TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker asks if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. They request a clear yes or no answer and the data to be shared with the committee. The response states that they did not have prior knowledge of stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market and had to rely on scientific research. Another speaker expresses outrage, claiming that people were pressured to get vaccinated based on the false belief that it would protect others.

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to argue that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and claims that the Gene Technology Act does not apply to manufacturing in other countries. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's acknowledgment of transfection as part of gene therapy. The regulator disputes the definition of gene therapy. The conversation ends without resolution.

Every day, just the 1% of the cells of your DNA that gets replicated stretches from here to the sun four times. If you're to line it up end by end, that's very hard to conceptualize. But it should give you a little bit of humility before you go and start monkeying with it with these vaccines that can actually alter your DNA. And that's what I'm gonna show you. Is that the vaccines had a DNA contamination in them that didn't tell you about that could in fact alter your genome. Alright? These people are vibe coding your genome. And this is a major attack surface to the human gene pool because if this thing starts to alter the lifespan of people, it's going to part you with your Bitcoin. You're gonna end up spending money in a fiat system that has no controls, has no liability, and ends up oftentimes inducing mandates to get what it wants done. Many people had have peer have gone and replicated this work. It happened on Twitter. It did not happen very quickly in the peer review system. The peer review system kinda kicked it out. Some of these papers have now been peer reviewed, but it took years for them to come to this conclusion. Now, the FDA, the EMA and the TGA have all admitted that this mistake has happened. How did it happen? There's a big bait and switch. Pfizer actually ran the trial of 22,000 people on the process on the left and after they got to the trial, they then switched to the process on the right and didn't retrial the drug. And in doing so, they left a tremendous amount of excess DNA behind in the product. So all of the vaccine efficiency numbers you've heard in the news are flawed. They're not real because that's not what actually went into the trial. What went to the public was actually something that came out of this process too. It's published now in the BMJ that this fraud happened and no one has yet been prosecuted for it. So what did they leave in there? What they left in there was something we know from the polio scandal. If you're not familiar with the polio scandal, that polio vaccines were also contaminated with something known as SV40 and it created a massive cancer wave. Now the whole virus isn't in these vaccines, but there is a very curious part of this called the SV40 region that Pfizer intentionally removed from the disclosure that they gave to the FDA. So the FDA has admitted that this SV40 material is in there. They did not spell this out to the regulators. The regulators did not find them and they're actually running cover for them saying this DNA is too little consequence to matter, it's too small, and it's not functional. But we know it's functional because Dean et al has published that this piece of DNA drives DNA straight to the nucleus. It gets used in gene therapy vectors.

The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's report to argue that mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy. They question why the mRNA vaccine was not tested for genotoxicity and why the Office of Gene Technology Regulator did not consider it as gene technology. The regulator responds that the question of genotoxicity should be directed to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and explains that since the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia and not manufactured there, they are not responsible for checking gene therapy. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's statement about transfection being a part of gene therapy. The regulator suggests a difference in the definition of gene therapy.

- The m n r m r n a technology was a radical qualitative leap forward in technology. - The mRNA is a type of vaccine. - 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. - It bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that. - There are different types that they didn't have to contend with the fact that it wasn't the same technology. There are different technologies. - There certainly are. That are different technologies.

Speaker 0 asks: "Do you think there's evidence that the changes to people to their genetic structure wrought by these vaccines could be passed on to their children?" Speaker 1 responds: "The McCullough Foundation, of which I am the vice president, we just published a person who had cancer of the bladder, which is a very severe cancer, in that tumor, so in the bladder cells that had become dysplastic, that messenger RNA was found in the cancerous cells of this tumor. So it seems to be integrating. Now the question is, is it integrating in a way that is can be passed on to the offspring, or is it so dysfunctional that it's killing the host before it can be passed on? And and I don't know that we yet know that, but remember, the science is the topography of ignorance. I mean, there's a lot about this that is is very, very concerning. There's also a study that this messenger RNA seems to have transcribed into liver cells."

