TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Gene injections, also known as vaccines, aim to stimulate adaptive immunity and neutralizing antibodies to eliminate the virus. However, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have shown negative efficacy, with vaccinated individuals getting infected and reinfected. This leads to the emergence of more infectious variants. Continuing the current vaccine rollout will prolong the pandemic, as new variants will keep emerging. Vaccinating during a pandemic with high infectious pressure is a catastrophic mistake. These vaccines cannot and will not work.

I think we all know how important the COVID vaccine was. It was scientifically, critically studied to prevent severe disease. I think where people started to get confused is when we started to make potential claims that the vaccine did more than what it was studied to actually show. And remember all of those original studies, we didn't test patients unless they had symptoms. We only looked for disease, and so we don't know how many people were asymptomatic. We don't know about protection against infection. What we did know about is protection against severe disease. And clearly, if you look at the mortality in individuals 75 before vaccination and after vaccination, there was a dramatic difference even through, Amicrom and Delta. So, yes, the vaccine was highly effective for what it was intended to do, was prevent Shouldn't the health secretary know that? You know, I'm not sure that there's so much confusion about the COVID vaccine, what it was studied to do. I just want to make it very clear. It was studied to prevent severe disease, and that's what it does. And then I think the question is, well, who's who's susceptible to severe disease and who should continue to get the COVID shots? I think that's what needs to be clearly laid out to the American people.

When the government told us vaccinated people couldn't get the virus, were they guessing or lying? There was evidence of natural reinfection during the pandemic. Since the vaccine was based on natural immunity, one can't definitively say vaccination is superior to natural infection, even if it's often slightly better. I can't rule out the possibility that the government wasn't truthful when they stated vaccinated individuals couldn't contract the virus. While I ensured my susceptible family members were vaccinated, we still used layered protection during surges, knowing vaccine immunity could wane. The hope was that the vaccine would prevent transmission. Scientists and public health leaders must clearly communicate what's known versus what's hoped. When the government said the vaccinated couldn't get it, it wasn't the truth, but possibly a guess, a lie, or just hope.

"The mRNA vaccines, you know, from COVID don't work against upper respiratory infections." "There are two problems with them." "One is they target a single protein, which drives what what's called an antigenic shift." "If it drives the virus to mutate, and it actually can prolong the pandemic." "We saw that during COVID, people took shots, mRNA shots for the original COVID variant and immediately, mutated into the Omicron virus to which the vaccine was ineffective, and that's what it does." "And the other issue is, that it the way that distributes in the body, the way that it migrates in the body, there's no control over and no predictability." "So it goes to every organ." "It turns your body into a an antigen factory where you're manufacturing antigens, and different people need different loads of antigens." "And we've seen now these epidemics of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in kids."

One speaker states that you cannot conclude vaccines will do better than natural infection, although they can often do slightly better. When asked if the government lied about vaccinated people not getting the virus, the speaker responded that they don't know about the task force's discussions. They vaccinated their susceptible family members but still used layered protection during surges, knowing vaccine immunity could wane like natural immunity, with reinfection occurring every four months in South Africa. When asked if the government's claim that the vaccine prevented transmission was a lie or a guess, the speaker said it was hope. They added that the original phase three trials only measured symptomatic disease, not proactively testing for mild or asymptomatic infections, so there was never data showing protection against asymptomatic infection. Another speaker expressed frustration that government agencies were guessing, hoping, or lying to the American people, calling them the biggest purveyors of misinformation.

Dr. Redfield stated that over 90% of the population is still susceptible to the coronavirus. However, the other speaker disagrees, pointing out that the data used by Dr. Redfield is outdated and only accounts for the presence of antibodies. The speaker explains that there is also immunity from T cells and cross-immunity from other infections, which means that the number of people with antibodies is only a small fraction of those with immunity. When asked who to believe, the speaker emphasizes that the science supports their viewpoint and mentions several epidemiologists who share the same perspective. The conversation ends with the acknowledgement of taking a break.

"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.'

