TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asks about the lack of disclosure regarding a Democratic donor funding the case. Speaker 1 denies any political motive and admits to forgetting about the donor during their deposition.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They wanted a clear yes or no answer and requested the data to be shared with the committee. In response, it was stated that no, they did not have knowledge about stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market. They had to act quickly.

Speaker 0 asks if Moderna uses its profits to help people injured by their vaccine. Speaker 1 responds that indemnities are a government policy matter and cannot comment. Speaker 0 clarifies if Moderna is unwilling to take responsibility for the safety of their vaccine. Speaker 1 emphasizes their commitment to vaccine safety but reiterates that indemnities are a matter for policymakers. Speaker 0 questions the moral obligation of Moderna to assist vaccine victims, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 assuming the answer is zero and thanking them.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa in 2008 while legislation affecting credit card companies was being discussed. Speaker 1 questions the point of the question and denies any conflict of interest. Speaker 0 insists on whether it was appropriate for a speaker to accept such a deal, but Speaker 1 dismisses it as a false premise. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, and Speaker 1 confirms that they would act upon an investment.

The speaker questions the lack of transparency regarding the sharing of royalties by officials at the CDC, NIH, and FDA who are responsible for approving drugs and vaccines. They mention that Congress needs to enforce full disclosure to eliminate conflicts of interest. The speaker reveals that NIH researchers have received significant amounts of money, but the details are not disclosed. They also highlight their unsuccessful attempts to obtain nonclassified records of NIH grants. The lack of action from the Department of Justice and Democrats further complicates the situation.

Speaker 0 asks how much USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the implicit accusation and says they don't have the specific details of USAID funding at their fingertips. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is stating for certain that no USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute. Speaker 1 says they are happy to take questions from those in the audience who treat every person respectfully, and calls on someone else. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 is denying. Speaker 0 says it's a non-denial denial.

Speaker 0 states that permanent residents in the U.S. are mandated to be up to date on CDC-recommended vaccines, but this is not mandated for those entering the country illegally. Speaker 0 claims that measles cases in New Orleans are coming from people entering the country from elsewhere. Speaker 0 asks if the federal government should mandate that those becoming U.S. citizens be up to date on their immunizations. Speaker 1 states they are strongly pro-vaccine, an advisor to a vaccine company, and supports the CDC vaccine schedule.

The speaker states that a board was fired for being a "sock puppet" for the industry it regulated. In 2002, a government oversight committee held hearings about the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), finding that 97% of its members had undisclosed conflicts of interest. As an example, the speaker claims that when the ACIP approved the rotavirus vaccine, four of the five members had direct financial interests in it. One member, Paul Offit, allegedly voted to add the rotavirus vaccine to the schedule while he had a rotavirus vaccine in development. The approved vaccine was withdrawn due to causing intussusception. Offit's vaccine then replaced it. The speaker claims that Offit and his business partners sold that vaccine to Merck for $186 million.

The speaker claims that when the rotavirus vaccine was approved, four out of five board members had direct financial interests in it, working for the companies that made the vaccine or receiving grants to do clinical trials on it. One board member, Paul Offit, allegedly voted to add the rotavirus vaccine to the schedule while he had a rotavirus vaccine in development. The speaker says that because it's now on the schedule, his developing vaccine is virtually guaranteed to get on the schedule. The rotavirus vaccine that Offit voted on was withdrawn within a year because it was causing intussusception in kids. Offit's vaccine then replaced it. The speaker states that Offit and his business partners sold that vaccine to Merck for $186,000,000. The speaker says that Offit told Newsweek that he won the lottery and that it's been said of him that he voted himself rich.

Speaker 0 asks if Moderna puts any of its profits into helping people injured by the vaccine. Speaker 1 states that indemnities are a matter for the government and cannot comment further. Speaker 0 questions if Moderna is unwilling to underwrite the risk of its own vaccine and prioritize its safety. Speaker 1 reiterates that they take vaccine safety seriously and have a good pharmacovigilance process in place, but indemnities are a matter for policymakers. Speaker 0 asks about the moral responsibility of helping vaccine victims, to which Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 assuming the answer is zero.

Government regulators are influenced by big pharma, with FDA employees receiving royalties from approved vaccines and drugs. FDA's budget heavily relies on pharmaceutical industries, leading to agency capture. For instance, NIH owns half of the Moderna vaccine, with high-level deputies under Fauci receiving $150,000 annually from it indefinitely. This conflict of interest is not widely discussed in mainstream media, as speaking out can lead to censorship.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while serving as Speaker of the House. Speaker 1 defends the decision, stating there was no conflict of interest. Speaker 0 presses for clarification, but Speaker 1 maintains there was no wrongdoing.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about whether they sought an ethics opinion regarding the financial benefit their son-in-law receives from a company involved in teaching critical race theory. Speaker 1 avoids directly answering the question, stating that the memorandum they are discussing has no predictable effect on critical race theory. Speaker 0 persists in asking if critical race theory being taught in more schools would result in more money for their son-in-law, but Speaker 1 continues to deflect and refuses to give a clear answer. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 stating they would seek an ethics opinion if there was a conflict of interest, but the question remains unanswered.