The speaker argues that genetic vaccines are totally unacceptable and defines the introduction of transgenes into the human body as gene therapy, questioning how this can be considered acceptable practice for creating vaccines. They assert that encapsulating messenger RNA in nanoparticles and administering it leads to off-target effects, with the effects starting from the ovaries to the brain, liver, spleen, and bone marrow. They emphasize that the biggest problem is going to the bone marrow and the reproductive organs like the ovaries, and then every possible organ. Regarding spike proteins, the speaker states that spike proteins are still detected in the rash after more than a year, which they interpret as evidence that messenger RNA is producing spike proteins. They contend that there is no way for a year-old spike protein to remain in the rash and be detected. Personal choices are also mentioned: they did not choose to get vaccinated because they think it was a foolish decision from the beginning. They have not even opted for the flu shot because they consider it an unwise choice.

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to support the claim that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and manufacturing processes conducted in other countries. The speaker highlights the contradiction in the regulator's statements and the disagreement with Pfizer's definition of gene therapy. The regulator argues that the definition of gene therapy is subjective. The conversation ends without a resolution.

Before the emergency use authorization of the vaccines, significant concerns were already known. The Pfizer technical document revealed that these vaccines caused widespread distribution of the encoded protein in major tissues and were associated with inflammatory reactions due to lipid nanoparticles. It was understood that these nanoparticles could deliver RNA and DNA into cells, and the use of pseudo uridine was intended to enhance the immune response and prolong the product's effectiveness. However, critical investigations regarding potential shedding, reproductive toxicity, and the presence of contaminants were not conducted. These omissions are concerning, especially considering previous FDA regulations that recognized the risks of genotoxicity related to manufacturing processes.

The speaker questions whether the mRNA complexes in the vaccines meet the definition of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under Australian legislation. The response states that mRNA technology is not gene therapy and does not alter human DNA. The speaker insists on knowing if the possibility was examined, but the response reiterates that the vaccines are not GMOs. The speaker then asks if Pfizer has notified its underwriters about potential litigation, but the response is uncertain and requests further investigation. Another speaker presents a document from Pfizer's website stating that gene technology includes a process used in the COVID vaccine. The committee agrees to review the document and suggests sending additional questions to Pfizer.

As the only doctor in the room, I feel the need to clarify that there is a clear distinction between gene therapy and an mRNA vaccine. The medical definition of gene therapy does not include mRNA vaccines. While Mr. Baudet is free to use whichever terms he prefers, it is important to correct this misinformation. Gene therapy is in a completely different stage of research compared to the development of this vaccine. Feel free to express your opinions, but I wanted to address this and set the record straight. Thank you.

Many labs, including Medicinal Genomics, found DNA contamination in Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines. Regulators like the FDA and EMA admitted to this, but downplayed its significance. The SP 40 sequences omitted by Pfizer are crucial. DNA contamination can cause insertional mutagenesis, as stated in Moderna's patents. Regulatory agencies were deceived and failed to properly address the issue. This poses a serious risk that cannot be ignored.

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to argue that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and claims that since the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia, they were not manufactured there. The speaker disagrees, stating that transfection still occurs in Australian citizens. The regulator disagrees with the definition of gene therapy and the reliance on the manufacturer's statements. The conversation ends without a resolution.

Pfizer's own website acknowledges that gene therapies involve a complex process, including transfection. The American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy defines the COVID mRNA vaccine as a gene therapy that introduces new genetic material temporarily. The TGA's non-clinical report confirms the use of DNA in Pfizer's manufacturing process. The senator questions why the mRNA vaccine wasn't tested for genotoxicity and why the Office of Gene Technology didn't review it as a gene technology. The Gene Technology Regulator states that the TGA is responsible for approving vaccine products and addressing genotoxicity concerns. They clarify that the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia, and if manufacturing and gene technology were involved, approval would have been required. The Regulator disagrees with the claim that transfection occurs in Australian citizens. The Office of Gene Technology's role is limited to assessing containment and environmental risks.

