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 claims that the evidence around vaccines and autism in the U.S. consists of two flawed and fraudulent CDC studies. One study allegedly showed a statistically significant effect of the MMR vaccine, with 67% more boys receiving the vaccine on time being diagnosed with autism compared to those who waited until age three. The speaker says a whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, came forward with this information in 2013 and 2014. The speaker also alleges that the Verstraten study in 2003 is flawed and fraudulent, accusing them of cherry-picking information from the Vaccine Safety Datalink. The speaker asserts there is a significant gap in the science around vaccines and autism, stating that safety cannot be determined by looking at one vaccine or component in isolation.

The speaker says their first break with the Democratic Party was over a Rolling Stone piece about rising autism rates. As secretary, they commissioned a study of autism, because previous CDC studies claimed no link between vaccines and autism. However, the Institute of Medicine stated in 2001 that such a link was biologically plausible and criticized the CDC's vaccine schedule decision-making process, alleging industry capture of the ACIP panel. The speaker claims the CDC only conducted epidemiological studies using fraudulent techniques, instead of a range of studies recommended by the Institute of Medicine. They allege a 1999 CDC study, led by Thomas Verstraten, found an 1135% elevated autism risk in vaccinated children, but the CDC concealed and manipulated the data. The speaker says they will conduct observational, retrospective, and epidemiological studies, making databases public for independent scientists. Grant requests have been issued to the scientific community, with initial answers expected by September, and definitive answers within six months. The speaker expects these answers to differ from the status quo. They advocate for independent research over blindly trusting experts, and promise gold standard science, publishing protocols, peer reviews, raw data, and requiring replication of every study.

Speaker 0 argues that the science is very incorrect and very bad science, aside from all the other material Jill Demenov and US Right to Know uncovered. They claim those sources went overboard to disprove something without good data, and that the manipulation and intent to tell a story that is not substantiated are the reasons why they should be retracted. They also state that these people do not have the courage or the decency to retract.

Speaker 0 argues that to determine whether smoking causes lung cancer, you must compare smokers to non-smokers. They recount a sequence of flawed study designs that would falsely conclude no link: comparing two smokers with different consumption levels and finding the same cancer rates; comparing different cigarette brands among smokers and again finding no difference; comparing people in different towns who all smoke and finding no difference. The point is that all these comparisons fail because they do not include a non-smoker control group; thus they cannot establish causation. They then contrast this with vaccine studies, asserting that studies claiming vaccines don’t cause chronic diseases or autism do not compare vaccinated to unvaccinated children. Instead, such studies compare vaccinated children to other vaccinated children, with variations in vaccines received (e.g., MMR, DTaP, multiple vaccines in one visit) and with differing aluminum exposures (e.g., four milligrams vs two milligrams). They emphasize that these studies never examine the actual outcome of interest by comparing vaccinated against unvaccinated children. The speaker maintains that this flaw in vaccine studies mirrors the earlier tobacco example. The essential argument is that the only way to determine causation is to compare the exposure group (vaccinated children) to an appropriate control group (unvaccinated children). They reference the Henry Ford trial as an example of an unvaccinated-versus-vaccinated comparison, but note that no one has published or accessible data from it. They call for someone brave enough to conduct and publish a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study to settle the issue. Finally, they challenge proponents of vaccination to conduct such a study to prove their position, insisting that if vaccines are truly safe and non-causal for chronic diseases or autism, the study should be done and the data published to demonstrate that the claim is correct. The overall message is a insistence on direct, unambiguous vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated comparisons to establish causality, highlighting perceived gaps in current vaccine research and urging transparent data publication.

The speaker asks if there has been a study comparing the health outcomes of children following the CDC vaccination schedule and those who are unvaccinated. The other speaker says they are not aware of such a study and suggests it may be considered bad malpractice not to vaccinate a child. They discuss the possibility of a retrospective study using the Vaccine Safety Datalink, but note the need to control for confounders. The speaker presents an exhibit showing higher rates of health conditions in vaccinated children and suggests the need for larger studies to confirm or refute these findings. The other speaker agrees.

