TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 claims that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They assert that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 states this is not just their opinion, but can be verified by anyone who examines the FDA website, specifically the package inserts and underlying clinical trial documents.

The speaker discusses the question of vaccinating children aged 5-11 against COVID-19. The professor argues in favor of vaccinating them, citing the need to protect children who may require intensive care. However, the other speaker clarifies that currently, there are only 10 children aged 0-9 and 2 children aged 10-19 in intensive care, far from the hundreds mentioned. Even during the peak of the pandemic, there were only 48 children in intensive care out of 7,000 patients. The professor also claims that half the world is vaccinating children aged 5-11, but the other speaker refutes this, stating that while several countries have started vaccinating this age group, they remain a minority. Israel, for example, only recently opened vaccination for this age group due to a lack of sufficient data on the benefits and risks.

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

Speaker 0 asserts that there is no safe vaccine on the childhood schedule and labels themselves an anti-vaxxer because no vaccine has been properly tested for safety. They state that, in the book Vax Facts, you are more likely to die from the vaccine than from the disease for which there is a vaccine, and that this is true for every single vaccine on the childhood schedule. They acknowledge that death from the vaccine is still a death and “super rare,” but claim you are much more likely to die from the vaccine. They ask which do you want: a greater chance of dying from the vaccine or a lesser chance of dying from the disease, noting that for many of these diseases, the risk is zero.

"Doctor Menares and Speaker 1 debate the science behind vaccines. 'The COVID vaccine can reduce viral load... When you have reduced viral load, you will have reduced transmission,' yet 'it doesn't prevent transmission. You can still transmit the virus if you've had the vaccine,' with Omicron-era reductions 'around 16%.' On hospitalization for 18-year-olds: 'It can,' but 'the statistics are inconclusive' and 'there is no statistical evidence that it does reduce the death rate.' They point out that 'no proof of reduction in hospitalization or in death' guided by 'make antibodies' rather than outcomes: 'it's based on whether you make antibodies or not'—'I can inject you with a foreign protein every week and measure antibodies.' They flag myocarditis risk: 'between six and eight and ten thousand,' 'much greater than the risk of hospitalization or death.' They question the medical basis for newborn hepatitis B vaccination and six-month COVID vaccine: 'What is the medical reason... if the mom is hep B negative?' 'The burden is upon you... prove to us.' 'Untrue.'

Speaker 1 claims that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They assert that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 states this is not just their opinion, but can be verified by anyone who examines the FDA website, specifically the package inserts and underlying clinical trial documents.

Vaccine recommendations typically come from the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices (an outside consulting committee at CDC) and VRBPAC (within FDA), which recommends vaccine licensure. These committees only adopted evidence-based medicine about twelve years ago. The speaker states that during their administration, they want safety studies prior to vaccine licensure and recommendation. They claim vaccines are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing, and the COVID vaccine was the only one tested in a full placebo trial. They assert that the other 76 shots children receive between birth and 18 have not been safety tested against a placebo, meaning the risk profile is not understood. The speaker intends to remedy this.

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

Doctors' fallibility and the lack of consideration for natural immunity are discussed. The conversation touches on mandatory vaccination, anecdotal evidence, and the risks and benefits of vaccines. The speakers debate the number of children who died from COVID and the importance of vaccines. They also mention the potential harm caused by vaccines and the need for individual choice. The conversation ends with a mention of the COVID vaccine's testing and the speaker's personal experience with it.

Speaker 0 argues that billions of people were injected with an experimental vaccine, stating “it wasn't a bloody just no. It wasn't.” He rejects the notion of it being definitive or perfect, emphasizing that “it wasn’t” in terms of being a flawless solution. Speaker 1 counters, asserting “It was no one isn’t,” suggesting confusion or contradiction in the prior claim and challenging the certainty of the statement. He adds that there is a lack of a 100% success rate and questions the ultimate aim, asking what the core purpose is when it comes to giving your body a training of the immune system and technology. Speaker 0 reinforces the complexity, noting that there were “different types” to contend with and that the fact that they weren’t the same technology matters. He agrees there are various types of vaccines or approaches, indicating there is diversity in the technology or formulations used. Speaker 1 concedes the existence of different types and technologies, acknowledging that “there are different types of” vaccines, and that “There are different technologies.” He identifies mRNA as a type of vaccine but Speaker 0 interrupts, insisting “No. It was” and continuing his line of reasoning about the distinctions between the technologies and their evolution. Speaker 1 acknowledges change, saying “like this, and now it's like this,” recognizing a progression or shift in the approach. Speaker 0 rejects the suggestion that the transition is simple or uniform, insisting “No. No. No. It was like this, and now it's like this.” He asserts that the mRNA technology represented a radical, qualitative leap forward in technology, a claim about the significance of the development. Speaker 0 contends that naming the technology as mRNA can be acceptable only in a limited sense; he says “You can call it if if you want to, but it bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that.” The rationale for the term mRNA is tied to branding: “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.”