The massive vaccination of the population likely led to the current situation. The virus has become less virulent, but the vaccine does not provide complete immunity. It protects individuals but does not directly protect the community. However, it indirectly helps protect the community. There is controversy surrounding whether the vaccine prevents transmission, but it is known to prevent severe symptoms in individuals. The vaccine allows individuals to develop a functional immune memory that helps avoid severe forms of the disease.

In a study of 1,000 people in Israel, it was found that those who received two vaccine doses were 27 times more likely to get reinfected. The vaccine does not prevent infections or transmission, as seen in studies from England, Scotland, and other European countries where triple-vaccinated individuals are most likely to die. On the other hand, natural immunity from previous infections, such as SARS CoV-one, can last for 18 years and provide long-lasting and broad protection. In conclusion, natural immunity should be considered as an important factor moving forward.

Big pharma and governments worldwide have been promoting vaccines as the solution to the pandemic. However, the vaccines being administered through injections cannot activate the necessary local mucosal and nasal immunity to protect against COVID-19. This fact is known by scientists and researchers, including those advocating for the vaccines. The vaccines do not induce the production of the IgA molecule, which is crucial for neutralizing viruses and toxins. It is important to emphasize that the current vaccines cannot work in this way, and it is a significant falsehood being spread to the public.

The speaker questions why there hasn't been research done to show that natural immunity protects against recurrent infection. They mention that studies have shown that individuals with natural immunity have antibodies, T cells, and B cells that are considered adequate for protection. The speaker also mentions that the CDC has access to patient data. However, the other speaker responds by stating that their current stance is that everyone who has been previously infected should still be vaccinated, without directly addressing the question.

According to the CDC, vaccinated individuals don't carry or get sick from the virus, both in clinical trials and real-world data. However, reports from international colleagues, like Israel, indicate a higher risk of severe disease among those vaccinated early. This evidence raises concerns that the strong protection against severe infection, hospitalization, and death could decrease in the future, particularly for those at higher risk or vaccinated earlier during the rollout phases.

The consensus genome sequence is not significant because the virus evolves from a mutant swarm. The idea that uniform sequences of different variants spread worldwide is preposterous. Mutations occur consistently across the genome, but from person to person, the virus does not move in a parallel direction. Even if two people are married and have lived together for years, their immune systems and responses to the virus will differ due to their genetic backgrounds and previous exposures. Each person's unique history determines their immune response to a new virus.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Hi, it's Robert F. Kennedy Jr. here, your HHS secretary. At HHS, we have a division called the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA. BARDA drives some of our most advanced scientific research. It funds developments of vaccines, drugs, diagnostics, and other tools to fight emerging diseases and national health threats. Over the past few weeks, BARDA reviewed 22 mRNA vaccine development investments and began canceling them. Let me explain why. Most of these shots are for flu or COVID, but as the pandemic showed us, mRNA vaccines don't perform well against viruses that infect the upper respiratory tract. Here's the problem: mRNA only codes for a small part of the viral proteins, usually a single antigen. One mutation and the vaccine becomes ineffective. This dynamic drives a phenomena called antigenic shift, meaning that the vaccine paradoxically encourages new mutations and can actually prolong pandemics as the virus constantly mutates to escape the protective effects of the vaccine. Millions of people, maybe even you or someone you know, caught the omicron variant despite being vaccinated. That's because a single mutation can make mRNA vaccines ineffective. The same risk applies to flu. After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses. That's why after extensive review, BARDA has begun the process of terminating these 22 contracts totaling just under $500,000,000 To replace the troubled mRNA programs, we're prioritizing the development of the safer, broader vaccine strategies, like whole virus vaccines and novel platforms that don't collapse when viruses mutate. Let me be absolutely clear: HHS supports safe, effective vaccines for every American who wants them. That's why we're moving beyond the limitations of mRNA for respiratory viruses and investing in better solutions. Thank you. Produced by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The massive vaccination of the population has likely led to the current situation. The virus has become less virulent, but the vaccine does not provide complete immunity. It protects individuals but does not directly protect the community. However, it indirectly helps protect the community. There is controversy surrounding whether the vaccine prevents transmission, but it is known to prevent individual health issues. It has allowed individuals to develop a functional immune memory that helps prevent severe forms of the disease.

