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.

The transcript reports that the largest single study on vaccines and dementia, involving over thirteen million people, found that vaccinated adults who received flu shots and pneumococcal shots faced a 50% increased risk of Alzheimer's disease and a 38% increased risk of dementia. It is claimed that the risk increased the more doses participants received, with individuals who lined up to receive more flu shots over the years experiencing the highest risks of neurodegenerative conditions, and that the risk persisted for more than ten years. The narrative states that once a person receives many of these shots, it is inducing neuroinflammatory injury, dementia, and Alzheimer's in vaccinated adults. Additionally, the transcript asserts that not only does the flu shot not work, according to colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic, but flu shots increase the risk of flu by 27%. It concludes by saying that flu shots, in addition to increasing flu risk, appear to increase the risk of dementia.

The speaker claims there are three reasons why certain injections should be removed from the market. First, ten studies have found SV40 and other cancer-promoting DNA plasmids in vials, exceeding regulatory limits, confirmed across multiple countries, manufacturers, and batches. Second, five studies, including one from the CDC and one from the Cleveland Clinic, allegedly demonstrate negative efficacy, where the vaccines increase the risk of infection after about six months in a dose-dependent manner. Third, twelve studies purportedly show an increased risk of death, reduced life expectancy, and contributions to excess mortality, with one estimate suggesting seventeen million deaths worldwide by September 2023. Recent data allegedly indicates vaccination doubles the risk of death if someone has had a COVID infection. The speaker concludes that these three points demonstrate terrible harms, and the injections should be removed from the market.

The speaker describes a nationwide study conducted in South Korea, stating that every resident was included in the research. The study compared individuals who received the vaccine to those who did not, and the analysis was stratified by dose number (one dose, two doses, three doses, and four or more doses). A central claim of the speaker is that this study provides the strongest signal to date supporting vaccine acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, referred to as VADES. According to the speaker, as each dose was administered, the immune function of individuals declined. By the time of the fourth dose, the speaker asserts there was a significant increase in the risk of other infections, quantified as about a 550% increase, including infections such as the common cold, tuberculosis, and upper respiratory tract infections. The speaker notes that the effect was most pronounced in young people, specifically ages zero to nineteen, who reportedly had the highest risks of these other infections. The implication presented is that the injections are causing immune collapse and exhausting T cells, leading to immune dysregulation described as IgG4 class switching. The immune system is said to become dysfunctional as a result. Additionally, the speaker mentions that, consistent with other studies they reference, genes related to immune function are claimed to become shut down. The overall assertion is that these findings point to a troubling pattern of immune impairment associated with multiple vaccine doses, culminating in the claimed immune dysfunction and increased susceptibility to other infections. The speaker emphasizes the magnitude and reliability of the sample size, stating that having an entire country’s population as the study cohort constitutes the strongest possible sample size. The summary of the presented claims centers on dose-dependent immune decline, a marked increase in non-target infections after the fourth dose, greater impact on children, evidence of immune system exhaustion and dysregulation, and purported genetic downregulation of immune pathways, all described as arising from the vaccination regimen in this nationwide South Korean study.

Over 20 years, flu shot rates among seniors rose from 15% to 65%, yet flu deaths continued to climb. An NIH study adjusting for various factors confirmed that flu shots haven't reduced deaths in the elderly. We were astonished by these findings, which hold true in other countries like Australia, France, Canada, and the UK. Despite billions spent, current research suggests flu shots in seniors haven't had the desired impact. The CDC is exploring new strategies but maintains that seniors should still get vaccinated, as it may lessen flu severity or prevent other complications. The CDC may shift towards vaccinating more children and others around seniors to protect them indirectly.

