TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

For years, I claimed that none of the 72 vaccines mandated for children underwent proper safety testing in placebo-controlled trials. When I confronted Fauci about this, he couldn't provide the study he claimed existed. After suing him, we received confirmation that no such study was ever conducted. The lack of liability and safety testing saves pharmaceutical companies significant costs, leading to a rush to add unnecessary vaccines to the schedule. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in chronic diseases among American children since 1989, including a rise in neurological disorders and autism, which has skyrocketed from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 34 today.

Four companies—Pfizer, Merck, Blackstone, and Sanofi—produce all 72 vaccines and have a history of criminal behavior. Over the last decade, they collectively paid $35 billion in penalties for falsifying science, defrauding regulators, and causing harm. Merck's Vioxx, marketed as a headache pill, led to the deaths of up to 500,000 Americans due to heart attacks, while the company profited despite paying $7 billion in fines. No one was jailed for these actions. It’s difficult to believe these companies, known for dishonesty in other products, are suddenly trustworthy with vaccines. In the U.S., a law passed in 1986 prevents individuals from suing vaccine manufacturers, regardless of negligence or harm caused.

In the early 1980s, a tetanus and pertussis vaccine called DTP was used, but it caused brain damage and death in African children. Vaccine companies faced lawsuits and losses, so they went to Congress and threatened to stop making vaccines unless they were granted immunity from liability. In 1986, a law was passed granting them immunity, which eliminated the need for testing and ensured no liability for injuries. This made vaccines a profitable product, as they were mandated for millions of children and had high profit margins. The government purchased a large portion of these vaccines, making it a lucrative industry. As a result, the number of vaccines on the schedule increased from 3 to 72 doses by 1989.

The transcript discusses the book Vaccinations Do Not Protect by Eleanor McBean, claiming that vaccination goes against the constitution to take this “garbage.” It asserts that most people don’t know that doctors do not take the shots themselves or give them to their own children, yet they administer them to other people’s children because they receive a commission. It notes that certain physicians have observed patterns such as paralysis within twenty-four hours after the injection, up to six months after, cancer near the injection area, and diseases such as TB within twenty years. The speaker claims that Edward Jenner, the father of vaccination, noticed a similar pattern in 1796, describing it as poisoning the people. The question is posed: why do they do this? The answer given is that vaccination is a big business, and that it is protected by the government. The speaker asserts that vaccination was protected by the government in 1986 so that people cannot sue. It is stated as part of the argument that vaccination is the leading cause of why children die under the age of 15.

In 1986, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act removed liability from drug companies for vaccine-related injuries. Recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the COVID vaccine is not a true vaccine as it doesn't prevent disease or transmission. This could open up legal challenges against pharmaceutical companies, though the government may protect them. The outcome remains uncertain.

In the video, the speaker discusses the lack of accountability for vaccine manufacturers. They explain that in the 1980s, there were only three routine childhood vaccines, but now there are 17, with 14 being routine. The speaker highlights that the manufacturers convinced Congress to grant them immunity for any harm caused by their vaccines, leading to the National Childhood Vaccines Act in 1986. This immunity extends to future vaccines added to the childhood schedule. The speaker emphasizes that this level of immunity is not seen in other consumer products, which hold manufacturers accountable for any harm caused. They also mention that emergency youth vaccines, like the COVID-19 vaccine, have separate immunity under the PrEP Act. The speaker argues that this lack of liability disincentivizes safety and affects the conduct of clinical trials and post-market actions by pharmaceutical companies.

A Michigan jury awarded a woman $1 million for being fired over vaccine refusal, highlighting a need for accountability in vaccine manufacturing. It's concerning that vaccine makers have blanket immunity from lawsuits, unlike other businesses. This immunity, granted by Congress in 1986, shields pharmaceutical companies from liability, which is unjust. Everyone else faces risks in their professions, yet these companies operate without accountability. Transparency in government and vaccine trials is crucial to restore trust and eliminate corruption. If information is being withheld, it likely indicates wrongdoing.

