TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker believes mandating vaccines and negating natural immunity from infection was a big mistake. They agree that the general public's negative sentiment towards vaccines is now greater than when they became CDC director in 2018 or 2019. This increased negativity is largely due to how the COVID vaccines were positioned on the American public.

- it's that he took the COVID vaccine off the recommended schedule for children. - 95% of parents were already rejecting that advice, and actually 85% of healthcare workers rejecting that advice. - when these people in the media say that they are standing up for science, they are saying they're going against 95% of parents, and they want every single six month old in this country to have a mandated mRNA COVID injection. - There is a memo going around at the CDC and throughout HHS about how to subvert president Trump and how to subvert secretary Kennedy. - They're saying we're gonna outlast them, that the Republicans are gonna lose the midterms, that this is gonna be a flash in the pan.

Please get vaccinated and encourage others to do the same. The unvaccinated are the only ones dying, and it's a shame that some people are spreading misinformation. Think about the unnecessary deaths caused by this. I can't understand how those who do this for a living can sleep at night.

Please encourage those who are unvaccinated to get vaccinated. The only people dying are those who haven't received the vaccine. Spreading misinformation is shameful and leads to unnecessary deaths. Some individuals on television have the power to manipulate public opinion, which is concerning. It is our responsibility to control the messaging and shape people's thoughts.

I don't have an issue with questioning the safety of the new vaccine, but spreading misinformation is ridiculous. I saw a post on adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine on Instagram, but it turned out to be from a fake account with no followers or posts. When I pointed this out on Facebook, my comment was blocked. This is the challenge we face. Translation: I don't have a problem with questioning the safety of the new vaccine, but spreading misinformation is ridiculous. I saw a post on adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine on Instagram, but it turned out to be from a fake account with no followers or posts. When I pointed this out on Facebook, my comment was blocked. This is the challenge we face.

There will be other health crises in our country, and there will be other gurus who will undermine the trust of our citizens on a large scale. Some may even target our institutions. We are here to make laws, to protect the most vulnerable, and to remind everyone of the obvious. The obvious is based on science. We can debate ideas, but we cannot claim expertise we do not have and put the safety of our fellow citizens at risk for personal gain.

We must address anti-vax campaigns to save lives. I am willing to collaborate with the government on emergency legislation to combat misinformation. The discussion of censorship on morning television in the UK is concerning, as it threatens freedom of speech and individual rights to be skeptical about certain products.

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.

Global governments and health authorities are ignoring the data that I see, suggesting a cover-up. I believe the vaccines are the cause, but I'm open to other explanations. This is a massive mistake for humanity, as we have administered this experimental vaccine to 5 billion people without proper human testing. The 28-day trial seems fraudulent, and I suspect data fraud at Pfizer.

We prioritize transparency and honesty. Vaccination reduces risk of COVID. No vaccine is 100% effective, but vaccines are highly efficacious. CDC guidelines recommend masks and social distancing. No study on masks for kids, but masks are advised. Lab leak theory not downplayed by me. Virus likely evolved in nature, not man-made. Criticism of me is criticism of science. It's not a simple yes or no answer.

Criticism of science often targets me, but vaccination significantly reduces the risk of serious illness and transmission. While masks may provide limited benefit, they can offer reassurance during outbreaks. School closures have impacted children's mental health, but I didn't recommend shutting everything down; it was a difficult decision due to economic consequences. The origins of COVID-19 are debated, with some suggesting a lab leak. However, the NIH has not funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute. Claims about enhancing a bat coronavirus for human transmissibility are disputed; the focus is on research that alters transmissibility and pathogenicity. Misunderstandings persist, but I stand by the scientific approach.