Speaker 0: Take the shot and protect yourself and the people around you. We all feel a chill when we hear that. Mrs. van der Hof from the RIVM, you’ve researched the effects of vaccination. If you look under the line, has it had any usefulness? Speaker 1: It has certainly been useful. In fact, from our research, but also from many other studies, people who were vaccinated had a lower chance of dying from COVID, and we see that effect with every shot that’s given. We also studied whether there is a higher chance of dying from diseases other than COVID shortly after vaccination, to see whether there is vaccine harm, and we do not find that either, which is also in line with what is found internationally. Speaker 0: Okay, because that is the story you hear at the dinner table. Earlier this week someone said, I see so many people dying, there must be something. Speaker 1: Yes. Well, there are certainly people who have died due to the vaccination. We cannot deny that. That has been investigated; we find that in the Netherlands through Lareb, and we find that internationally as well. You just have to weigh the very small chance that you become ill or die from a vaccination against the chance that you become very ill or die from COVID. And the balance tips toward vaccination. Speaker 0: Yes, vaccination protects more than it harms, you just said. Also, have you studied the chance of death due to vaccination? Speaker 1: Well, we looked at people who were vaccinated and whether within 2 months after vaccination they had an increased chance of dying from anything other than COVID. If there were an indication there, we would see it, and we absolutely do not find that. Speaker 0: No, that is simply not found. Okay. Mrs. Van der Broek, and the pandemic was a priority.

The speaker claims that the COVID-19 vaccine decreases white blood cell production by 50% after the first dose and an additional 25% after the second dose. They also mention that the booster shot contains 81 strands of foreign bacteria and 8 strands of HIV, which supposedly shuts off the body's ability to produce white blood cells. The speaker suggests that this leads to chronic inflammation in areas where individuals have preexisting health issues. They state that 20 to 30% of the population will die during each series of this vaccination process. The speaker concludes by implying that pharmaceutical companies are seeking population control and long-term customers.

I would never take the flu shot. Research from Cochran and BMJ shows that while the flu shot protects against that specific strain, it increases the likelihood of getting a non-flu infection by 4.4 times. Many people who receive the flu shot end up feeling sick, often experiencing symptoms similar to the flu. This reaction is due to a phenomenon called pathogenic priming.

We're taking a closer look at protecting seniors from the flu, following studies questioning the effectiveness of flu shots for older people. Despite millions of seniors getting vaccinated annually, and 90% of flu deaths occurring in those 65 or older, mass vaccinations haven't reduced deaths. Over twenty years, flu shot rates in seniors rose from 15% to 65%, but flu deaths continued to climb. NIH research confirmed flu shots haven't reduced deaths in the elderly. A study, soon to be published, finds the same poor results in Australia, France, Canada, and the UK. The CDC is exploring new strategies, but still recommends flu shots, as they may lessen flu severity. A likely shift may involve indirectly protecting seniors by vaccinating more children and others around them.

I would not take the flu shot in a million years. Cochrane and BMJ found that people who take the flu shot are protected against the flu, but are 4.4 times more likely to get a non-flu infection. Many people get sick after the flu shot, and that's usually because they are getting something indistinguishable from the flu because the flu shot gives you something called pathogenic priming. The Pentagon published a study by Wolfe in January of this year, that said that the flu shot primes you for coronavirus. The people who got the flu shot were 36% more likely to get coronavirus, and there were six other major studies that say the same thing.

CBS did a report 20 years ago that may shock you. The percentage of seniors getting flu shots sharply increased from 15% to 65%. You'd think flu deaths among the elderly would decrease, but they continued to climb. The NIH did a study, but then suppressed it. CBS got their hands on it, and the study revealed flu shots have not reduced deaths among the elderly. The lead author was not available for comment but a co-author, Dr. Reichert, said they were astonished by the results. They also found the same poor results in other countries like Australia, France, Canada, and the UK. The CDC is now looking at new strategies, but still recommends flu shots. They may shift toward vaccinating more children to protect the elderly.

"People who take the flu shot are protected against the at strain of flu." "They're four point four times more likely to get a non flu infection." "and you might find, and a lot of people do, that they get the flu shot and then they get sick." "They're usually not getting the flu, they're getting something that is indistinguishable from the flu because the flu shot gives you something called pathogenic priming." "The flu shot not only primes you for flu, and it primes you for coronavirus." "What they found is actually the people who got the flu shot were thirty six percent more likely to get coronavirus and that's not a that's not a lone study." "We found six other major studies that say the same thing." "If you get the flu shot, you're more likely to get coronavirus."

