TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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.

Pfizer reported its vaccine shows 95% efficacy, but this refers to relative risk reduction, not overall risk reduction. In Pfizer's trial, 8 out of 18,198 vaccinated people developed COVID-19. In the unvaccinated group, 162 people contracted it, meaning the risk without the vaccine was 0.88%, reduced to 0.04% with the vaccine. The absolute risk reduction is 0.84%. The 95% figure refers to the relative difference between 0.88% and 0.04%. Relative risk reduction is considered misleading, and the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead. The question is raised how many people would have taken the vaccine knowing it offered less than 1% benefit. In Canada, any potentially serious risk must be disclosed.

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 speaker claims adverse events from the vaccine rollout were covered up and dismissed as rare and coincidental. They state that regulators approved the vaccines based on relative risk data (95%), which they describe as misleading, while the absolute risk reduction was only 0.84%, meaning 120 people had to be vaccinated to prevent one infection. The speaker alleges that Pfizer has 31 convictions, including withholding data, presenting false data, and bribing clinicians and regulators. They claim over 100 doctors have written to various health organizations, including the NHS and MHRA, about the vaccine program, but received only one response. The speaker concludes that science is dead because discussion, analysis, and debate are no longer allowed, and decisions are being made without scientific basis.

Speaker 0 asserts that there is no safe vaccine on the childhood schedule and labels themselves an anti-vaxxer because no vaccine has been properly tested for safety. They state that, in the book Vax Facts, you are more likely to die from the vaccine than from the disease for which there is a vaccine, and that this is true for every single vaccine on the childhood schedule. They acknowledge that death from the vaccine is still a death and “super rare,” but claim you are much more likely to die from the vaccine. They ask which do you want: a greater chance of dying from the vaccine or a lesser chance of dying from the disease, noting that for many of these diseases, the risk is zero.

The Dutch paper reveals a 36% higher risk of serious adverse events in the Pfizer vaccine group compared to the placebo. Despite this, the public was misled about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. Adverse reactions like stroke and heart attack were downplayed, making it difficult to link them to the vaccines. The truth is slowly coming to light, exposing the deception by big pharma, governments, and the media. Those responsible may face consequences in the future.

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.

Speaker 0 argues that the original study relied heavily on statistical modeling, rather than presenting basic raw proportions. When they examined the raw proportions, they found that every single one of the 22 chronic disease categories was proportionally higher in the vaccinated group, including cancer. The speaker notes that the study claimed there was no difference in cancer, treating cancer as a control, but asserts there was a difference in cancer when looking at raw data. They claim that for rare outcomes, the modeling used in the study is not very reliable, and no basic proportional analysis was performed by the original authors. However, when they conducted such an analysis themselves, they found cancer was fifty-four percent higher in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated children. The speaker concludes that there is biological plausibility behind these findings.

Speaker 0 notes the world population is 6.8 billion and is headed up to about 9 billion. He says if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, and reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15%. Speaker 1 responds with the question: common sense would tell you that if a man standing in front of you says he's gonna reduce the world's population by 10–15% using vaccines, what does that mean to you? He explains that means somebody's going to die because you put a vaccine in them, and it doesn't mean you're going to save people. He says that’s common sense, but he saw him say it, and now he’s here; he says, "I’m now an anti vaxxer I wasn't before."

The speaker discusses polio and vaccines by tracing how the disease is perceived versus the data. Polio is described as “the worst disease in world history, not actually, but that's the spin,” and similarly framed as “completely eliminated by mass vaccination, not actually, but that's the spin.” Looking at polio globally, with eight billion people on Earth, the speaker asks how many people died last year from polio, answering “Zero.” The number who had paralysis from polio is stated as “Five hundred and sixty, and ninety seven percent of them was vaccine strain or vaccine induced poliomyelitis.” The speaker notes that opponents claim this is due to vaccination, but then raises the question of how that accounts for more than a billion people on Earth who never had the polio vaccine, asserting they have the exact same death rate. The argument is extended to measles, with the claim that the death rate is the same whether or not one is vaccinated, and similarly for other diseases. The speaker emphasizes a specific approach used in a book: “the only way to do it, I think, compare the product, are they all the same? The diseases, are they all the same?” This leads to the central question of how to handle risk for one’s children. A quick final point compares vaccine decisions to everyday risk decisions. Parents weigh disease risk and vaccine risk when deciding whether their kids should engage in activities such as football, which could involve a head injury; riding a bicycle at night, which could lead to injury; or sleeping over at someone’s house. The speaker argues that all of these are risk decisions quite similar to the vaccine and disease decision because you have to weigh the disease and weigh the vaccine. Yet, the speaker notes, there has never been a mandate for football, and there has never been a mandate that children not ride bikes at night in their neighborhood, or that they not sleep over at someone’s house if they don’t feel good about it in their particular neighborhood.