The speaker claims there is a connection between autism and government-promoted vaccines, which constitutes a tort, implying many people were injured. They ask how these injured parties can be made whole. Another speaker explains that the 1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Vaccine Act gave vaccine companies immunity from liability, regardless of recklessness, toxicity, or injury severity. This immunity prevents lawsuits against vaccine companies and is presented as a reason for the increase in vaccinations.

Vaccines are unique as the government defends companies against consumer claims in the vaccine injury program. Before 1986, only 3 vaccines were given, but now there are 19, totaling 84 injections. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act allowed companies to sell harmful products without consequences. This led to changes in clinical trials and regulatory treatment of vaccines. Regulatory agencies see themselves as partners with manufacturers. Translation: Vaccines are defended by the government against consumer claims. The number of vaccines has increased, and the law allows companies to sell harmful products without consequences. This has impacted clinical trials and regulatory treatment of vaccines. Regulatory agencies see themselves as partners with manufacturers.

In the early 1980s, a tetanus and pertussis vaccine called DTP was used, but it caused brain damage and death in African children. Vaccine companies faced lawsuits and losses, so they went to Congress and threatened to stop making vaccines unless they were granted immunity from liability. In 1986, Congress passed a law granting this immunity, which eliminated the need for testing and made it profitable for pharmaceutical companies to produce vaccines. The government mandated vaccines for millions of children, creating a lucrative market. As a result, the number of vaccines on the schedule increased from 3 to 72 doses today, starting in 1989.

The speaker discusses the issue of liability protection for vaccine manufacturers and the lack of safety testing for vaccines. They explain that in 1986, liability was taken away from manufacturers, leading to an increase in the number of vaccines given to children. They argue that vaccines should be tested for safety like any other pharmaceutical product, but this is not happening due to the lack of liability. The speaker also addresses the claim that vaccines do not cause injury, particularly autism, and highlights the lack of studies supporting this claim. They conclude by discussing the use of aborted fetal tissue in vaccine development and the objections raised by religious groups.

In the video, the speaker discusses the lack of accountability for vaccine manufacturers. They explain that in the 1980s, there were only three routine childhood vaccines, but now there are 17, with 14 being routine. The speaker highlights that the manufacturers convinced Congress to grant them immunity for any harm caused by their vaccines, leading to the National Childhood Vaccines Act in 1986. This immunity extends to future vaccines added to the childhood schedule. The speaker emphasizes that this level of immunity is not seen in other consumer products, which holds manufacturers accountable for any harm caused. They also mention that emergency youth vaccines, like the COVID-19 vaccine, have separate immunity under the PrEP Act. The speaker argues that this lack of liability disincentivizes safety and affects the conduct of clinical trials and post-market actions by pharmaceutical companies.

World governments have harmed millions without apology. Vaccines are linked to autism, ADHD, and other health issues. The more shots kids get, the more likely they are to have these conditions. The truth is often silenced in mainstream media.