- The mRNA on plasmids was produced, and after processing, much DNA from plasmids remained; Kevin MacKinnon found that vials were full of plasmid DNA, the whole plasmid and parts of it, and this was published. Authorities claimed it doesn’t matter and that vaccines have saved millions of lives, so why not have some DNA in them. - The DNA in the vaccine vials was packaged in lipid nanoparticles and was shown by colleagues last year (the INMODIA publication) to enter human cells in culture and remain stable in cells for days, as did the mRNA. Despite this, the message given was to poof, never mind, don’t worry, be happy. - A radical change occurred due to a discovery by Kevin MacKinnon three weeks ago: during transcription on the chromosome, byproducts are generated; some mRNA strands do not detach from the DNA where they’re formed, creating hybrids of DNA and RNA that come off together. These hybrids are dangerous. - In cells, an enzyme called RNase H takes care of these sparks and extinguishes them immediately; otherwise they can cause damage to the chromosome, potentially lighting “fires” on the chromosomes. If not extinguished, the fires can cause diverse damage depending on where they occur, potentially leading to illnesses described in medical textbooks, including tumors (neoplastic disease), autoimmune disease, developmental impairment, birth defects, or death. - The speaker asserts these hybrids and their mishandling could lead to a broad range of illnesses, and emphasizes that this situation is not limited to the COVID vaccine but applies to all Moderna RNA vaccines, including new Moderna RNA vaccines entering the market, such as a flu vaccine, and mentions veterinary RNA vaccines as well. - The claim is made that these vaccines will be heavily contaminated with deadly dangerous hybrids, and it is the duty of authorities and controlling authorities to stop proceeding and not turn away; otherwise they will face court for not fulfilling their duties. The speaker has been giving interviews and asserts this narrative is spreading worldwide, framing it as akin to attempted murder and urging physicians to refuse vaccination.

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 apologize for not paying attention to warnings about misinformation. Trust in vaccinations is eroded when scientific processes are not followed. A peer-reviewed article on COVID-19 vaccinations was demonetized on YouTube despite being scientifically sound. As a physician, I aim to have evidence-based discussions. The article highlighted potential risks of vaccinations, such as an increase in autoimmune disorders and spike proteins found in cardiac tissues. It is crucial to learn from past mistakes and have transparent discussions to build trust in emergency use authorizations. Translation: The speaker acknowledges not heeding warnings about misinformation and emphasizes the importance of following scientific processes for maintaining trust in vaccinations. They discuss a peer-reviewed article on COVID-19 vaccinations that was demonetized on YouTube despite being scientifically valid. As a physician, they advocate for evidence-based discussions and highlight potential risks associated with vaccinations, such as an increase in autoimmune disorders and the presence of spike proteins in cardiac tissues. Learning from past mistakes and fostering transparent discussions are crucial for building trust in emergency use authorizations.

Divisiveness in the country is a significant issue that overshadows everything else. This division hinders efforts to effectively manage the outbreak. Criticism is often directed at science, which I represent.

You have raised concerns about Robert Kennedy's potential influence on vaccines and vaccine manufacturing. While you emphasize the importance of following scientific guidelines, there are fears that Kennedy could undermine access to vaccines, which could have serious consequences for children's health. Despite his assurances, there is skepticism about his commitment to supporting vaccinations. You assert that Kennedy could profit significantly while jeopardizing public health, leading to tragic outcomes for children. In response, you affirm your support for vaccines and the childhood vaccination schedule.

Avoid politics; this is about Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who promotes misinformation and conspiracy theories. Experts in the medical community express significant concerns about him potentially taking a role in health, particularly as Secretary of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, FDA, and NIH. His proposals, like cutting funding for infectious diseases, are alarming, especially post-pandemic. While there are valid criticisms of the healthcare system, many of his views are not alternative but false. For instance, the myth linking vaccines to autism has been debunked through extensive studies showing no connection, and some studies even suggest unvaccinated children may have a higher autism risk. These persistent falsehoods are a major concern regarding his influence on public health.

