TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

"The mRNA vaccines, you know, from COVID don't work against upper respiratory infections." "There are two problems with them." "One is they target a single protein, which drives what what's called an antigenic shift." "If it drives the virus to mutate, and it actually can prolong the pandemic." "We saw that during COVID, people took shots, mRNA shots for the original COVID variant and immediately, mutated into the Omicron virus to which the vaccine was ineffective, and that's what it does." "And the other issue is, that it the way that distributes in the body, the way that it migrates in the body, there's no control over and no predictability." "So it goes to every organ." "It turns your body into a an antigen factory where you're manufacturing antigens, and different people need different loads of antigens." "And we've seen now these epidemics of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in kids."

Today, the speaker discusses the transmission and viral load of vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals. They mention the example of Israel, where a professor from Tel Aviv hospital stated that 75% of hospitalized patients were vaccinated. The speaker argues against the narrative that vaccinated individuals are solely responsible for immunity. They emphasize that the disease has a low mortality rate and question the need for continued booster shots. The other speaker counters by stating that vaccines protect against severe forms of the virus, particularly for those under 60 years old. The conversation ends with a disagreement about the percentage of vaccinated individuals in hospitals.

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 that the genetic COVID-19 injections are more harmful than beneficial, especially for young and healthy individuals. They argue that the vaccines do not reduce COVID-19 infection and can actually increase the risk of infection, disease, and death compared to the unvaccinated. They also mention potential damage to the heart, brain, reproductive tissue, lungs, and immune system. Another speaker questions the testing of the Pfizer COVID vaccine and demands data from the committee. The response states that the vaccine was not tested for stopping transmission before entering the market. There are also concerns raised about the vaccines causing harm to women of reproductive age and unborn babies. The transcript ends with discussions about potential fraud and wrongful advertising related to the vaccines.

According to the speaker, the COVID vaccine has caused more deaths in the last 8 months than 72 other vaccines combined over the past 30 years. They claim that children are most at risk of suffering from heart attacks due to myocarditis, with a 50% chance of death or requiring a heart transplant within 5 years. The speaker mentions different studies that estimate the likelihood of children getting myocarditis from the vaccine, ranging from 1 in 300 to 1 in 2,700. They argue that the risk of COVID-19 for healthy children is zero, based on studies that found no healthy American child who died from the virus. The speaker also discusses data from Pfizer's trial, highlighting neurological injuries and the case of a girl who is now wheelchair-bound after participating in the trial. They express concern about mandating the vaccine for children based on limited testing.

The discussion revolves around the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in relation to transmission, myocarditis rates, and the influence of pharmaceutical companies. The speakers debate whether vaccines reduce transmission and the risks associated with myocarditis. They also question the motives of pharmaceutical companies and their impact on public health. Ultimately, they express differing views on the role of vaccines in preventing illness and the influence of pharmaceutical companies. Translation: The conversation focuses on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, safety, transmission, and myocarditis risks, as well as the pharmaceutical industry's influence on public health. Speakers debate vaccine impact on transmission and myocarditis rates, and discuss pharmaceutical companies' motives and health outcomes. They share conflicting opinions on vaccines' ability to prevent illness and the pharmaceutical industry's role.

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.

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

Dr. Menares and an interlocutor debate the science behind pediatric COVID vaccination and routine immunizations, focusing on transmission, hospitalization, and risk. - The interlocutor asks whether the COVID vaccine prevents transmission. Speaker 1 answer: the vaccine can reduce viral load in individuals who are infected, and with reduced viral load, there is reduced transmission. The interlocutor reframes, insisting that the vaccine does not prevent transmission and notes decreasing effectiveness over time, citing Omicron data showing around 16% reduction when there is a reduction. - On hospitalization for children 18 and under: Speaker 0 asserts the vaccine does not reduce hospitalization for 18-year-olds; statistics are inconclusive due to small numbers of hospitalizations in that age group (approximately 76 million people aged 18 in the country, with 183 deaths and a few thousand hospitalizations in 2020–2021; numbers have since dropped). The argument emphasizes a need to discuss the issue. - On death for children 18 and under: Speaker 0 says the vaccine does not reduce the death rate; claims there is no statistical evidence that it reduces deaths. Speaker 1 responds with a more cautious stance: “It can,” but Speaker 0 counters, calling that an insufficient answer. - The discussion references the vaccine approval process and ongoing debates in vaccine committees. The interlocutor states that when the vaccine was approved for six months and older, the discussion acknowledged no proof of reduction in hospitalization or death. The argument asserts that the justification for vaccination is based on antibody generation rather than clear hospitalization/death data. The interlocutor contends that immunology measurements (antibody production) do not necessarily justify vaccination frequency. - The core debate centers on what the science supports for vaccinating six-month-olds and the benefits versus risks. The interlocutor argues there is no hospitalization or death benefit for vaccination in this age group, and notes a known risk of myocarditis in younger populations, estimated somewhere between six and ten per ten thousand, which the interlocutor claims is greater than the risk of hospitalization or death being measurable. - The exchange then shifts to changing the childhood vaccine schedule, particularly the hepatitis B vaccine given to newborns when the mother is not hepatitis B positive. The interlocutor asks for the medical or scientific reason to give a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn with an uninfected mother, arguing that the discussion should focus on whether to change the schedule rather than declaring all vaccines as good or bad. - Speaker 1 says they agreed with considering the science and would not pre-commit to approving all ACIP recommendations without the science. Speaker 0 disagrees, asserting their position that the debate should center on the medical rationale for these specific vaccines and schedules, not on a blanket endorsement of vaccines. - Throughout, the dialogue emphasizes examining the medical reasons and evidence for specific vaccines and schedules, rather than broad generalizations about vaccines.

