pulled from the market immediately and a thorough investigation be launched.” They add, “Informed consent Friday. I hope this is helpful. Your comments are always appreciated. Take care.”

FDA, I don't know why, just approved a new Moderna COVID vaccine. Here is the package insert. It's called MN Spike. It's a vaccine indicated for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease. This product can cause myocarditis and pericarditis, usually within the first week following vaccination. Ingredients include polyethylene glycol, antifreeze. And it codes for the spike glycoprotein. This is the first time in human history that we have injected a product into the body that have forced our ribosomes, protein manufacturing machinery, to produce a nonhuman protein. This product has not been evaluated for the potential for it to cause cancer. not a single, not one randomized controlled trial against a placebo. What do they compare it to? The earlier version of their vaccine. In my opinion, all COVID vaccines should be pulled from the market immediately and a thorough investigation be launched.

There have been no concerning long-term side effects of the vaccine so far. The vaccine has only been in use for about a year, and we haven't seen any alarming issues with other vaccines that have been used for a long time. While we can't say for certain what might happen after several years, there is no scientific reason to believe that problems would suddenly arise. Although the vaccine is new, we have no plausible reason to expect any issues in the future.

"Post marketing observational studies, increased risk of GBS, Guillain Barre syndrome, was observed during the forty two days following the Shingrix vaccine." "This is not correlation. This is causation." "This is grown in Chinese hamster ovary cells, and they tell us that there is residual amount of host cell proteins in the vaccine itself." "It also contains polysorbate eighty in addition to an adjunct an adjuvant that's called a s zero one b." "The problem with this product is that it can overstimulate the immune system. It can cause severe local and systemic reactions." "Shingrix has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic or mutagenic potential. Translation, we don't know if this product could lead to cancer." "If you're older than 80, you would have to treat three hundred and fifty six patients with the Shingrix vaccine to prevent one case of postherpetic neuralgia."

This vaccine has been widely used and proven safe in billions of people. The risk of myocarditis, especially in young men, is very low.

Dr. Plotkin testified that there are two hepatitis B vaccines on the market: Engerix B by Glaxo and Recombivax HB by Merck. The clinical trial experience for Recombivax HB states that safety was monitored for only 5 days after each dose, which may not be long enough to detect autoimmune or neurological issues. There is no mention of a control group in the clinical trials. The manufacturer insert also reports hypersensitivity reactions, arthritis, autoimmune diseases, and nervous system disorders like Guillain Barre syndrome and multiple sclerosis after vaccination. However, no randomized placebo-controlled study was conducted before licensure. It would be ethically difficult to conduct such a study today, even though the vaccine is recommended by the CDC.

They classified the post-vaccine troubles into three categories: immediate effects like pain, swelling, and redness; symptoms resembling COVID-19; and post-COVID injection syndromes. The latter includes inflammatory and multisystemic syndromes with various complications such as cardiac, neurological, hematological, vascular, immune system, reproductive health, cancer, and congenital issues. It is important to consult a doctor if experiencing any of these symptoms.

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.

The speakers discuss adverse reactions listed in Section 6.2 of a vaccine's package circular. They mention hypersensitive reactions, autoimmune diseases, nervous system disorders, and other conditions. The first speaker emphasizes that the presence of these reactions in the circular does not prove causation. The second speaker brings up the 2011 IOM report, which did not establish a causal relationship between the vaccine and multiple sclerosis. They discuss the need for a randomized, placebo-controlled study to determine causation. The second speaker questions the length of the safety review period for another hepatitis B vaccine and requests proof of any post-administration reactions. The presence of a control group in the trial is also discussed.

Many countries lack proper safety monitoring systems for vaccines, leading to miscommunication and confusion. Adjuvants are necessary for vaccine effectiveness, but can increase adverse reactions. Long-term effects and cross-reactivity between adjuvants are concerns. Health professionals are starting to question vaccine safety due to lack of confidence and education.