"Did you know then that the mRNA vaccine was dangerous? Absolutely. How did you know? So this is 2021. If you read anybody who had looked at the actual data that had been released or understood what they were assessing, they were only assessing suppression of symptoms." "And there were tremendous and they were using what's called relative risk instead of absolute risk in order to deem these products safe." "So when you look at absolute risk, you wanna know how much in percent. So do do you have a three percent chance of getting something after taking the shot and you had a thirty percent chance before taking it? That's absolute relative is before you took the shot, you had a two percent risk, and now you have a one percent risk, and they say that's a 50% improvement. That's how you make statistics lie."

In the Pfizer trial, more people died who received the vaccine than the placebo. The clinical trial showed one life could be saved from COVID for every 22,000 people vaccinated. However, more people died in the trial from the vaccine itself. While vaccines may have saved 10,000 lives in a year, at least 150,000 people have been killed by the vaccine, according to VAERS data. The speaker claims that 150,000 deaths is the cost of saving 10,000 lives, and that the risk benefit is even worse for kids, where 117 kids are killed to save one life. Doctors are allegedly not allowed to talk about deaths caused by the vaccine.

Despite it being treated as an obligation to do so, physicians reportedly do not know these facts. The speaker expresses strong frustration about the situation. The speaker cites a famous medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, describing a study of vaccine researchers and stating that “the 12.6 percent user rate” was reported, and that the paper claimed there was no problem with the vaccine based on that figure. Using that paper as a basis, the San Fujikawa Society or a similarly named organization promoted vaccination for pregnant women. However, the actual content of the data is described as follows: of 827 people, 700 were in the late stage of pregnancy, and 127 were in the early stage (first trimester). For the subgroup limited to those under 20 weeks’ gestation, i.e., the 127 individuals, the reported miscarriage rate was 82 percent. From this, the speaker argues that the vaccine is dangerous, given the result for the early-stage group. It is claimed that the data were hidden or obscured, and that the later report combined the late-pregnancy group of 700 with the early-pregnancy group of 127 to produce a 12.6 percent miscarriage rate, which was then published. The speaker concludes that even a major medical journal could be influenced by external financial pressures, resulting in biased reporting that supports the other side’s interests.

The speaker explains a distinction between absolute risk and relative risk and shows how both can be technically true but convey different impressions. Absolute risk is described as the real chance of something happening, while relative risk compares two small numbers to emphasize one as much larger than the other, often making the risk appear much bigger or smaller than it truly is. Using a jar example, absolute risk is the chance of drawing a red marble from a jar with 10,000 marbles and only one red marble—a one in ten thousand chance. Relative risk, by contrast, compares two jars: if another jar has two red marbles, the statement would be that you have a 100% greater chance of drawing a red marble in this jar than in the first jar. Although the numbers are both small, the relative risk has doubled. The speaker argues that relative risk is a favorite tool of fearmongers because it makes tiny numbers sound large, whereas absolute risk shows the real-world odds. The speaker then applies this to headlines. A headline claims you are 800 times more likely to get sick from raw milk than from pasteurized milk, labeling this as a relative risk number. It is technically true, but the absolute risk of illness from raw milk is about 1 in 13,000 for the people who drink it, which is less than one one-hundredth of a percent. A similar framing is discussed with COVID-19 vaccines. The Pfizer vaccine is described as 95% effective in headlines, which the speaker notes is the relative risk reduction. In the trial data, the absolute risk reduction—the actual difference in risk between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups—was about 0.8%, less than one percent. The speaker asserts that this shot lowers actual risk by less than one percent, but the media emphasized the 95% figure. While not called a lie, this framing is characterized as incredibly misleading and capable of influencing public decisions. The overarching message is that statistics can be technically true yet used to manipulate public opinion through framing. The speaker urges readers to compare whether a number refers to relative risk or absolute risk whenever confronted with alarming or astonishing headlines. Relative risk is said to sell headlines; absolute risk is said to tell the truth.