Speaker 0 describes a controversial 2000 study and its alleged connections to Monsanto. The speaker asserts that Monsanto staff helped write the article, and that the authors were likely receiving large sums of money from Monsanto. They claim much of the data in the study was unpublished, describing it as secret data from Monsanto, and label the paper “basically a complete fraud.” The study supposedly claimed that glyphosate was safe and not linked to cancer. The speaker then references subsequent studies released recently, which purportedly found that glyphosate increased or caused ten distinct types of cancer in rats when the rats were exposed at so-called safe levels. Despite these findings, the speaker notes that the original paper was used by agencies around the world to claim glyphosate was safe and to support approval processes. The speaker concludes that the entire foundation of those safety assurances was built on “a complete fraud and lie,” and states that the retraction of the 2000 paper is, in this context, something they are happy about, remarking that it is probably the only time they will be happy about a retraction.

Speaker 0 frames the issue as 'the corruption of science' and the 'capture of the agencies' by pharmaceutical industries, stating the goal is to restore integrity and credibility to science. Speaker 1 cites a CDC internal study: 'black boys who got the vaccine on time had a two hundred and sixty percent greater chance of getting an autism diagnosis than children who waited.' He adds that 'The chief chief scientist on that, Doctor. William Thompson, the senior said vaccine safety science at CDC, was ordered to destroy that data. And then they published it without that fact.' Finally, he asserts, 'So, you know that story. And you know of hundreds of stories like that. It happens all the time. We are being lied to by these agencies, and we're gonna change that right now.'

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 claims that no double-blind, placebo-controlled safety trials have been conducted on any childhood vaccines currently on the market. The speaker states that they have searched for such trials and been unable to find any. According to the speaker, Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins allegedly admitted that placebo-controlled safety trials are not performed on childhood vaccines because it would be unethical to test products administered to children. The speaker challenges news agencies to provide evidence of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done prior to licensure for any childhood vaccine, asserting that it doesn't exist.

The speaker claims epidemiological studies are easily manipulated and that proper studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated groups are lacking, except for a CDC study in 1999. This CDC study, led by Thomas Verstraten, allegedly compared children who received the hepatitis vaccine within the first thirty days of life to those vaccinated later or not at all. The speaker asserts the study found a 1,135% elevated risk of autism in vaccinated children, which "shocked" researchers. The speaker alleges the CDC then kept the study secret and manipulated it through five iterations to bury the link.

The speaker claims the assertion that red meat causes cancer was based on a vote, not science. The speaker's guest, a former WHO panel member, states the panel used observational studies to show association, not causation. Of 800 studies examined, 780 were allegedly not used. Of the 18 studies that were considered, only half showed a risk. The guest concludes there is no valid demonstration of cause and effect. The speaker suggests this raises concerns about how global health policy is made.

The speaker claims that the CDC commissioned six epidemiological studies using fraudulent techniques, instead of comparing health outcomes between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. According to the speaker, a 1999 CDC study led by Thomas Verstraten compared children who received the hepatitis vaccine within their first thirty days of life to those vaccinated later or not at all. This study allegedly found a 1,135% elevated risk of autism among vaccinated children. The speaker states that the CDC kept the study secret and manipulated it to bury the link by removing older children and stratifying the data. The speaker asserts that over 100 external studies indicate a link between vaccines and autism.

The speaker claims that no childhood vaccine has ever undergone a safety trial using a double-blind, placebo-based study. They assert that this type of study, involving a saline injection as a placebo, is the only way to determine the safety of a pharmaceutical product. Furthermore, the speaker states that there has never been a study comparing the health outcomes of children who receive the full schedule of 72 (or potentially up to 90) vaccines to those who receive none. Because of the lack of safety studies and comparative data, the speaker chooses not to inject themselves or their children with vaccines. They want evidence that vaccines are safe and make people healthier.

The speaker states that vaccine policy will change due to better information. They claim that none of the vaccines given in the first six months of life have been tested, except for the DTP vaccine, which a study linked to issues, but was dismissed due to problems with the CDC's surveillance system. The speaker asserts the CDC lacks a functional surveillance system to capture vaccine injuries, with their own study showing it captures less than 1% of injuries. They plan to fix this by implementing a functional surveillance system, using data management, and providing answers to the public. The speaker promises to follow the science, use gold standard science, publish all datasets, replicate studies, and publish peer reviews, which they claim the CDC has never done, to provide real answers.