My responsibility is to assess your trustworthiness in supporting public health. We share concerns about issues like ultra-processed food and obesity, and I understand parents want reassurance about vaccine safety and effectiveness. However, our approaches differ; I rely on the preponderance of evidence, while you seem to use selective evidence to create doubt. As a 71-year-old who has long criticized vaccines, can you change your stance now that you hold a key position in vaccine policy? Your declaration that vaccines are safe could significantly impact public trust. Politically, as a Republican from Louisiana, I want President Trump's policies to succeed. If someone remains unvaccinated due to your influence and dies from a vaccine-preventable disease, it would not only be a tragedy but also tarnish the President's legacy, which I hope to see shine.

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.

You think Dr. Fauci is involved in a plot to kill millions? I believe he’s not innocent and knows what he's doing, but I can't confirm the details. Some doctors, like Dheeraj Bhutar, spread dangerous COVID disinformation. He claims more people die from the vaccine than from COVID, which is false. Bhutar believes the pandemic was planned to reduce the population, comparing Fauci to Hitler, which is absurd. He encourages distrust in vaccines, despite evidence showing their effectiveness in preventing hospitalization and death. Bhutar has been banned from social media for spreading falsehoods but continues on other platforms. He insists the vaccine is more dangerous than the virus, despite contradicting data. He claims we’re witnessing a mass genocide, comparing it to World War II, which is a dangerous perspective.

I made it clear that my children received childhood immunizations. The issue is we failed to communicate that COVID vaccines differ significantly from childhood vaccines, which typically provide lasting immunity after one dose. The COVID vaccine was not designed to prevent infection. Vaccine hesitancy has doubled since COVID, and we must address this. The mRNA vaccines should have prioritized individuals at high risk for severe disease, aligning with the scientific data. We should have protected the elderly and those in nursing homes first. Prioritizing young people in hospitals before the elderly was not following the science. Public health actions must align with scientific data to maintain the trust of the American people.

Speaker 0 argues that 'the trustworthiness of the information that we actually receive from the news media' is a major problem and notes that 'the easiest thing for our democratic colleagues to do is to scare people.' He asks, 'COVID nineteen was politicized?' Speaker 1 answers, 'the whole process was politicized' and says 'we were lied to about everything... the vaccines would prevent transmission' and 'they prevent infection'—claims he says are contradicted by 'the animal studies and the clinical trial showed.' He accuses the CDC of letting 'the teachers union' write school-closure orders that 'hurt working people all over the country, and then pretend it was science based.' He adds examples: 'Martin Koldor from Harvard' was 'ejected [from COVID]... because he wasn't in the orthodoxy'; 'FDA during COVID' officials 'Gruber and Krausz' criticized Biden mandates; Biden said, 'I would never take that vaccine, the Trump vaccine' then mandated it and fired top FDA officials who said it had not been properly tested.' The exchange ends with 'Yes.'

What we need to do at our agency is to make sure the public believes in the things that we're saying. And the way that we do that is by telling the truth. There are many other countries that actually have a higher vaccination rates than ours where, there are no mandates, and it's because people trust their government. The Americans have lost faith in the federal government. Sixty percent of Americans say that they will not take that vaccine no matter what. And only thirteen percent of children although it's recommended for a hundred percent of children, only thirteen percent are complying. And that's after a billion dollar campaign to persuade people to take. It's the biggest campaign for a pharmaceutical product in history.

I was accused of being part of a propaganda effort to censor those questioning the origin of the virus. I stand by my assertion that the virus is not a lab construct, which aligns with the intelligence community's conclusion. I cannot control how my work is used. It is wrong to censor and lie to the public, and I should have done better.

I'm skeptical about the COVID vaccine, especially the mRNA vaccines. I recently spoke with a top cancer expert in Britain who was very critical of the long-term effects of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. According to this expert, we may see a significant increase in cancer cases as a result of these vaccines. While I believe the vaccines saved lives, I question whether we had enough time to fully understand the potential long-term consequences.