"Over twenty years, the percentage of seniors getting flu shots increased sharply from fifteen percent to sixty five percent." "But no matter how they crunched the numbers, they got the same disappointing result. Flu shots have not reduced deaths among the elderly." "We realized that we had incendiary materials." "Doctor Reichert says they thought their study would prove vaccinations had helped." "Were you surprised?" "Astonished." "That study soon to be published finds the same poor results in Australia, France, Canada, and The UK." "Decades of promoting flu shots in seniors and the billions spent haven't had the desired result." "The CDC says they should still get their flu shots, that it could make flu less severe or prevent other problems not reflected in the totals." "But watch for the CDC to shift toward protecting the elderly by vaccinating more children and others around them who could pass the flu."

I would never take the flu shot due to findings from Cochrane and BMJ. Those vaccinated are 4.4 times more likely to get non-flu infections and often experience illnesses similar to the flu. The flu shot can cause pathogenic priming, weakening the immune system and increasing susceptibility to other viral infections, including coronavirus. A Pentagon study indicated that flu shot recipients were 36% more likely to contract coronavirus. Observational data suggests that life expectancy in the elderly has declined since flu shot mandates, and many COVID-19 fatalities were among those who received flu shots. While I oppose mandates, I believe individuals should have the choice to take the flu shot if they wish, similar to other medications.

Three papers by Nathaniel Mead, containing nearly a thousand references, concluded that COVID-19 vaccination risks outweigh any theoretical benefits. According to the speaker, wishful thinking suggests vaccines saved lives and reduced severity, but early multi-drug treatment, not vaccines, reduced the risk of death. The speaker claims a marathon runner died because he didn't receive effective early treatment, and his vaccination status was irrelevant. The CDC allegedly knew that thousands of fully vaccinated patients were dying of acute COVID-19 early in 2021, making it obvious the vaccines did not reduce the risk of death. The speaker does not want America to be fooled into thinking that the vaccines save lives because they didn't.

We're taking a closer look at protecting seniors from the flu, following studies questioning the effectiveness of flu shots in older people. Despite millions of seniors getting vaccinated annually, and ninety percent of flu deaths occurring in those 65 or older, mass vaccinations haven't done the job. Over twenty years, senior vaccination rates rose from fifteen percent to sixty-five percent, yet flu deaths continued to climb. Research confirms flu shots haven't reduced deaths in the elderly in the US and similar results are seen in Australia, France, Canada, and the UK. The CDC is exploring new strategies but still recommends seniors get flu shots. The focus may shift to indirectly protecting seniors by vaccinating more children and those around them.

For over 20 years, flu shot rates in seniors sharply increased, but flu deaths among the elderly continue to climb. NIH researchers conducted a study adjusting for factors masking the shots' benefits, but found flu shots haven't reduced deaths among the elderly. We sought out Dr. Reichert, who confirmed the study's surprising results, which were also found in Australia, France, Canada, and the UK. Despite billions spent, promoting flu shots in seniors hasn't had the desired result. The CDC is considering new strategies but still recommends seniors get vaccinated to lessen flu severity and prevent other issues. The CDC will likely shift towards protecting the elderly by vaccinating more children and those around them.

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?”

According to the English public health agency, vaccinated individuals have a higher chance of dying from Covid. Unfortunately, in France, access to this data is restricted. Scientific evidence shows that these vaccines do not work and actually lead to increased mortality and fertility issues. There is also a rise in cancer cases. Mainstream media ignores these facts and instead focuses on a new variant to push for a flu Covid vaccination campaign. The elderly, who are known to have adverse reactions to experimental inoculations, are being targeted. It is clear that those promoting these campaigns have lost all reason. Lockdowns and general population mask-wearing have been proven ineffective. The number of deaths worldwide is significant and cannot be hidden. Funeral directors can attest to the increase in young deaths.