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to support the claim that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and manufacturing processes conducted in other countries. The speaker highlights the contradiction in the regulator's statements and emphasizes that transfection, a part of gene therapy, occurs in Australian citizens. The regulator disagrees and questions the definition of gene therapy. The speaker concludes by relying on the manufacturer's statements.

Moderna's patents acknowledge that DNA integration is a risk, necessitating the invention of new methods to remove DNA. According to the speaker, Moderna is approximately tenfold more effective than Pfizer at removing DNA. The speaker claims that the manufacturers' patents indicate that the vaccines pose an oncogenic risk. The speaker suggests that one need not consult external papers to recognize this risk, as it is evident from the manufacturers' own patents.

Speaker 0: I find information like this, you know, inserts for the vaccine. Paper's there, and there's nothing printed on it. I find that very interesting, disheartening, disgusting, and lots of other words, but then it gets better. It just keep wait. There's more. It just keeps happening. The CDC redacts every single word of a 148 page study on a myocarditis after COVID vaccination. So I asked research to print the study for me. 148 pages. The entire thing is redacted. What good does a study do if there's nothing there? Then I wanna know, wait, what might have been there that they needed to redact it? That's even scarier. Speaker 1: We're witnessing an active cover up of a colossal consumer product safety debacle that is is basically affecting the entire world. Mhmm. So in The United States, our CDC, National Institutes of Health, and the FDA are actively involved in a cover up. And the same is occurring in The UK with the MHRA, Europe with European medicine agencies, and Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Something is going on that's very big. Each one of these companies that puts out a product has an obligation to produce ninety days of safety monitoring after their product comes out. It's a regulatory dossier. If somebody has a problem with the new product and they call the company like Pfizer, Pfizer has to report, write down what happened, and they have to collate that in a report and produce it and make it publicly available. When it came to ninety days with Pfizer, the first vaccine that came out, remember Pfizer was approved 12/10/2020. Pfizer didn't produce the report. And then people started asking, well, what's happening with your vaccine? And Pfizer would not disclose what happened. And then it went to court. And the lawyer for the FDA stepped in and said they don't wanna release Pfizer's dossier for fifty five years. Mhmm. Oh. Fifty five years. And the the the plaintiff pushed. And finally, slowly, the Pfizer dossier came out. Pfizer recorded one thousand two hundred and twenty three deaths with their product within ninety days of release. People were calling Pfizer in desperation watching their family members die after taking the vaccine. Pfizer recorded over twelve hundred new adverse events, new problems that doctor Boden has talked to you about that we are grappling with the entire time. But the point is our FDA worked to cover this up. The FDA should be regulating this company. FDA should have been having at least monthly meetings and fully disclosing what was going on with these novel vaccines, which are a genetic transfer technology platform.

In April 2022, the OGTR stated their role in assessing the risk of gene technology. In February 2023, Senator Renick asked if they had received any requests for advice on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. The OGTR responded that they had not because mRNA vaccines were not regulated as they did not involve genetic modification. However, in October 2023, Senator Renick quoted information from Pfizer's website, stating that gene therapies involve introducing new genetic material, which the mRNA vaccines do. The American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy also classified mRNA vaccines as gene therapy. The TGA's documents confirmed the use of DNA in the manufacturing process. This contradiction suggests that the mRNA vaccines are gene technology and are being transported and administered without proper licensing, posing a significant problem.