Laura Logan hosts a discussion with Dr. Sherri Tenpenny on vaccines, public health policy, and what they see as failures and harms within the system. The conversation weaves together personal history, policy details, scientific debates, and broader social concerns, intercut with promotional content for GiveSendGo. Key points and claims raised by Dr. Tenpenny - Vaccine ingredients and aluminum exposure: Tenpenny asserts that if someone receives every vaccine on the schedule, they would be injected with a total of about twelve thousand micrograms of aluminum, which she says is inflammatory to every organ system and can be stored in bones (60% of aluminum exposure). She notes aluminum is present in vaccines in order to replace mercury, which she describes as also a poison. - Early vaccine industry liability and the 1986 Act: The discussion explains that prior to 1986 there were liability concerns for vaccine makers due to injury lawsuits. Tenpenny recounts that in 1986 Congress passed a law giving the pharmaceutical industry liability immunity for vaccines, creating what she describes as a ramp in the vaccine schedule. She cites that by 1991 additional vaccines were introduced (Hep B at birth, Hib, chickenpox, Prevnar, Gardasil, Hep A, and more) and alleges this resulted in a rising autism incidence aligned with new vaccines. - The vaccine injury system: Tenpenny explains the Injury Compensation Act and the existence of VAERS as a tracking system, along with a separate pathway created under the PREP Act (the Preparedness and Readiness Act). She states that during the COVID era a separate program, the Covered Countermeasure Program (CICP), existed under the PREP Act, but it had no funding and a one-year statute of limitations, leading to under-compensation and very few adjudicated cases; she contrasts this with the earlier 1986 act, which funded vaccine injury compensation through the Federal Court of Claims and VAERS. - Perceived safety and effectiveness concerns: The speakers discuss studies suggesting that the flu shot might not prevent flu and that some studies indicate vaccines including pneumonia vaccines may be associated with higher risk of the conditions they aim to prevent. Tenpenny frames this as evidence of cracks in the vaccine program and argues that vaccines are linked to a broad spectrum of health issues, including autoimmune diseases, infertility, and cancers, which she says have been increasing. - Pediatric vaccination schedule and “pediatric poisoning program”: Tenpenny asserts that infants receive multiple injections early in life, with claims that by age two they will have thousands of micrograms of aluminum and other compounds that remain in the body, including in the brain. She characterizes the pediatric schedule as a systematic poisoning program for children and a parallel “adult assault program” for adults receiving vaccines. - COVID-19 vaccine controversy and health impacts: The conversation covers the COVID vaccines, including assertions about adverse effects such as myocarditis, strokes, kidney injury, autoimmune diseases, neurological issues, and cancers. Tenpenny describes long-term concerns (long COVID, autoimmune diseases) and claims of widespread injury and death, contending that the pandemic revealed how the health-care and pharmaceutical systems operate, including alleged corruption and profit motives. She discusses the difficult experiences of families during the pandemic, including restrictions on care and the use of alternate treatments like ivermectin in some cases. - The claim that COVID vaccines were not properly evaluated and that mandated vaccination reflected coercion: The speakers discuss mandates and the experiences of individuals in workplaces and educational institutions who faced pressure to receive vaccines, including religious exemptions and disputes about mandates. Tenpenny suggests a broader pattern of overreach in public health policy and questions about the balance between individual rights and mandates. - History and philosophy of public health programs: They discuss the Healthy People initiatives, arguing that the program’s goals have expanded in scope (from 15 goals to 1,200 for Healthy People 2030) and that the expansion is associated with greater surveillance and control over personal lives. Tenpenny claims that this is part of a broader trend toward data collection and governance of individual health and behavior. - The economics and incentives around vaccines: The conversation notes how physicians are compensated in part through vaccine administration, implying financial incentives influence clinical decisions. Tenpenny emphasizes the profit motive behind vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry’s financial interests, citing extreme examples like the one boy in a photo who allegedly became heavily medicated due to vaccines. - The role of media and information control: They discuss the influence of advertising in media since the 1990s and the difficulty of reporting critically on vaccines when major advertisers are pharmaceutical companies. They also mention AI and misinformation concerns, including examples of AI fabricating sources and the need to verify information. - Personal stakes, accountability, and political possibilities: Tenpenny discusses personal cost for challenging the vaccine paradigm, including an earlier period of potential licensing scrutiny and professional pushback. She names figures such as Fauci and Birx, argues that accountability has not yet occurred, and expresses hope that public interest in accountability could shift through advocacy and political leadership, citing RFK Jr. as a potential ally though acknowledging political and institutional obstacles. - Treatment and detoxification approaches: For those who have already received vaccines, Tenpenny outlines two separate tracks: detoxification for childhood vaccines and detox for COVID vaccines. For detox, she mentions products such as PureBody Extra (PBX), a zeolite-based supplement she says helps remove metals like aluminum and mercury from the body. She notes it is usable across age groups and even for pets, and she personally uses it. She also discusses non-specific detox approaches such as vitamin D optimization, lymphatic stimulation, exercise, and a diet focusing on avoiding white foods and reducing inflammation. She cautions that there is no proven blood or urine test to quantify spike protein after a COVID vaccine, and that detox strategies aim to support overall health rather than remove embedded spike protein from tissues. - The role of faith and resilience: The interview includes discussions of faith as a guiding force for Tenpenny, including her personal journey toward Christian faith in 2020. They reflect on fear, hope, forgiveness, and the idea that one can act with integrity and do the right thing even when faced with controversy or personal cost. They discuss existential questions about meaning, purpose, and moral responsibility, including the belief that life has a spiritual dimension that informs how to respond to public-health challenges. - Community and parenting: The conversation emphasizes the importance of community networks for new parents, including seeking mentorship from experienced parents and trusted health advocates, and maintaining parental agency in decisions about vaccines, medical interventions, and child-rearing. They discuss the value of critical thinking, asking questions, and avoiding blind trust in professionals or institutions. - Closing notes and resources: Tenpenny provides her websites and a Substack for ongoing information, including dr10penny.com, dr10penny.substack.com, and 10pennywalkwithgod.substack.com, as well as her X profile busy doctor t. The episode closes with a call to viewers to stay informed and to seek second opinions, while thanking the audience for supporting independent journalism. Overall, the dialogue centers on a critical, conspiratorial framing of vaccines, public-health policy, and the medical establishment; it weaves together testimonies about personal experience, policy history (notably the 1986 Act and the PREP Act), alleged systemic failures in compensation for vaccine injuries, criticisms of COVID-19 responses and vaccine mandates, and practical detoxification and faith-based guidance. The promotional content for GiveSendGo lightly interrupts the core discussion, but the majority of the exchange remains an extended argument about vaccine safety, accountability, and the perceived influence of big pharma on health care and public policy.