Pfizer reported its vaccine has 95% efficacy, but this refers to relative risk reduction, not overall risk reduction. In the Pfizer trial, the unvaccinated group had a 0.88% risk of contracting COVID-19, while the vaccinated group had a 0.04% risk. The absolute risk reduction offered by the Pfizer vaccine is 0.84%. The 95% figure represents the relative difference between 0.88% and 0.04%. Relative risk reduction can be misleading, and the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead. It is important to consider how many people would have chosen to take the vaccines had they understood the less than 1% benefit. In Canada, any potentially serious risk must be disclosed.

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 discussion centers on COVID-19 misinformation and the roles of public figures and disinformation spreaders. Speaker 0 questions whether doctor Fauci is involved in a plot to kill millions. Speaker 1 says he cannot confirm involvement but asserts Fauci is not an innocent bystander and is aware of his actions; he doesn’t have the information to determine the extent of Fauci’s involvement. Speaker 2 identifies Dr. Dirashid Bhattar as one of the top spreaders of COVID-19 disinformation on social media, citing the Center for Countering Digital Hate, noting Bhattar once had more than a million followers. The dialogue includes several false or debunked claims attributed to Bhattar. Speaker 1 states that “More people are dying from the COVID vaccine than from COVID,” a claim Speaker 2 labels as not true, along with Bhattar’s assertion that “the Red Cross won’t accept blood from people who have had the COVID vaccine,” and his claim that “most who took COVID vaccines will be dead by 2025.” Bhattar’s broader theory is that COVID was a planned operation, politically motivated as part of a secret global plot to depopulate the earth. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 believes the pandemic was planned; Speaker 1 responds affirmatively but says he has no idea who is behind it. Speaker 2 warns that praising or repeating Bhattar’s views is dangerous, noting Bhattar’s use of false or twisted information to distrust vaccines. The conversation touches on whether the COVID vaccine works; Speaker 1 says the vaccine is “very effective at what it was designed for perhaps,” but “not preventing death.” Speaker 0 challenges this, and Speaker 2 counters that Bhattar doubles down on vaccines being more dangerous than the virus, even in the face of data. A numerical claim is raised: “6,340,000,000 doses of this vaccine have been given,” with implications if the claim were true. Speaker 1 says vaccines are designed with ingredients published and that each vaccine appears to be different, though he concedes not being a vaccine developer. Speaker 2 notes Bhattar has been removed from Facebook and Instagram for disinformation but remains active on Twitter, Telegram, and his own site. Speaker 0 references a September 5 retweet of a photo suggesting AstraZeneca was made in 2018; Speaker 1 acknowledges it could have been fake and questions why Bhattar would share such content. A combined exchange discusses questioning agencies and the consequences of misinformation, with Speaker 0 accusing Bhattar of contributing to a mass misinformation problem and Speaker 1 acknowledging the existence of a large follower base that has received false information. The dialogue closes with a mention of a statement from North Carolina’s Board of Medicine prior to COVID, implying regulatory context or action.

Pfizer's claim of 96% efficacy for their vaccine was questioned. The study and data were not independently verified, and Pfizer wanted to keep the data hidden for 75 years. The true effectiveness of the vaccine, based on absolute risk reduction, is less than 1%. More people died and were harmed in their trials compared to the placebo group. The vaccine's safety was questionable from the start, and it is not effective. Additionally, appropriate studies were not conducted for new variants.