The speakers discuss a broad denial about vaccine injuries and the idea that, despite evidence, the medical establishment and political figures push the narrative that vaccines are safe and effective. They claim that many people who are vaccinated want to move on and avoid acknowledging serious side effects, including turbo cancers, undetected myocarditis, and neurological issues, and that autoimmune disease is being attributed to other causes. They argue that the medical establishment, federal health agencies, and some members of Congress who produce supportive content, such as segments like Steve Colbert’s, advocate for taking the shot. They question how many people were killed or died from the shot, asserting that Bayer’s data shows “close[ly]” to thirty-nine thousand worldwide, and that if only ten percent are reported, the true number would be in the hundreds of thousands. They claim there are millions of adverse events, but that this is denied and covered up. The speakers contend that the shot was not a real vaccine. They describe it as gene therapy rather than a traditional vaccine. They explain a sequence in which a vaccine is typically an attenuated or killed virus that requires adjuvants like aluminum or mercury to stimulate the immune system, because the attenuated or killed virus may not work well on its own. In contrast, they say this shot is mRNA, which is modified so it does not degrade. They describe how it is put into a lipid nanoparticle designed to permeate barriers like the blood-brain barrier, and they assert it would never stay in the arm, distributing all over the body. They claim the lipid nanoparticle allows the mRNA to enter cells, hijack cellular structures, and cause the cells to express spike protein, which the body then attacks as foreign. When asked who is responsible, they reference a “doctor Frankenstein” figure and name Francis Collins, head of the NIH, and Anthony Fauci as possible figures in question. The response indicates that while they consider all of them criminally liable, they would say it is primarily Fauci, with acknowledgment that people like Collins are implicated as well.

"Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasma DNA. It's not just mRNA." "This DNA is the DNA vector that was used as the template for the in vitro transcription reaction when they made the mRNA." "I sequenced it in my own lab." "The vials of Pfizer vaccine that were given out here in Colombia, one of my colleagues was in charge of that vaccination program in the College of Pharmacy." "And for reasons that I still don't understand, he kept every single vial." "So he had a whole freezer full of the empty vials." "And I checked these two batches, and I checked them by sequencing." "It's surprising that there's any DNA in there." "This DNA, in my view, it could be causing some of the rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest."

The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's report to argue that mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy. They question why the mRNA vaccine was not tested for genotoxicity and why the Office of Gene Technology Regulator did not consider it as gene technology. The regulator responds that the TGA is responsible for approving vaccine products and addressing genotoxicity concerns. They explain that since the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia and not manufactured there, the Gene Technology Act does not apply. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's statement about transfection being a part of gene therapy. The regulator suggests a difference in the definition of gene therapy.

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 discusses the issue of DNA contamination in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and questions the FDA's handling of the situation. They explain that normally rigorous tests are required for genotoxicity and immunogenesis, but the FDA seemed to ignore these requirements. The speaker also mentions that Moderna's own patent acknowledges the concerns related to DNA and insertional immunogenesis. They reveal that DNA fragments, including an antibiotic resistance gene and sequences from simian virus 40, were found in the vaccines. The speaker expresses concern about the potential risks associated with DNA damage, such as cancer and birth defects. They criticize the FDA for downplaying the issue and emphasize the importance of transparency.

The speaker emphasizes that the term "vaccine" is not accurate for what they are discussing. They refer to it as a genetic therapy that modifies cells to produce a specific protein. The use of the term "chemical therapy" is controversial, and even renowned scientist Disar Raoult has stated that it is not considered a therapy. The speaker mentions a manufacturer of vaccines who admitted that they considered it a form of therapy.