The massive vaccination of the population has likely led to the current situation. The virus has become less virulent, but the vaccine does not provide complete immunity. It protects individuals but does not directly protect the community. However, it indirectly helps protect the community. There is controversy surrounding whether the vaccine prevents transmission, but it is known to prevent individual problems. It has allowed individuals to develop a functional immune memory that helps prevent severe forms of the disease.

The discussion centers on a concerning viral evolution where mutations are no longer restricted to the spike protein. Speaker 0 argues that this indicates enhanced activity of cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) to diminish viral infectiousness, and that CTL activity is responsible for the decline of T cells that in turn boost non-neutralizing antibodies that prevent virulence. Based on this, Speaker 0 has been predicting that the evolution would inevitably lead to the emergence of a highly virulent variant that would cause waves of hospitalization and severe disease, even in highly vaccinated countries. The claim emphasizes that such waves would occur specifically in countries with high vaccination coverage. Speaker 1 seeks clarification, asking if what is coming is essentially “act two” with more people infected and potentially more deaths, and requests a quantifiable estimate. Speaker 0 acknowledges the request but resists providing exact figures, stating it is not due to fear of numbers but because it would be inappropriate to preface the prediction with precise statistics. He describes the anticipated outcome as “something completely, completely unprecedented in terms of the magnitude of the wave of morbidity and and, unfortunately, mortality that we will see.” When pressed again for quantification, Speaker 0 references observed data from highly vaccinated populations, noting that outcomes depend on age, vaccine coverage, and the speed of vaccination. He cautions that he would not be surprised if the situation leads to a “serious decimation of the population” in certain groups, with estimates suggesting potential impacts “in some populations, maybe up to thirty, forty percent.” In summary, the speakers describe a scenario where non-spike mutations suggest enhanced CTL-driven changes in infectiousness and immune response, forecast the emergence of a highly virulent variant capable of causing waves of severe disease even in highly vaccinated countries, and project the possibility of substantial morbidity and mortality in the coming waves, with some populations facing as much as 30–40 percent impact.

- The mRNA vaccines, you know, from COVID don't work against upper respiratory infections. - There are two problems with them. - One is they target a single protein, which drives what what's called an antigenic shift. - If it drives the virus to mutate, and it actually can prolong the pandemic. - And we saw that during COVID, people took shots, mRNA shots for the original COVID variant and immediately, mutated into the Omicron virus to which the vaccine was ineffective, and that's what it does. - And the other issue is, that it the way that distributes in the body, the way that it migrates in the body, there's no control over and no predictability. - So it goes to every organ.

A communication problem arose when it was intimated that vaccines would protect against getting COVID altogether, which wasn't supported by evidence. Vaccines protect against illness in the lower respiratory system, but the virus could still be carried in the upper airway and potentially spread. This led to distrust of mRNA vaccines, as people who got COVID after vaccination questioned the vaccine's effectiveness. Recent data shows that vaccines work well in preventing illness and infection, and make it unlikely that someone would pass the infection to someone else. The concern was that vaccinated people could be unwitting carriers, but recent data suggests this is very unlikely. Vaccinated people not wearing masks are not doing a disservice to their community. Unvaccinated people could be putting other unvaccinated people at risk. Institutions may require proof of vaccination, which will be a tough call.