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

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

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

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain why the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination but does not provide a clear explanation. Speaker 0 insists on understanding the mechanism and questions why the vaccine is considered safe without addressing the risks. Speaker 2 intervenes, suggesting that Speaker 1 will address the question later. Speaker 1 talks about the benefit-risk ratio and the global recommendation of health authorities. Speaker 0 reiterates the question, to which Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. Speaker 2 confirms this agreement.

Speaker 0 expresses clear personal hesitation about vaccines, stating that they are not jabbed and would not touch the experimental mRNA and gene therapy experiments, asserting there is a lot of concern about these technologies from many medical people. They reference political figures and media narratives, saying Kennedy in the United States will expose much of this material and that Donald Trump is keen to see it as well. Speaker 0 then recalls personal health concerns related to vaccination, mentioning friends who have experienced myocarditis, blood clots, strokes, and other problems after receiving the COVID jab, and emphasizes the idea of long-term effects being unknown. Speaker 1 counters by saying they still believe in vaccinations, but notes that no one on that side would discuss possible problems with vaccines, and they themselves got vaccinated multiple times and are now open to the idea that there might have been problems. They acknowledge the complexity of the issue and state they do not object to vaccines inherently. Speaker 0 clarifies their stance further, stating they are not a medical expert but their instinct was not to have the vaccine, and they acknowledge how difficult it was to avoid it since the state appeared to force people to receive it. Speaker 1 adds that their own vaccination status includes having been vaxxed several times, and they feel okay today, though they recognize the complexity of the situation and that long-term effects are uncertain. Speaker 0 then discusses the notion that the state and public health authorities pressured people to vaccinate, naming the NHS, Matt Hancock, and portraying the messaging as a duty to vaccinate “because you might kill granny,” mentioning Trudeau and the World Economic Forum Brigade as part of the broader narrative. Speaker 0 proposes an alternative approach: those who are vulnerable should isolate themselves. They reference Anders Tegnell’s approach in Sweden, which did not impose lockdowns. They claim Sweden’s economy hardly missed a heartbeat, in contrast to “ours,” and argue that the pandemic greatly disrupted young people’s lives and education, with knock-on effects described as huge. Speaker 0 concludes that those who made the lockdown decisions are not ready to admit they got it wrong, for a host of reasons.

The discussion centers on COVID-19 misinformation and the roles of public figures and disinformation spreaders. Speaker 0 questions whether doctor Fauci is involved in a plot to kill millions. Speaker 1 says he cannot confirm involvement but asserts Fauci is not an innocent bystander and is aware of his actions; he doesn’t have the information to determine the extent of Fauci’s involvement. Speaker 2 identifies Dr. Dirashid Bhattar as one of the top spreaders of COVID-19 disinformation on social media, citing the Center for Countering Digital Hate, noting Bhattar once had more than a million followers. The dialogue includes several false or debunked claims attributed to Bhattar. Speaker 1 states that “More people are dying from the COVID vaccine than from COVID,” a claim Speaker 2 labels as not true, along with Bhattar’s assertion that “the Red Cross won’t accept blood from people who have had the COVID vaccine,” and his claim that “most who took COVID vaccines will be dead by 2025.” Bhattar’s broader theory is that COVID was a planned operation, politically motivated as part of a secret global plot to depopulate the earth. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 believes the pandemic was planned; Speaker 1 responds affirmatively but says he has no idea who is behind it. Speaker 2 warns that praising or repeating Bhattar’s views is dangerous, noting Bhattar’s use of false or twisted information to distrust vaccines. The conversation touches on whether the COVID vaccine works; Speaker 1 says the vaccine is “very effective at what it was designed for perhaps,” but “not preventing death.” Speaker 0 challenges this, and Speaker 2 counters that Bhattar doubles down on vaccines being more dangerous than the virus, even in the face of data. A numerical claim is raised: “6,340,000,000 doses of this vaccine have been given,” with implications if the claim were true. Speaker 1 says vaccines are designed with ingredients published and that each vaccine appears to be different, though he concedes not being a vaccine developer. Speaker 2 notes Bhattar has been removed from Facebook and Instagram for disinformation but remains active on Twitter, Telegram, and his own site. Speaker 0 references a September 5 retweet of a photo suggesting AstraZeneca was made in 2018; Speaker 1 acknowledges it could have been fake and questions why Bhattar would share such content. A combined exchange discusses questioning agencies and the consequences of misinformation, with Speaker 0 accusing Bhattar of contributing to a mass misinformation problem and Speaker 1 acknowledging the existence of a large follower base that has received false information. The dialogue closes with a mention of a statement from North Carolina’s Board of Medicine prior to COVID, implying regulatory context or action.