In the early 1980s in the United States, there were only three routine vaccines: DTP, MMR, and OPV, totaling seven injections for childhood, plus the adult and pregnancy schedules, which did not exist at the time. Manufacturers of these three products either stopped making them or went out of business due to injuries and the financial liability associated with those injuries. Typically, when a product harms people, a company would respond by making a better, safer version. The speaker notes that, for vaccines, Congress chose a different path. Instead of compelling manufacturers to improve safety or compensate victims, the United States Congress decided to provide immunity from liability. In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which granted immunity to manufacturers for liability not only for those three early vaccines but for virtually all other vaccines made thereafter, including all childhood vaccines. The speaker emphasizes the contrast between the standard industry response to harm (improve the product) and the legislative approach taken with vaccines (immunity from liability). The implication highlighted is that this immunity allowed vaccine manufacturers to continue selling products despite injuries, shaping the broader vaccine landscape beyond the initial three vaccines.

Insurance companies deemed vaccines too risky to insure, not hippies. Pfizer's TTP vaccine had a higher injury rate than reported by CDC. A study revealed a 1 in 300 injury rate, contradicting the 1 in 1,000,000 claim. Pfizer threatened to stop vaccine production unless granted immunity from liability. Congress passed a law granting this immunity, despite reluctance. Reagan questioned why vaccines couldn't be made safer, but they are considered "unavoidably unsafe" according to the vaccine act.

Vaccines are not subjected to true placebo-controlled trials before licensure. The DDP vaccine was pulled in the US due to lawsuits against drug companies. Wyeth, now Pfizer, requested full immunity from liability for all vaccines from the Reagan administration in 1986, threatening to leave the vaccine business. The company claimed they were losing $20 in downstream liability for every dollar of profit. When asked to make vaccines safe, they responded that "vaccines are unavoidably unsafe." This phrase is in the statute granting them immunity and was cited in the Brusowitz Supreme Court case. The industry obtained immunity by convincing the president and Congress that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.

Vaccines are not subjected to true placebo-controlled trials before licensing. The DTP vaccine was pulled due to lawsuits against manufacturers like Wyeth (now Pfizer). In 1986, vaccine manufacturers requested immunity from liability from the Reagan administration, threatening to exit the vaccine business. They claimed they were losing $20 in liability for every $1 in profit. When asked to make vaccines safer, they responded that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe." This phrase is in the statute granting them immunity and was upheld in the Brusowitz Supreme Court case. The industry obtained immunity by arguing to the president and Congress that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.

If analysis of public data sets reveals a connection between government-promoted vaccines and autism, it would constitute a tort, potentially impacting many injured individuals. However, the 1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program grants vaccine companies immunity from liability, regardless of recklessness or product toxicity. While childhood vaccination schedules have expanded from three vaccines to potentially 69-92 doses between conception and age 18, this increase may contribute to an epidemic of immune dysregulation and various diseases like diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, seizure disorders, ADD/ADHD, speech/language delays, tics, Tourette's, narcolepsy, autism, peanut allergies, anaphylaxis, and eczema. These injuries are listed as potential side effects on vaccine inserts, yet the CDC has allegedly failed to adequately study suspected vaccine injuries, despite recommendations from the Institute of Medicine. It's claimed that the CDC has deliberately derailed such studies, and scientific publishers often reject studies critical of vaccines. There is a need to remove the taboo around discussing this issue and conduct honest research.