Speaker 0 asks if anyone on the vaccine committee has received money from vaccine manufacturers. Speaker 1 responds by saying that according to regulations, individuals who receive royalties are not obligated to disclose them, even on their financial statements, as per the Bayh Dole Act.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they personally administered any COVID-19 vaccinations and informs them they may be personally liable and prosecuted under the Nuremberg Code. Speaker 0 claims COVID was a hoax and the shots are for depopulation, having killed or permanently disabled millions. Speaker 1 states the company is liable, not them, because they made sure beforehand that the company would take responsibility and support them administering the shots.

Speaker 0 questions if anyone was forced to get vaccinated, specifically referring to a comment made by Dr. Kuat. Speaker 1 confirms that they made the comment and states their belief that nobody was forced to receive the vaccine. They explain that mandates and requirements are determined by governments and health authorities, and that individuals were given the choice to get vaccinated or not. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that many Australians would disagree with Speaker 1's statement.

A speaker played a recording of a conversation where another person recalled a discussion about removing aluminum from vaccines. According to the speaker, vaccine companies were once very close to removing aluminum. The speaker claims that all the big vaccine companies were at the same table because they had the same interest to defend. The speaker suggests that banning aluminum would deeply trouble vaccine companies, completely changing manufacturing, clinical studies, and everything else. The speaker recalls that the companies argued that removing aluminum would cause a tremendous deficiency in vaccine supply, leading to the deaths of children in Africa. The speaker states that the WHO was also very much involved.

This interview may seem unusual due to anticipated social media reactions, so let's clarify some key points upfront to avoid baseless accusations. Have you ever received funding or gratuities from Pfizer or any vaccine-producing drug company? No. It's important to address this since such claims often arise, regardless of their truth. Have you ever received funding or gratuities from Pfizer or any vaccine-producing drug company? No.

The speaker questions whether anyone on the vaccine committee has received money from vaccine manufacturers. They ask if this information can be disclosed. The other speaker responds by stating that according to regulations, individuals who receive royalties are not obligated to disclose them, as per the Bayh Dole Act.

I'm asking if you will agree not to sue drug companies. I'm not agreeing to that. As secretary of HHS, you could influence lawsuits in many ways, such as promoting anti-vaccine views, appointing like-minded individuals, or changing vaccine schedules and compensation rules. You could even share FDA data with law firms for their benefit. I'm asking you to commit not to financially benefit from these lawsuits while serving as secretary. I will comply with ethical guidelines. You're trying to undermine vaccines. As secretary, you could harm vaccine access while profiting from it. I support vaccines and the childhood schedule; I just want good science. Then say you won't profit from your role as secretary.

The discussion centers on Robert Kennedy's potential conflicts of interest as Secretary of HHS regarding lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies. One party questions Kennedy's commitment to not financially benefit from lawsuits while in office and for four years afterward. Kennedy states he will comply with ethical guidelines but refuses to agree not to sue drug companies. Concerns are raised about his ability to influence vaccine policies and lawsuits, potentially benefiting financially. Kennedy insists he supports vaccines and the childhood vaccination schedule, emphasizing the need for good science. A committee member defends Kennedy, stating he has gone through the necessary ethics review process. The conversation highlights the tension between regulatory responsibilities and personal financial interests.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They requested a clear yes or no answer and asked for the data to be shared with the committee. The speaker then stated that they did not have knowledge about stopping immunization before the vaccine entered the market.

Speaker 1 was questioned about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while legislation affecting credit card companies was pending. When asked if it was a conflict of interest, Speaker 1 denied any wrongdoing, stating that it was not true and that they acted upon an investment opportunity.

Speaker: Is it a conflict of interest? I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting it's okay for a speaker to accept a favorable stock deal? We did not. Translation: The speaker questions if it is a conflict of interest and denies accepting a preferential stock deal.

Speaker 0: No compensation is available for people with legitimate vaccine injuries, as there is already a system in place through ACC for managing such cases. Speaker 1: However, many vaccine-injured individuals have been denied by ACC and are facing personal financial burdens for their treatment. The requirement of proving the injury is a high bar to meet. Speaker 2: It is not a high bar if a proper examination system is in place. If someone was fine before receiving the vaccine and experienced severe consequences afterward, it is likely caused by the vaccine. We should let an independent commissioner investigate the truth instead of arguing about it.