The speaker states that a certain vaccine type has been administered to one billion people and is safe. They acknowledge a very low risk of myocarditis with mRNA vaccines, particularly in young men. However, they claim the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 itself is greater than the risk from the vaccine.

The speaker questions the effectiveness and safety of COVID vaccines, citing data on high death rates and adverse effects like myocarditis. They criticize the small sample size of Pfizer's clinical trials and argue that the benefits may not outweigh the risks, especially for young people. The speaker emphasizes the need for transparent data and larger studies to make informed decisions about vaccination.

The speaker asks if there is a higher incidence of myocarditis among adolescent males aged 16 to 24 after taking the vaccine. The other speaker responds by saying that the data from the CDC shows that there is actually less myocarditis in people who get the vaccine compared to those who get COVID. The first speaker disagrees and presents six peer-reviewed papers that contradict this claim. They also mention speaking with the president who privately acknowledged the increased risk of myocarditis. The conversation then shifts to discussing the rationality of mandating three vaccines for adolescent boys and the timing of myocarditis after the second dose. The first speaker criticizes the CDC's recommendation to vaccinate individuals who have recovered from COVID and experienced myocarditis. They argue that many countries do not offer the vaccine to children unless they are at risk for severe disease. The first speaker concludes by stating that the risk and benefits of vaccination need to be weighed, and that parents are unlikely to comply with mandatory vaccination for their children.

Questioning why it was mandated for young men and why we were told to act as if it stopped you from getting or spreading COVID, when it didn't stop infection or spread and it causes myocarditis at some rate. "It makes no sense." The speaker says he was reading the scientific evidence saying things like this, and yet 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. Here's the situations when it's beneficial to use this vaccine. Here's the situations when it's less likely beneficial. Here's what we know and here's what we don't know, right?" He advocated during the pandemic for older people to take the vaccine, but didn't advocate to force older people to take it. He was relieved when his mom took the vaccine in March 2021.

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.

The speaker asks if there is a higher incidence of myocarditis among boys aged 16 to 24 after taking the vaccine. The other speaker responds that the data from the CDC actually show that there is less risk of myocarditis for those who get the vaccine compared to those who get COVID infection. The first speaker clarifies if they are saying that males in the 16 to 24 age group who take the vaccine have a lower risk of myocarditis than those who contract the disease. The second speaker confirms this.

Speaker 0 argues that invoking “the science says this because CDC says it, because my doctor says it, or because FDA says it” is a “logical fallacy” and an “appeals to authority.” “You cannot show me a study that shows that the flu vaccine actually efforts more problems than it causes.” He says he can show many studies, “It’s in the Dear Sanjay Gupta letter.” “Show me that study, then I will walk away from that issue.” Speaker 1 concedes the CDC isn’t perfect but notes, “There are hundreds of millions of people who have gotten these vaccine vaccines who are perfectly healthy. Perfectly healthy in part thanks to the vaccines.” “The vaccines are not all bad.” and adds, “Just because we have suspicions about some of them, and in particular, the COVID vaccine, it doesn't mean we can and because you started this, Bobby, by saying, I am not anti vaxx.” Speaker 0 asks for “a scientific study for each vaccine that shows that this vaccine is averting for harm and it's causing.” Speaker 1 says, “They say the studies show no linkage of harm.” The exchange ends: “Let's advance the discussion. Okay?”