Speaker 0 argues that getting the vaccine for pertussis (whooping cough) makes it more likely to contract the disease than if one does not get the vaccine, claiming it increases lifetime risk of pertussis multiple times. They state that the most damning evidence is the comparison of death risk: from pertussis, the death risk is “less than two million,” whereas from the vaccine, the death risk is “more than one in seventy six thousand.” They interpret this as “30 times more likely that the vaccine will kill you than the disease.” Based on this information, Speaker 0 states that they would not risk their baby’s life with a “dangerous product” and prefer natural approaches to immune protection. They claim there are things that can be done naturally to boost a child’s immune system so they can fight off any infection, not just pertussis, and not just whooping cough, but everything. They describe a preference for “natural immunity,” calling it the innate, god-given immunity and the bodies and immune systems as “beautiful, amazing” compared to relying on a product they describe as unsafe and lacking safety testing. In sum, Speaker 0 presents a comparison of disease risk versus vaccine risk, emphasizing that death from the vaccine is framed as significantly higher than death from the disease, and they advocate foregoing vaccination in favor of natural immunity.

The speaker claims the risk of death from whooping cough is less than one in 2.3 million, while the risk of death from the vaccine is greater than one in 76,000. They state the vaccine is killing far more children than the disease itself, estimating potentially 20 to 40 times more deaths from the vaccine. Another speaker emphasizes that any vaccine, specifically DTaP, carries the risk of death for a child.

We are vaccinating millions, and while there are reports of deaths following vaccinations, there is no evidence that the vaccine causes these deaths. Adverse reactions must be reported, but many go unreported, potentially skewing data. For instance, only 5% of adverse reactions may reach the monitoring database. There have been serious cases, including hospitalizations, that are not being documented properly. Despite the numbers, experts assert that the vaccine is safe and effective. It's crucial for the public to understand that while adverse events will occur, they are often coincidental. The vaccine remains vital for public health, and getting vaccinated is strongly encouraged.

The speaker questions the source of the claim that 20 million lives have been saved. They ask for data and studies to support this number. The response is indirect and the meeting is about to end when the speaker jumps back in to clarify that the 20 million lives saved refers to all vaccines, not just mRNA vaccines. The speaker is unable to ask for further clarification. They find it suspicious that this number is being thrown around without proper explanation. They suggest that these numbers are made up.

Speaker 0 argues that, when re-examining the data from the original study, the raw numbers reveal a different pattern than what the study’s modeling suggested. Specifically, they state that, in the raw proportions, every single one of the 22 chronic disease categories was proportionally higher in the vaccinated group. This includes cancer, which the study reportedly treated as a control condition and claimed there was no difference for. According to Speaker 0, the study’s use of cancer as a control is at odds with the raw data they observed. They claim that there was a difference in cancer outcomes, contrary to the study’s implication of no difference. They emphasize that, with rare outcomes, the modeling employed in the original analysis is not very reliable, and as a result, the study did not perform any basic proportional analysis. Speaker 0 states that when they performed a basic proportional analysis themselves, cancer was fifty-four percent higher in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated children. They mention that this result is “explained biologically” and assert that there is biological plausibility behind it. Key points: - Raw proportions show all 22 chronic disease categories higher in the vaccinated group, including cancer. - The original study used cancer as a control and claimed no difference, which Speaker 0 disputes based on the raw data. - Modeling for rare outcomes is described as not very reliable. - A basic proportional analysis by Speaker 0 indicates cancer is 54% higher in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated. - A biological explanation or plausibility is asserted for the observed cancer difference in the vaccinated group.

Speaker 0 states that death rates from the vaccine are extraordinarily high, claiming there have been more deaths in eight months than in all the billions of vaccines combined over the last thirty years for this one vaccine, totaling seventeen thousand recorded deaths in the United States, and asserts the death rate is much higher, “probably 40 times.” The speaker says the risk from the vaccine is completely untenable and that if people knew the truth they would not be taking this vaccine, and that the benefits after six months are apparently zero or even subzero. Speaker 0 references British data, claiming that people who are vaccinated are actually more likely in many age categories to get COVID than people who are unvaccinated, and asserts this outcome was predicted. The speaker alleges that Pfizer knew this would happen, citing their clinical trial, which they say was only six months long; at the end of that period, they claim twenty people died in the vaccine group and fourteen in the placebo group of all-cause mortality. They further claim there were five heart attacks in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo group, concluding that the chance of dying of a heart attack when vaccinated is five hundred percent greater than if one is unvaccinated. Speaker 0 contends that Pfizer knew they were going to kill a lot of people and proceeded to do so anyway. They insist that people need access to those studies to understand what they describe as deceptive, criminal deception that has supposedly been imposed upon them.