In early 2017, the speaker and Robert Kennedy Jr. met with Tony Fauci and Francis Collins at the NIH to discuss vaccine safety concerns. They questioned the absence of double-blind placebo safety trials for childhood vaccines. According to the speaker, Fauci and Collins admitted that such trials are not conducted because they would be unethical. The speaker proposed a comparative study using the Vaccine Safety Data Link (VSD) to compare the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, assessing rates of cancer, diabetes, ADD/ADHD, autism, Tourette's, lupus, and leukemia. The speaker claims this study could be completed quickly, but alleges that NIH officials stated they would never conduct it. The speaker suggests that if vaccines were proven safe through such a study, concerns about vaccine safety would disappear. The speaker believes the study has been done, but the data was manipulated to make vaccinated people appear healthier.

The speaker discusses the issue of unvaccinated individuals and the lack of studies conducted by the government. They argue that giving the vaccine to everyone absolves the government of understanding its effects. However, they found studies in plain sight that compared vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Over 100 such studies are featured in the book, with very few coming from the federal government. The FDA claims it is not their job to conduct these studies, but the problem lies in the funding of studies by those who stand to profit from the products. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should be evaluating the risks associated with vaccines, especially when given together, but they have been negligent in doing so. The speaker suggests that vaccines should undergo placebo-controlled trials like other drugs.

Kendall asks for an explanation of the process by which the MMR vaccine causes autism, referencing the movie Vaxxed. Speaker 2 responds that they are currently researching those questions, as parents and physicians have reported children developing autism immediately after the MMR vaccine. The speaker claims studies that should have been done long ago were not. Instead, the speaker alleges that captured researchers at the CDC, mainly people who work for the pharmaceutical industry, produced bad epidemiological studies. The speaker asserts that these studies deliberately avoided comparing health outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups. Speaker 0 states that this is one of the things they are studying now with gold standard science. Speaker 2 confirms they are doing gold standard science, which includes replication. They are allocating about 20% of their budget to replicating studies. Speaker 0 explains replication as an independent group repeating a study with the same parameters and data sets to achieve the same result. Speaker 2 agrees.

The speaker states they searched for years for a pre-licensing safety trial of the 72 vaccine doses effectively mandated for American children. They claim that every other medication requires a safety trial comparing health outcomes in a placebo group versus a vaccine group before FDA licensing. The speaker assumed this was also done for vaccines. They state they found out that vaccines were exempt from this requirement.

They got rid of all the older children and had younger children who were too young to be diagnosed. They stratified the data and did a lot of other tricks. All of those studies were the subject of that kind of trickery. Meanwhile, the external literature is showing over a 100 studies that indicate that there is a link. They are going to do all the kind of studies that the Institute of Medicine originally recommended. They're going to do observational studies, retrospective studies, and epidemiological studies. They're going to do real science and make the databases public for the first time.

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.

If the autism epidemic is due to better diagnostics, it should be seen in older people, but it is not. Where are the 71-year-olds with full-blown autism? They are not seen in malls, homes, or institutions. The speaker claims this absence indicates a falsehood, likely perpetuated by industries profiting from an environmental toxin in air, water, medicines, or food. These industries benefit from normalizing autism and claiming it has always existed. The speaker asserts it is not good for the country or the press to not be skeptical. New studies will soon be announced to identify the specific environmental toxins causing autism, which the speaker claims has not been done before. The speaker anticipates providing answers to the American people quickly.

The speaker states that previous CDC studies on autism were epidemiological and designed to avoid finding a link. They claim the Institute of Medicine criticized the CDC's vaccine schedule decision-making, alleging the ASIP panel was captured by industry due to financial entanglements. The speaker says the Institute of Medicine recommended various studies, including animal models, which the CDC allegedly ignored, opting instead for manipulated epidemiological studies. They claim these studies didn't compare fully vaccinated to unvaccinated groups. According to the speaker, a 1999 CDC study led by Thomas Verstraten found an 1135% elevated autism risk in vaccinated children. They allege the CDC concealed and manipulated this study to bury the link by removing older children from the data and using other statistical tricks. The speaker asserts that over 100 external studies indicate a link between vaccines and autism.

The speaker claims the current vaccine injury surveillance system, VAERS, captures less than one percent of vaccine injuries, according to a 2010 CDC study. They state that the CDC had a machine counting system to roll out to HMOs but shelved it. The speaker intends to improve surveillance, gather data sets, and create data-sharing agreements with scientists worldwide. They aim to investigate the contribution of vaccines, mold, EMF, food, and other exposures that began in the late 1980s to health issues.