TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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.

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."

Questions were raised about the vaccine mandate: "Why was it mandated for young men? Why is the COVID vaccine when we knew relatively early on that it causes myocarditis at some rate?" It was argued that it "didn't stop you from getting or spreading COVID," so we asked why we should "act as if it does." The speaker felt frustrated: "if you said those things in public, you were cast as an anti vaxxer. It's not an anti vaxx to say, Here's what the scientific evidence says." They claim to have "advocated during the pandemic for older people to take the vaccine" but "didn't advocate to force older people to take it." Personally, they were "relieved when my mom took the vaccine in March 2021" and, overall, "I took it, but I was indifferent."

The speaker claims that a year and a half ago, whistleblowers revealed that the COVID-19 vaccine was never intended to work. They mention that even Bonnie Henry from Vancouver admitted on TV that vaccinated people are ending up in the hospital, but she provided a strange explanation for it. The speaker warned their father not to take the vaccine, stating that it was not designed to work and carries all the risks with none of the benefits. They mention that vaccinated people are getting sicker while the percentage of unvaccinated people getting sick is changing. The speaker asserts that the truth is being concealed, and they mention Israel as the most vaccinated country. The speaker asks if anyone remembers the name of another country they mentioned on their Facebook.

The speaker says they hadn't thought much about vaccines before, considering them "miracles of science." While they don't know what they think of vaccines now, they are skeptical. Regarding the COVID vaccine, the speaker says they were unfamiliar with mRNA technology but are experienced in recognizing human deception. They claim the behavior of those promoting the vaccine was "transparently dishonest." The speaker says they didn't know the vaccine wouldn't work or that it would cause harm, but they "knew that the people selling it were liars" and decided against vaccination for themselves and their family. They say they felt this conviction strongly and obeyed it.

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.

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.

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 states his position on vaccines has changed because he learned how they are produced. He had assumed they were produced reasonably, but discovered safety work had not been done. He says that in a book he completed in 2019, he listed vaccination as one of medicine's three great achievements, along with surgery and antibiotics. He now believes the mechanisms used by vaccine manufacturers and the methods used to obscure safety signals invalidate the products. Discovering that vaccines use a trick to hyper-activate the immune system to work, he questioned its safety and its connection to allergies. Speaker 0 says injecting aluminum to hyper-activate the immune system should come with instructions about what to avoid eating or seasons to avoid the shot, to minimize the likelihood of triggering the immune system to react to something that is not a pathogen. Speaker 1 summarizes this by saying the vaccine opens up the body so that anything present at the time can trigger an immune response.

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 questions the idea that Doctor Fauci is involved in a plot to kill millions, seeking clarity on the claim. Speaker 1 says they are reasonable and that Fauci is not an innocent bystander; he is aware of what he’s doing, but the extent of involvement is not known to them. Speaker 2 cites the Center for Countering Digital Hate, stating Dirashad Bhattar is one of the top spreaders of COVID disinformation, once with more than a million followers. Bhattar allegedly claimed “More people are dying from the COVID vaccine than from COVID,” and that “the Red Cross won’t accept blood from people who have had the COVID nineteen vaccine.” He posted that “most who took COVID vaccines will be dead by 2025,” and promoted the overarching conspiracy that COVID was a planned operation as part of a secret global plot to depopulate the earth. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 2 believes the pandemic was planned; Speaker 2 confirms there is a suspicion of a plan to reduce the population, though Speaker 1 says they have no idea. Speaker 2 criticizes Bhattar, saying it would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous and that Qatar (Qatar’s commentary) compares COVID and the vaccine to World War II and Doctor Anthony Fauci to Adolf Hitler. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking to what extent Fauci would be equated with Hitler. Speaker 3 asserts that lies cost lives in a pandemic, and that encouraging people not to vaccinate will cause people to lose their lives. Speaker 2 describes Qatar as encouraging distrust of life-saving vaccines and using false, twisted information and unproven conspiracies to do so. Speaker 0 asks if the COVID vaccine works. Speaker 1 states the vaccine is very effective at what it was designed for, but “it’s not preventing death. Certainly not.” Speaker 2 contradicts, claiming that Bhattar believes life-saving vaccines are more dangerous than the virus itself, and Speaker 1 asks why the vaccine would cause more deaths than the problem itself, noting 6,340,000,000 doses administered. Speaker 0 requests the completion of a sentence about what each vaccine is geared up for, but Speaker 1 says he’s not a vaccine developer and mentions “Scientific corruption.” Speaker 2 notes Qatar has been removed from Facebook and Instagram due to disinformation but remains on Twitter, Telegram, and his own site, filled with falsehoods. Speaker 0 recalls a September 5 retweet of a doctored AstraZeneca packaging photo suggesting the vaccine was made in 2018; Speaker 1 says the photo was perhaps fake, and questions why Speaker 0 would challenge the agencies that have caused deaths. Speaker 0 argues it’s reasonable to question agencies, noting Speaker 1 had 1,200,000 followers who received false information; Speaker 1 admits if a tweet with a doctor’s photo was sent in error, it was a mistake, and he cannot make mistakes on the numbers. Speaker 2 notes vaccine studies showing vaccines remain ninety percent effective in preventing hospitalization and death, while Qatar claims the vaccine is the danger. Speaker 1 counters that thousands are dying and the delta variant is “vaccine injured,” citing CDC data, which Speaker 0 disputes as not true. Speaker 1 asserts he does not want to be part of a mass genocide and suggests this era will be remembered as a worst time in history, even worse than World War II. Speaker 0 concludes by calling Speaker 1 crazy. Speaker 2 ends with a reference to North Carolina’s Board of Medicine reprimanding someone prior to COVID.