"Parents should really stick the course and make sure that their children get all of the routine childhood vaccinations." "The American Academy for Pediatrics has reaffirmed that infants, children between the ages of six months and two years should get their COVID shots." "The first encounter with COVID should be with the shot, not with the virus." "There is still a very high risk in younger children, particularly six months to two years for hospitalization and severe complications if they get COVID." "And pregnant women should be getting the COVID vaccine." "Routine childhood vaccines have actually been thimerosal free for years now." "Aluminum nudges the immune system so that you get a longer lasting, more robust immune response with fewer doses." "There's no evidence that it's harmful." "There is a very strong track record of vaccines in randomized placebo controlled trials."

"Senator: 'We discovered is that Anthony Fauci was destroying federal records. He was encouraging other people to destroy federal records. That is a crime.' He testified to the house a year ago and said he wasn't doing that. 'That's a crime to perjure himself.' 'We will bring him back. I've asked him to come and testify this fall. If he doesn't come voluntarily, we will subpoena him.' 'The question is, is he immune because of the pardon? I think that that needs to be challenged in court.' 'I have encouraged the Trump administration that they should prosecute this case and challenge the auto pen. I don't think the auto pen is sufficient.' 'There were so many pardons that I'm not sure Biden was aware of all the people he did pardon.' 'There is not a direct link from the person running the auto pen to the president. The person that was running the auto pen never spoke with the president.' 'And I think a president's signature on something so as important as legislation or a pardon is absolutely required.'" "Susan Monarez will testify before the senate HELP committee tomorrow. This will be her first appearance since being ousted from the role. She will be joined by Deb Aury, a former chief medical officer and deputy director who was one of four CDC officials who resigned after Monarez was ousted." "The chair with the president of Moderna ... I asked him about the expectation that he'll be getting a lot less revenue from the vaccine for COVID perhaps this time around. The scientific evidence shows that the risks of taking the COVID vaccine for children exceeds the benefits, and the scientific evidence is abundant on this. There's a study out of Israel that showed that about six to eight kids 20 that are healthy will get an inflammation of the heart that is very dangerous, and that risk exceeds the benefits of a vaccine. Every kid at six months needs to get a COVID vaccination, and that defies the scientific evidence and shows me that she's not objective. It's the same with the hepatitis B vaccine. Unless the mom has hepatitis B vaccine, disease, there is no indication for the vaccine at birth, and we need to readdress that."

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.

According to the speaker, the COVID vaccine has resulted in more deaths in the past 8 months than 72 other vaccines combined over the past 30 years. They claim that children are most at risk of suffering from heart attacks due to myocarditis, with a 50% chance of death or requiring a heart transplant within 5 years. The speaker mentions studies showing that healthy children have zero risk of dying from COVID, while the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is much higher. They also discuss data from Pfizer's trial, highlighting the case of a girl who experienced severe side effects and is now wheelchair-bound. The speaker questions the decision to mandate the vaccine for children based on limited testing.

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 questions whether it is a conflict of interest for government employees who profit from the vaccine to dictate vaccine policies. Speaker 1 responds that the government should decide. Speaker 0 asks about the higher incidence of myocarditis among adolescent males after vaccination. Speaker 1 claims that the data shows less risk with the vaccine compared to getting COVID. Speaker 0 disagrees and presents peer-reviewed papers contradicting Speaker 1's claim. Speaker 0 questions the scientific soundness of mandating three vaccines for adolescent boys and suggests having a rational discussion about one vaccine. Speaker 1 defers to public health leaders. Speaker 0 criticizes the CDC's recommendation to vaccinate children multiple times and compares it to other countries' approaches. Speaker 1 admits to vaccinating their own children multiple times. Speaker 0 argues that the risk of myocarditis after vaccination should be weighed against the risk of the disease. Speaker 0 also expresses concern about conflicts of interest in government decision-making.

The speaker asks Pfizer and Moderna to explain how the COVID-19 vaccine causes myocarditis. The response from the doctors is that the exact mechanism is still being studied, but myocarditis is generally an autoimmune response that can occur after COVID-19 or other infections. The speaker questions if other organs could also be affected by the vaccine, but the doctors explain that ongoing surveillance is in place to monitor potential risks. The speaker expresses concern about the lack of initial disclosure of these risks. The doctors emphasize the importance of preventing COVID-19 and state that the reported rate of myocarditis is around 2-3 per 100,000 doses. The speaker argues that if it can happen to the heart, it could happen to other organs. The conversation ends due to time constraints.

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