Vaccine manufacturers are uniquely protected from design defect claims, unlike manufacturers of other products like planes, cars, and drugs. This immunity was granted in 1986 through the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act due to the harm and liability caused by the original three routine childhood vaccines (MMR, OPV, and DTP). Instead of requiring manufacturers to create safer products, Congress granted them immunity. This immunity applies to all subsequent routine childhood vaccines. The number of CDC-recommended injections has increased from three in 1986 to 29 today. Pharmaceutical companies developing these vaccines know they won't be liable for injuries. Unlike typical drug trials, vaccine trials often lack placebo controls, have short safety review periods (days, weeks, or up to six months), and are underpowered. These trials cannot confirm the safest product.

The pharmaceutical industry is seen as untrustworthy, being compared to a criminal cartel due to the large penalties they have paid for their other products. Vaccines, however, are exempt from liability, meaning companies cannot be sued no matter how negligent or reckless they are. This lack of accountability may lead to a lack of caution in product development.

The speaker asserts that the 1986 National Child Vaccine Injury Act led to an explosion of creativity in vaccine development due to the immunity from legal consequences it provided to vaccine companies. Before 1986, the 1976 swine flu vaccine fiasco, which resulted in numerous lawsuits and the government indemnifying vaccine companies, set a precedent. The 1986 act, passed due to lawsuits related to the diphtheria pertussis tetanus vaccine, shifted lawsuit coverage to taxes. Over time, the qualifications for compensation narrowed, enriching vaccine companies and allowing them to add adjuvants to stimulate the immune system. This indemnification paved the way for mRNA vaccines. Vaccine trials are now considered a joke, with accepted vaccinated-unvaccinated studies using other vaccines as placebos. Saline placebos are avoided because existing studies allegedly reveal the vaccines' ineffectiveness and increased susceptibility to disease.

Vaccines have never undergone true placebo controlled trials, unlike other medical products. The DTP vaccine was pulled due to numerous lawsuits against drug companies, including Pfizer. In 1986, Pfizer asked the Reagan administration for immunity from liability, as they were losing more money in downstream liability than they were making in profits. Reagan suggested making vaccines safer, but Pfizer claimed they were unavoidably unsafe, a phrase now in the statute and upheld by the Supreme Court. The industry convinced the president and congress that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe, despite claims of their safety and effectiveness.

A law called Vika was passed in 1986, making it illegal to sue vaccine companies, regardless of recklessness or negligence. As a result, the number of mandated vaccines has increased from 3 to 79, none of which have been safety tested. The speaker claims that vaccines are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing, a claim that Anthony Fauci publicly denied. When President Trump appointed the speaker to run a vaccine safety commission, the speaker asked Fauci to provide safety studies on vaccines. Fauci claimed he left them in his office and never sent them. Subsequently, the speaker and Aaron Siri sued Fauci. After a year of stonewalling, HHS provided a letter stating that there has never been a pre-licensing safety study of any vaccine on the childhood schedule.

Vaccine manufacturers are uniquely protected from design defect claims, unlike manufacturers of other products like planes, cars, and drugs. This immunity was granted in 1986 through the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act because manufacturers of the three routine childhood vaccines (MMR, Polio, and DTP) faced excessive liability and potential bankruptcy due to harm caused by their products. Instead of requiring safer products, Congress granted immunity, allowing manufacturers to continue selling vaccines regardless of potential harm. This immunity extended to all future routine childhood vaccines. Consequently, the CDC schedule has expanded from 3 injections in the first year of life in 1986 to 29 today. Pharmaceutical companies developing these vaccines know they won't be liable for injuries. Unlike typical drug trials, vaccine trials often lack placebo controls (except for the COVID-19 vaccine), have short safety review periods (days, weeks, or up to six months), and are underpowered, making it difficult to confirm product safety.