Some people love the vaccines, while others hate them. The speaker acknowledges that vaccines have saved lives, but also mentions concerns about their safety. Reports vary on the effectiveness and problems with the vaccines, but the speaker claims to have saved 100 million lives. They argue that those who get very sick and go to the hospital are usually the ones who haven't taken the vaccine. The mainstream media is accused of stifling information about adverse reactions. The speaker believes the vaccines have saved millions of lives but criticizes the media for pausing the Johnson and Johnson vaccine over a small number of cases.

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.

The speaker claims colored vaccines are dangerous, with no clinical benefit and over 10,000,000 deaths worldwide. They suggest avoiding vaccination altogether, citing studies showing unvaccinated kids are healthier. They criticize censorship by the government and medical boards, leading to job loss and license revocation for speaking out against the narrative. The medical journals are also deemed corrupt. Speaker 1 mentions not every batch causes harm, as they themselves took a few shots without issue.

COVID vaccines are declared safe by Speaker 0. Speaker 1 expresses pain, trauma, and regret due to lack of help for vaccine injuries. They mention people with amputations and heart conditions, and question why they had to set up a support group in Scotland. They criticize the vaccine damage payment scheme and state that over 30,000 people in Scotland have had adverse reactions to the vaccine. Speaker 1 demands that Rashid Shunaka start doing the right thing. Speaker 0 responds by saying that decisions regarding the vaccine were made based on medical advice from experts.

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 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.

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.”

The speaker asserts that COVID-19 shots do more than affect the immune system; they can damage the brain and worsen mental health. They claim a wave of studies shows sharp increases in various strokes: ischemic strokes up to 44%, hemorrhagic strokes up to 50%, and transient ischemic attacks (mini strokes) up to 67%. They also report increases in neurological and autoimmune conditions, including myasthenia gravis up 71% and Alzheimer’s disease up 22%. Cognitive impairment is claimed to have risen by nearly 138%, while depression is up 68%, anxiety disorders up 44%, and sleep disorders up 93%. The speaker links all of these increases to “toxic spike protein accumulation and persistence in the brain.” The speaker states this is not a conspiracy theory and cites what they describe as documented peer‑reviewed research and studies by experts. They name epidemiologist Nicholas Holcher, who allegedly says that using mRNA to hijack cells in various organ systems to produce a highly toxic spike protein that persists in the body for months or years was “one of the worst ideas in medical history.” The speaker then asks, “So what can you do?” as a transition to presumably recommendations or actions, though no specific actions are listed in the provided segment.

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.

The speaker finds it difficult to find someone who hasn't been damaged by the vaccine, and even senior consultant colleagues haven't connected their ailments to the vaccine. The speaker claims the vaccine causes autoimmune diseases, of which there are 131 types, all reportedly linked to the vaccine. Individually, these appear as coincidences, but collectively, a high percentage of vaccinated people suffer from one or more autoimmune conditions. The speaker is annoyed by their GP practice constantly pushing boosters, even knowing their views, suggesting they are incentivized by payment. The speaker believes that if the practice adhered to "first do no harm," they would refuse to administer the vaccines.

Speaker 0 raises a concern about the vaccine, asking why every new paper or study seems to claim the vaccine is responsible for a new problem. The question posed is whether the vaccine is really responsible for every negative outcome discussed in the literature, noting rises in cancers and cognitive decline. The speaker questions the blanket attribution of all adverse effects to the vaccine. Speaker 1 responds by suggesting that the world’s population has been poisoned, stating that the protein was devised in the Chinese security lab in Wuhan, China. The speaker claims it is not a natural protein and is not supposed to be in the body. They assert that one can obtain spike protein from having the infection, which almost everyone has had, and from taking the vaccine. The speaker contends that “it’s almost as if we’ve all been poisoned.” They further claim that the spike protein stays in the body and causes disease, listing several specific adverse outcomes: heart disease, neurologic disease, autoimmunity, blood clots, and maybe even cancer.

Speaker 1 explains their decision not to take the vaccine, citing concerns about its rushed development and safety. They express a desire to set an example for their children and stand by their convictions, even at the cost of losing money. Speaker 0 acknowledges that standing by one's convictions is typically seen as heroic, but Speaker 1 faced criticism instead. Speaker 1 clarifies that they never publicly discouraged vaccination and preferred to keep their decision private. They mention knowing someone who was injured by the vaccine and emphasize the importance of speaking up about such experiences. Speaker 0 agrees that telling the truth often leads to trouble, highlighting a perceived lack of consequences for lying.

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.