Speaker 0 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.”

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

Speaker 1 states that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They claim that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 asserts this is not an opinion, but can be verified by anyone reviewing package inserts and clinical trial documents on the FDA website.

Speaker 0 believes vaccines are the cause of all disease. Speaker 1 disagrees, calling this a bogus statement, and claims that studies have only looked at two of 36 shots and one of 35 vaccines. Speaker 1 asserts that it is irrefutable that vaccines cause autism and accuses doctors of not reading studies and misleading parents. Speaker 0 says that Speaker 1 is antagonizing the medical community and Dr. Sears. Speaker 0 states the show is about helping kids and that yelling only causes anger. Speaker 0 feels attacked for being asked to defend their stance.

The speaker is questioned about his stance on childhood vaccines, with many scientific and medical organizations disagreeing with him. The audience asks how they can help him align with science. The speaker clarifies that he is not anti-vaccine, but believes vaccines should undergo safety testing like other medicines. He criticizes the lack of prelicensing placebo-controlled trials for vaccines and cites examples of potential risks and lack of long-term studies. The other speaker argues that there is evidence of vaccines preventing diseases and highlights the importance of distinguishing between association and causation. The speaker emphasizes the need for good science and questions the trustworthiness of pharmaceutical companies. The conversation ends with a discussion about the speaker's family not supporting his views on vaccines.

Will you assure mothers that the measles and hepatitis B vaccines do not cause autism? If the data supports it, I will. The vaccine discussion is oversimplified. Parents are concerned about giving a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn when the disease is primarily transmitted through drug use and sex. I vaccinated my children but chose to delay the hepatitis B vaccine until school age. There needs to be an honest debate about vaccines, especially regarding COVID-19, where risks differ significantly between age groups. Healthy children are at minimal risk from COVID. We should remain open-minded about vaccine safety and autism, as we don't fully understand its causes. Science evolves, and we must be humble in our conclusions. The rationale for immediate vaccination against hepatitis B exists, but if a mother's status is known, vaccination can be delayed.

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

The speakers discuss the benefits of vaccines and the need to compare the number of children affected by vaccines versus those with adverse reactions. They mention the 99.7% survival rate of COVID-19 and the increase in chronic health issues among children. They suggest that vaccines may be a factor in the rise of these issues and call for further study. However, they clarify that they are not claiming vaccines cause these issues, but that it should be properly investigated. They also point out that the increase in chronic health issues does not necessarily mean vaccines have improved children's health. They emphasize the need for sufficient data before reaching conclusions.

German summary: Speaker 0 äußert eine ganz konkrete, sehr gewagte These: "ich sage offen, dass ich von Impfungen bei Kindern unter 3 Jahren abrate." Speaker 1 fordert, das Buch zu lesen, das "so geschrieben ist, dass sogar Oberstufenschüler es verstehen", und sagt: "Wenn ein Arzt das liest und das nicht versteht, dann soll er seinen Titel an die Wand hängen." Er behauptet, Impfstoffe seien "lebensgefährlich" und die "größte Gefahr der Menschheit." Begründung: klassische Impfstoffe enthalten Zusatzstoffe wie Aluminiumsalze, die "Gift" seien und in die Blutbahn gelangen; der Unterschied zwischen Injektion und Verzehr sei entscheidend; in Muskeln injizierte Substanzen gelangen in die Blutbahn. Bei Kleinkindern sei die Konzentration nach einer Impfung mit Diphtherie, Tetanus, Patusis "unglaublich hoch." Er schlägt vor, "wartet wenigstens die 3 Jahre ab." Lebendimpfstoffe hält er für problematisch; "niemand hat's wirklich gezeigt, dass die Viren harmlos sind." Er verweist auf Polio, Tollwut und Tetanus und behauptet, "für keinen Impfung ... echte Wirksamkeit nachgewiesen worden" außer Tollwut und Tetanus. English translation: Speaker 0 asserts a very concrete, very bold thesis: "I openly say that I advise against vaccinations for children under 3." Speaker 1 urges reading the book, which is "written in a way that even high school students can understand," and says: "If a doctor reads it and does not understand it, then he should hang his title on the wall." He claims vaccines are "life-threatening" and the "greatest danger to humanity." Reasoning: classical vaccines contain additives such as aluminum salts, which are "poison" and reach the bloodstream; the difference between injection and ingestion is crucial; substances injected into muscle reach the bloodstream. In toddlers, the concentration after a vaccination with Diphtherie, Tetanus, Patusis is "incredibly high." He suggests "wait at least 3 years." He regards live vaccines as problematic; "no one has shown that the viruses are harmless." He references polio, rabies, and tetanus, and claims "for no vaccine has real efficacy been demonstrated" except for rabies and tetanus.