The speaker claims that the COVID-19 vaccine decreases white blood cell production by 50% after the first dose and an additional 25% after the second dose. They also mention that the booster shot contains 81 strands of foreign bacteria and 8 strands of HIV, which supposedly shuts off the body's ability to produce white blood cells. The speaker suggests that this leads to chronic inflammation in areas where individuals have preexisting health issues. They state that 20 to 30% of the population will die during each series of this vaccination process. The speaker concludes by implying that pharmaceutical companies are seeking population control and long-term customers.

The speaker claims that the COVID-19 vaccine decreases white blood cell production by 50% after the first dose and an additional 25% after the second dose. They also mention that the booster shot contains 81 strands of foreign bacteria and 8 strands of HIV, which supposedly shuts off the body's ability to produce white blood cells. The speaker suggests that this leads to chronic inflammation in areas where individuals have preexisting health issues. They state that 20 to 30% of the population will die during each series of this vaccination process, and big pharma benefits from the boosters by creating a dependency on them. The speaker advises listeners to critically think and wait for 2 to 3 years before getting vaccinated.

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.

In a million years, I wouldn't take the flu shot. Research from Cochrane and BMJ shows that flu shot recipients are 4.4 times more likely to contract non-flu infections. Many people who get the flu shot often feel sick afterward, usually from something similar to the flu, due to a phenomenon called pathogenic priming, which weakens the immune system. A Pentagon study revealed that flu shot recipients were 36% more likely to contract coronavirus compared to a placebo group. This finding is supported by six other major studies indicating that receiving the flu shot increases the likelihood of getting coronavirus.

Welcome to this talk. Now let me give you the bottom line on this video so you can decide if you want to watch. A large study at the Cleveland Clinic found out that the flu vaccine, the influenza vaccine over last winter, wasn't that effective. In fact, it had a negative efficacy of twenty six point nine percent. In other words, if you took this flu vaccine, you were twenty six point nine percent more likely more likely to get influenza. Now unfortunately the paper doesn't give us details on how much money the pharmaceutical industry made from selling this vaccine with negative efficacy.

Speaker 0 discusses this year's flu shot and mentions that flu season is longer than usual. He references headlines about flu vaccine links to higher infections, citing a Cleveland Clinic study involving their employees and the influenza vaccine during this respiratory viral season. In the study, 53,402 employees were observed; 43,857 (82.1%) had received the influenza vaccine by study end. Influenza occurred in 1,079 individuals (2.02%). The cumulative incidence of influenza was similar for vaccinated and unvaccinated groups early on, but over time the cumulative incidence increased more rapidly among the vaccinated. The study includes an adjusted analysis controlling for age, sex, clinical nursing job, employment location, and reports that the risk of influenza was significantly higher for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated, yielding a calculated vaccine effectiveness of -26.9%. In other words, the data suggested a 26.9% greater chance of contracting the flu or other respiratory virus for the vaccinated group. The conclusion presented is that influenza vaccination of working-age adults was associated with a higher risk of influenza during the 2024-2025 season, suggesting the vaccine did not have the intended protective effect. Speaker 1 adds commentary, noting that the Cleveland Clinic study admits they effectively coerced over 80% of their staff to get the flu shot, implying these individuals are not biased against the vaccine and would be expected to defend it. They argue this makes the bias the opposite of what some might assume and suggest that the study should prompt reconsideration of vaccination. Speaker 1 then pivots to an appeal: they encourage viewers to sign up for their email list at thehighwire.com or ICANN, promising to deliver the study and related evidence in their inbox. They urge viewers to take the Cleveland Clinic document to their doctor and ask, “Should I get this year's flu shot?” If the doctor says yes, Speaker 1 counsels firing the doctor and presenting the document as a reason, claiming doctors may be unaware of the study. They emphasize firing doctors who do not know the study and assert that this week they wish to see doctors fired across the country if they cannot defend the use of the vaccine in light of the study. Speaker 1 concludes with a personal admonition to avoid doctors who, in their view, are not making informed decisions about health and the future of children. Speaker 0 revisits the broader context, noting that a flu vaccine with low effectiveness is not surprising since strains are guessed before the season and production is ramped up accordingly. He references Canadian headlines about low or no protection this year, and remarks that negative efficacy, such as -26.9%, is particularly noteworthy.