The panel discusses replication (replicon) vaccines and their potential dangers, focusing on how they differ from conventional messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines and what new risks might emerge as this technology develops. Key points and concerns raised - Replicon vaccines concept and fundamental differences - Replicon vaccines use replication-capable genetic material, so the embedded genetic information not only makes antigen proteins but also multiplies inside the cell. They are described as having both constitutive function (the ability to make proteins) and, crucially, the capacity to replicate, which distinguishes them from traditional, non-replicating mRNA vaccines. - It is explained that replication introduces additional mutation and recombination opportunities, because the RNA genome is copied more than once, and the process can produce variants that differ from the original design. - Central dogma exceptions and viral biology - The speakers explain that while the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) generally governs biology, some viruses violate this, with RNA viruses that replicate via RNA-dependent replication and even some reverse-transcribing retroviruses that convert RNA to DNA and integrate into genomes. This context is used to frame why replicon vaccines could behave unpredictably. - Potential risks of replication and spread - A core concern is that the replicon approach might allow the vaccine genome to spread beyond the initial target cells, potentially reaching other cells and tissues, or even spreading to other people via exosomes or other means. Exosomes can transport DNA, RNA, and proteins between cells; thus, the replicon genome could in theory be disseminated. - The possibility of homologous or heterologous recombination between replicon genomes and wild-type viruses could yield new variants. The panel emphasizes the difficulty of controlling such recombination in a living system. - Specific material and design considerations - The use of viral components like spike protein genes in replicon vaccines raises concerns about how these proteins might mutate or recombine during replication, potentially altering antigen presentation or safety. - A concern is raised about the lack of repair mechanisms in RNA replication (as opposed to DNA replication), which could make error rates higher and lead to unpredictable changes. - The panel notes that current replicon vaccine designs (including those using alphavirus backbones) inherently carry high mutation and recombination risk, and that the replicating systems may encounter unpredictable evolutionary dynamics inside the human body. - Safety signals and clinical anecdotes - The speakers cite cases of adverse events temporally associated with vaccines, including vascular inflammation and thrombosis, stroke-like events, and myocarditis, to illustrate that immune responses to vaccines can be complex and occasionally severe. They emphasize that such observations do not establish causality, but argue they warrant careful scrutiny. - There are references to cases of acute vascular and neural complications following repeated vaccination, and to broader immune dysregulation phenomena, including IGG4-related disease and immune dysregulation syndromes that can involve multiple organs. - One example concerns a patient who developed sudden limb problems after the third dose, requiring surgery; another describes myocardial involvement after multiple doses and subsequent inflammatory sequelae. - DNA contamination and analytical findings - Kevin McKernan’s analysis of certain Japanese CoronaVac vaccines is cited: both DNA contamination and the presence of SV40 promoter elements were detected in some vaccine lots, with DNA amounts exceeding some regulatory benchmarks in at least one case. The concern is that DNA contamination, or the presence of promoter sequences, could influence integration or expression in unintended ways. - It is noted that vaccines using lipid nanoparticles can potentially deliver nucleic acids into cells; in the presence of exons or promoter sequences, there could be unintended cellular uptake and expression. - Implications for public health and policy - The panel underscores the need for caution, thorough investigation, and long-term observation of any replication-based vaccine platform before broad deployment. There is a call to evaluate risks, monitor long-term outcomes, and consider the possibility that replication-competent constructs could drive unforeseen evolutionary dynamics within hosts or communities. - There is contention about how information is communicated to the public, with particular emphasis on avoiding misinformation while ensuring that scientific uncertainties are transparently discussed. - Broader scientific context and forward-looking stance - The speakers discuss how the field’s approach to gene-based vaccines is evolving rapidly, and they stress that the compatibility of replicon systems with human biology is not yet fully understood. - They frame their discussion as not merely about current vaccines but about the trajectory of vaccine platforms: if replication-based or self-dispersing systems prove too risky or unpredictable, the prudent path might be to favor conventional, non-replicating strategies until safety, efficacy, and containment of unintended spread are more firmly established. Closing and takeaways - The session closes with emphasis on careful evaluation of replicon vaccines, awareness that viral genetics can behave differently in humans than in theory, and a call for continued discussion, independent verification, and transparent communication as the technology develops. - Throughout, speakers acknowledge the complexity of immune responses to vaccines, the potential for unexpected adverse events, and the importance of safeguarding public health while advancing vaccine science.

The speakers discuss the use of the vaccine alongside other adjuvanted vaccines, but there is no data to make a recommendation. They mention that immunizations can be given at the same time in different limbs. When asked if adjuvanted vaccines are used in Europe or other markets, there is no knowledge of such use. The recommendation is supported unanimously after a vote. However, one speaker expresses concern about the potential myocardial infarction signal and urges continued monitoring of post-marketing data. The timeline for obtaining this data is discussed, including studies on autoimmune diseases, herpes zoster, and a pregnancy registry.