Dr. Andreas Sönnigsen appears on Klar TV to discuss the Masern (measles) vaccination and the recent ARD/Tagesschau coverage. He presents his professional background: born and raised in Germany, studied medicine in the USA and Munich, practiced as a general internist from 1997 to 2012, and held professorships at Paracelsus University Salzburg, University of Witten/Herdecke, and Medical University of Vienna. He received the David Sackett Award for evidence-based medicine in 2013 and led the German Network for Evidence-Based Medicine from 2019 to 2021. He has authored works on scientific competence in medicine and on the Corona crisis, and has published over 100 international papers. He has long criticized conflicts of interest that he believes lead to an overly positive portrayal of medical interventions, a critique he says intensified during the Corona era, costing him his Vienna professorship and his chair at the German Network for Evidence-Based Medicine. He remains active post-Corona, including critical views on the measles vaccination mandate, including a talk at a press symposium on the Masernschutzgesetz. His conclusion on the question “does vaccination harm?” is that the benefit–risk ratio from the perspective of an individual child is definitively negative. In the Panorama segment from February 26, 2026, Sönnigsen is asked how he became part of a balanced-for-and-against discussion about the measles vaccination mandate. He explains he was contacted by a Norddeutscher Rundfunk journalist seeking balance and agreed to participate to stimulate discourse. He clarifies he is not an anti-vaxxer but a proponent of evidence-based medicine and argues that each vaccination, including the measles vaccine, should be evaluated for pros and cons, study quality, the epidemic situation, justification, effectiveness, and side effects, and that this discourse must be conducted. Sönnigsen contends that the show was not balanced. He discusses the dangers of measles, acknowledging it is not harmless, but argues that in the US, where measles became a notifiable disease in 1912, mortality declined to near zero by the early 1960s, and that the later impact of vaccination showed no further drop in mortality, suggesting in his view that vaccination did not drive the reduction. He asserts that in Germany, comparing mortality from the 1950s/60s to today is inappropriate due to postwar differences in healthcare and hygiene. He claims current German annual measles case numbers are about 330 per year nationwide (over 80 million population), and argues that herd immunity is largely due to people who had natural measles, with about 50% of the population having natural immunity from those born before 1973. He asserts real vaccine effectiveness is 80–85% rather than the commonly cited 98%, citing observational studies and a Cochrane review, and argues the 98% figure is incorrect. He explains that seroconversion rates after vaccination are lower than after natural infection, and that the metric should be real vaccine effectiveness rather than seroconversion rates. Turning to vaccine safety, Sönnigsen counters Panorama’s claim that there are few and minor vaccine adverse events. He states approximately 100–150 severe vaccine adverse events are reported to the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut each year (2001–2012 analysis). He notes that about half of these have a possible or probable causal link to vaccination, and that there is underreporting by roughly a factor of 10–20. He references the Henry Ford study suggesting vaccinated children have a higher risk of chronic illness (about 60% with at least one chronic condition vs. 18% among unvaccinated), arguing vaccines’ adverse effects are not rare. He calculates that with about 1.2 million annual vaccinations and about 1,200 serious adverse events (assuming 5–10% causal and 10–20x underreporting), roughly one in every thousand children could be affected by a vaccine injury, a figure he uses to argue that the individual risk is high relative to the immediate benefit in a German epidemiological context where measles is rare in ordinary times. Sönnigsen insists the measles vaccine’s benefits for an average healthy child in Germany are negative in the current epidemiological situation, argues for a “relative contraindication” to vaccination, and emphasizes that parental autonomy should determine whether to vaccinate. He attributes the push for vaccination mandates to government coercion and argues that mandates could backfire, increasing resistance. He also contends that measles cannot be eradicated globally through a German vaccination mandate, given worldwide reservoirs and migration, and notes that the Masernimpfpflicht (measles mandate) comes from 2019 (Spahn’s Masernschutzgesetz) rather than being a universal solution. The interview closes with the assertion that people should form their own, balanced view, and that the state should not dominate medical decisions.

When someone is naturally immune to COVID-19, they likely have more antibodies against the virus compared to those who received the vaccine. The vaccine only targets a specific part of the virus, whereas natural infection triggers the production of antibodies against multiple parts of the virus. This suggests that natural immunity may provide better protection than the vaccine. It is important to be cautious when discussing this topic publicly, as there is a prevailing belief that the vaccine is safer. Having proof of antibodies can be helpful in certain situations. One person expresses concerns about working for an organization that benefits financially from the pandemic, while another mentions signing non-disclosure agreements.

Every 12 hours, the virus produces a new generation, but statements claiming we can stay ahead of the virus are an insult to science. The immune status of vaccinated individuals is fundamentally different from that of the unvaccinated, as the unvaccinated develop stronger immune systems due to the circulating virus. However, the vaccine cannot prevent the spread of the highly infectious virus, leading to antibody-dependent enhancement of severe disease. Unvaccinated individuals may become a separate subspecies in terms of their health and ability to fight disease. The priority should be preventing children from getting vaccinated, as they have innate immunity that can develop into natural immunity.