TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In this video, the speaker discusses the release of unredacted RKI protocols by Multipolar Magazine, which reveals that the lockdown measures were not based on scientific evidence but on political instructions. The speaker criticizes the mainstream media for their lack of interest in this issue and accuses them of being complicit in promoting government measures without questioning their effectiveness. The speaker also highlights the negative consequences of the lockdowns, such as increased child mortality and the neglect of other healthcare needs. The video concludes with a call for accountability and legal action against those responsible. The transcript is in German.

- On January 27, the president's coronavirus task force was formed. It was initially led by the secretary of health and human services and coordinated through the National Security Council. - On February 28, the task force transitioned to the Office of the Vice President, meaning it is no longer under the secretary of health and human services. It is not described as being led by the vice president; rather, the Office of the Vice President hosts the task force. Deborah Birx, who came from USAID, was placed there by the national security advisor to President Trump, who stated, “we brought Deborah Birx over.” - The OVP (Office of the Vice President), which equals the task force, equals the National Security Council, leads and coordinates all federal communication and messaging both across the United States government and internationally with the World Health Organization and affected countries. - Starting on February 28, there was no more communication from the public health agencies to anyone. FOIA emails and other records show that people at the CDC tried to send communications to the task force, but they were not approved, leading to “we just gave up” and “we're not trying anymore.” - Redfield is on record saying that they weren’t even allowed to have their own press conferences. - There was no communication starting on February 28, when deaths or cases in the United States were still limited; afterward, the propaganda shifted to messaging about lockdowns and vaccines. - The messaging switch occurred on February 27, with Anthony Fauci flipping completely on masks and lockdowns. The rollout of “flatten the curve” came out on February 27 in a manner described as dubious, with anomalies regarding who put it out and the dates. - People like Zaynab Tufekci emerged as prominent commentators on the pandemic; she promoted the view that lockdowns were necessary and that masks work, despite having “absolutely no qualifications” to say those things, and she later became a prominent voice at the New York Times on the pandemic. - On February 28, there was no more communication from public health agencies; all messaging came from the National Security Council.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They wanted a clear yes or no answer and requested the data to be shared with the committee. In response, it was stated that no, they did not have knowledge about stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market. They had to act quickly.

A year ago, the speaker requested data from Emma, including all clinical trials done by medical companies before they requested marketing authorization for the green certificate. Regarding Pfizer, the speaker notes the company submitted a clinical trial that started on January 14, 2020. The speaker questioned a Pfizer representative about how tests for the vaccine began so soon after the December 2019 emergence of COVID-19, but the representative declined to answer. The speaker also asked the CEO of Moderna how they submitted trials since 2017, years before the virus was discovered in the winter of 2019. The speaker states that the CEO of Moderna did not answer how this was possible. The speaker says these are legitimate questions that people are asking, but unfortunately, the companies are declining to answer.

I advised the president to shut down the country, despite knowing it would have significant economic consequences. I did not recommend locking anything down, but rather made a difficult decision to protect public health.

Vielen Dank für die Einladung. Im Vergleich zum letzten Jahr haben wir durch einen Whistleblower in Deutschland bedeutende Daten erhalten, die die gesamte Welt beneidet. Der RKI Leak umfasst fast zehn Gigabyte ungeschwärzter Protokolle und Zusatzmaterialien, die als Beweismittel vor Gericht verwendet werden können. Diese Dokumente zeigen, dass die Coronapolitik politisch beeinflusst war. Der Bundesgesundheitsminister gab zu, dass Experten politisch beeinflusst wurden, was er zuvor bestritten hatte. Die Protokolle zeigen, dass das RKI unter politischem Druck stand und Maßnahmen oft nicht wissenschaftlich begründet waren. Zudem gab es interne Zweifel an der Wirksamkeit der Impfstoffe und an der Notwendigkeit von Lockdowns. Die veröffentlichten Informationen erschüttern die bisherigen Begründungen für die Impfpflicht und zeigen, dass die Gewaltenteilung nicht funktionierte. --- Thank you for the invitation. Compared to last year, we have received significant data through a whistleblower in Germany, envied by the entire world. The RKI leak includes nearly ten gigabytes of unredacted protocols and supplementary materials that can be used as evidence in court. These documents reveal that the COVID policies were politically influenced. The Federal Minister of Health admitted that experts were politically pressured, contradicting his earlier statements. The protocols show that the RKI operated under political pressure, and measures were often not scientifically justified. There were also internal doubts about the effectiveness of vaccines and the necessity of lockdowns. The published information undermines previous justifications for vaccine mandates and indicates a failure of the separation of powers.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your interest. It seems that a so-called "Megalockdown" is being prepared in the Chancellor's Office, without informing the public or the parliament. We find this situation unacceptable. The Chancellor must inform the public and the parliament about her intentions. We demand information on the data and scientific facts that form the basis of the upcoming discussions. We are particularly interested in knowing if there are alternatives being considered that would allow people more freedom. These are the questions that need to be addressed openly and not discussed behind closed doors.