Nicholas Holcher, an epidemiologist and foundation administrator at the McCullough Foundation, appears on the WiderWake Media Podcast to discuss what he calls harms from the mRNA COVID vaccines and to critique mainstream approaches to the pandemic and public health policy. - Vaccine definitions and mRNA technology - Pre-2000 definition: a vaccine is an injectable or oral product that introduces a killed part of a virus or an inactivated form to the body so that encountering a wild-type version would not infect or would cause a less severe illness. - He asserts that mRNA injections are not vaccines: they are a gene transfer platform using modified messenger RNA with long persistence in the body (via N1-methylpseudouridine), delivered in lipid nanoparticles. He claims these bubbles distribute systemically, including to the brain, heart, bone marrow, and reproductive system, and that they instruct cells to produce a spike protein, effectively turning organs into “toxic spike protein production factories.” He says this leads to autoimmune attack on those tissues and contributes to adverse events, including myocarditis, strokes, immune destruction, and “turbo cancers.” - History and purpose of mRNA in vaccines - According to Holcher, work on this technology existed for decades but animals testing showed high mortality or sterilization in ferrets and mice, preventing approval except under a declared global emergency. He contends the COVID-19 crisis enabled emergency use authorization across Western countries, with ulterior aims to inject the globe with mRNA technology. - Global impact and uptake - He estimates about 70% of the global population received at least one COVID-19 injection (mRNA or viral vector). He notes Eastern countries used non-mRNA platforms (e.g., AstraZeneca/J&J in some places; Sinovac elsewhere) but that uptake in the West was high. - Harms and evidence - Excess deaths: cites a study by Dennis Brancourt et al. estimating around 17 million deaths worldwide as a result of COVID injections (as of September 2023); he claims US deaths could be in the hundreds of thousands to millions. - Turbo cancers: cites multiple studies in 2023 showing increased risk of seven cancer types (colorectal, bladder, breast, thyroid, prostate, etc.) in vaccinated groups; cites a major cancer journal, OncoTarget, reporting hundreds of turbo cancer cases across 27 countries, with Pfizer contributing most cases. Holcher also mentions his own group’s work with Neo7 Bioscience documenting genomic integration of vaccine-derived mRNA in a stage IV bladder cancer patient (31-year-old woman) with a segment of mRNA found in circulating tumor DNA on chromosome 19; another study reported thousands of dysregulated genes in post-vaccine cancers, including p53, KRAS, and BRCA. - Definition of turbo cancer: per Merrick et al., rapid, aggressive tumor progression with sudden onset and early metastasis, often in younger individuals, and resistant to treatment. - Fertility, pregnancy, and autism - Fertility: cites studies suggesting fertility impacts, including Karaman et al. finding depletion of primordial follicles in rats after mRNA vaccination; Manichi et al. reporting 33% lower conception rates in vaccinated women in Denmark; a study indicating a ~20% drop in sperm concentration and motility with no recovery over five months. - Autism: asserts a large body of evidence linking vaccines to neurodevelopmental disorders, citing a 136-study review with 107 studies finding positive associations between vaccines and neurodevelopmental issues, including autism, attributed to toxicity and immune system disruption, particularly in children with high vaccine exposure and reduced detox capacity (CYP450 impairment). - Other topics tied to vaccines and public response - The COVID-19 period and vaccine skepticism: claims the pandemic catalyzed a large anti-vaccine movement because people were compelled to take an experimental gene therapy product. - Sam Altman and gene editing: discusses Altman’s Preventive venture with the aim to reduce heritable diseases via in utero gene editing but warns of the path to designer babies and the potential for harm in early-iteration edits, citing prior CRISPR experiments on human embryos that produced deformed offspring or nonviable results. - AI, workers, and future society: predicts two-tier society with implanted or enhanced individuals and a replacement of human labor by robots and AI systems; discusses military and surveillance ambitions in gene editing and AI augmentation. - Mental health and digital life: references a randomized trial showing that turning off mobile Internet improved depression scores and well-being to an extent comparable to or greater than antidepressants. - World Health Organization (WHO): notes the US has pulled out of the WHO, arguing this is good for the US but potentially harmful for others still in the organization; expresses concerns about the pandemic treaty and ongoing global health governance, including vaccine passport-style surveillance. - FDA and public health policy: acknowledges some shifts (e.g., cutting doses from the childhood schedule) but argues the FDA remains compromised and too aligned with vaccine industry interests; criticizes the removal of a potential black box warning for vaccines and calls for more accountability. - Resources and contact - Holcher invites listeners to follow him on X (Twitter) at @nichulsher and to read their work on focalpoints.com and through McCullough’s network. Note: The transcript presents Holcher’s claims and interpretations about vaccines, turbo cancers, autism, fertility, and policy changes. The summary reproduces these points without endorsement or evaluation.