Republicans on the subcommittee recount two years of work aimed at linking the COVID-19 origin to a Wuhan lab, arguing that Democrats hindered the pursuit of truth by blocking hearings. They contend mounting evidence supports a lab-origin, and they frame the hearing as a step toward uncovering the truth for Americans who have suffered from COVID-19. Dr. Redfield is cited as having pointed to the lab-leak hypothesis as early as 2020, urging Fauci, Jeremy Farrar, and Tedros to take the lab-leak possibility seriously and to investigate both lab-origin and natural-origin hypotheses. Farrar convened an 11-scientist meeting across five time zones on February 1, inviting Fauci to join, with a note to treat the matter in total confidence. Redfield notes he was excluded from that call despite being included in prior discussions, and asks why he was left out. Emails following the February 1 conference show the four scientists who had attended later told Fauci that they found the genetic sequence inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. Yet, just three days later, these four scientists drafted the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 paper, arguing the opposite. The subcommittee asks for the likelihood that these scientists, after making that earlier statement, could conclude with such certainty that COVID-19 came from nature instead of a lab leak, and suggests Fauci prompted the paper to discredit the lab-leak theory. Speaker 0 characterizes the February 2020 approach as antithetical to science, saying science requires debate and that this process squashed debate. They ask whether Fauci used the proximal-origin paper to hide gain-of-function research that created the virus. Speaker 1 responds that they cannot speak to Fauci’s motivation but asserts the paper is inaccurate and part of a narrative to support a natural-origin story. They state the pandemic did not start in January at the seafood market, noting infections as early as September, and allege a narrative was decided to claim a wet market origin and to negate discussion about a laboratory origin. With twenty seconds left, Speaker 0 raises a point that Fauci was told in January 2020 about NIH’s monetary relationship with the Wuhan Institute through EcoHealth Alliance and asks whether Fauci intentionally lied under oath when denying NIH funding of gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 asserts there is no doubt NIH funded gain-of-function research and adds that American tax dollars funded gain-of-function research from NIH, the State Department, USAID, and DOD. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 noting time and recognizing Ms. Dink.

I advised the president to shut down the country, despite knowing it would have significant economic consequences. I did not recommend locking anything down, but rather made a difficult decision to protect public health.

I don't think there's been transparency. Routine announcements are being made about findings, and questions are being invited daily. But providing data for the evidence that is being presented isn't happening. The White House has provided information, but these claims seem to be dismissed. Information is being provided; it just isn't believed.

Jürgen Mündeler nodded vigorously when Julian Nida Rümelin said, "We could have known a lot, very soon." This is because the statement that we didn't know anything is false. In the first four to six weeks, we were in a state of alarm and didn't know much. After about eight weeks, we knew it was a respiratory infection spread through aerosols. However, we continued to take unnecessary precautions like disinfecting pens and wearing plastic gloves at breakfast buffets. We knew certain things at different times, such as the need to differentiate between deaths from and with COVID-19 in hospitals. We also knew that PCR tests were not infallible and couldn't justify quarantine measures. We had the knowledge, but no one drew the necessary conclusions.

Das RKI schätzte das Risiko am 24. Februar 2020 als gering ein, während das BMG am selben Tag Maßnahmen wie Wirtschaftsstilllegung und Ausgangssperren empfahl. Das BMG betont, dass die Risikobewertung ab dem 17. März 2020 auf wissenschaftlicher Basis und nicht durch politische Anweisungen erfolgte. Es wird jedoch festgestellt, dass es keine Dokumente oder Protokolle gibt, die diese wissenschaftliche Debatte im RKI belegen. Das BMG wiederholt, dass es sich um interne RKI Protokolle handelt und keine weiteren Informationen preisgeben wird. Translation: The RKI assessed the risk as low on February 24, 2020, while the BMG recommended measures such as economic shutdown and curfews on the same day. The BMG emphasizes that the risk assessment from March 17, 2020, was based on science and not political instructions. However, it is noted that there are no documents or protocols to support this scientific debate within the RKI. The BMG reiterates that these are internal RKI protocols and no further information will be disclosed.

When the virus emerged, scientists were alarmed and held secret calls questioning its origin. Despite privately suspecting a lab origin, they published a paper claiming it was natural. This cover-up at Nature Medicine has not been retracted. The government has not been transparent, with information coming from whistleblowers and Freedom of Information Act requests.

Ein Whistleblower vom Robert Koch Institut enthüllt Uneinigkeit mit der Coronapolitik und Ministeriellen Weisungen. Öffentlichkeit wurde getäuscht und Minister Lauterbach erklärte die Pandemie fälschlicherweise für beendet. RKI Mitarbeiter zweifeln an der Pandemie und distanzieren sich von der Hysterie, die sie selbst erzeugt haben. Die Pandemie wurde politisch beendet, obwohl medizinisch keine Notlage bestand. English Translation: A whistleblower from the Robert Koch Institute reveals disagreement with the Corona policy and ministerial directives. The public was deceived and Minister Lauterbach falsely declared the end of the pandemic. RKI employees doubt the pandemic and distance themselves from the hysteria they created. The pandemic was politically ended, even though there was no medical emergency.

I advised the president to shut down the country, despite knowing it would have significant economic consequences. However, I did not recommend locking anything down.

The Bundestag is implementing new measures to contain the coronavirus pandemic. Claims that the legislative process is being disregarded are unfounded. Unlike other countries, Germany has not introduced emergency legislation, and parliamentary democracy is functioning. While decisions are made under time pressure, there are committee consultations, multiple discussions in the Bundestag, and input from experts and associations. Changes are made based on these discussions. There is no need to worry about the state of democracy in Germany. Rumors of mandatory vaccination are also baseless, as there is currently no vaccine for Covid-19. The consideration of an immunity certificate was removed from the draft law due to uncertainties about the duration of immunity. The government values factual arguments and rejects lies and falsehoods.

A Freedom of Information Act request to the CDC revealed that 80% of the additional 46 pages received were fully redacted. These redactions were made under the presidential communications privilege, indicating that the information shared was solicited or shared with the president or his senior advisers. The documents, dated May 2021, show that the White House, CDC, and NIH were concerned about thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) and myocarditis. They held crisis meetings to formulate a media response, but subsequent statements from Dr. Fauci and Dr. Walensky downplayed the risks of myocarditis and blood clots. The documents suggest that they knew the truth but continued to promote the vaccines.

I did not recommend locking down schools. The CDC, as the public health agency, makes recommendations based on their epidemiologists and science. It was a decision made to recommend to the president, not mine to implement. I advised the president to shut down the country when there were only a few cases of community spread, before the major outbreak in the northeastern corridor.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They requested a clear yes or no answer and asked for the data to be shared with the committee. The speaker then stated that they did not have knowledge about stopping immunization before the vaccine entered the market.

I advised the president to shut down the country despite knowing it would have significant economic consequences. I did not recommend locking anything down, but rather made the difficult decision to shut the country down.

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

I did not recommend locking everything down. I advised the president to shut the country down, which was a tough decision due to the significant economic consequences it would bring.

I advised the president to shut down the country, despite knowing it would have significant economic consequences. I did not recommend locking anything down, and it is important to note that shutting everything down was not my suggestion.

A year ago, the speaker requested data from Emma, including clinical trials from medical companies before they sought marketing authorization for their products. Regarding Pfizer, the speaker notes that the company submitted a clinical trial that started on January 14, 2020. The speaker questioned a Pfizer representative about how Pfizer started testing a vaccine in January 2020, just days after the Chinese government released DNA data about the virus in December 2019, but the representative declined to answer. The speaker also mentions that Moderna submitted trials dating back to 2017. The speaker asked the CEO of Moderna how it was possible to submit vaccine tests years before the virus was discovered in December 2019. The speaker states that these are legitimate questions that people are asking, but unfortunately, the companies are declining to answer.

There was never a scientific consensus on many COVID-related topics. Before the pandemic, most scientists held opposing views. A small, influential group of scientific bureaucrats seized control of the public narrative, dominating media and influencing politicians. This led to a disastrous response to COVID, and the repercussions will be felt for a long time.