TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The FDA, NIH, and CDC recommended vaccinating pregnant women at any time, leading to a rise in maternal mortality. A recent paper showed a concerning increase in maternal deaths in the US, erasing decades of progress in obstetrics. Pregnant women are dying with no mention of COVID or vaccines in the report. This alarming trend should be a cause for concern for everyone.

Luna, a transgender nationally registered advanced EMT in New Mexico, estimates they have responded to 1,500 calls and treated too many transgender people to count. A second speaker poses a hypothetical scenario: if a biological male with a penis experiencing a medical emergency claimed to be having a miscarriage, would the EMT check for a miscarriage or consider it a possibility? The speaker's answer is no.

The speaker discusses concerns about late-term abortions and the alleged practice of keeping babies alive after birth to harvest their organs. They mention the governor of Virginia's comments, but the speaker claims they didn't see it. They suggest that these babies are kept alive for a short period, and their organs are registered and sold for profit. The speaker also mentions that California has passed a law related to this issue, and Virginia, New York, and three other states are trying to pass similar laws.

Abortion is seen as a choice and a right, but it is also considered a tragedy. The focus should be on making it rare and safe, and finding common ground to limit the number of abortions.

The speaker discusses the position of Trump and his running mate on abortion. They state that Trump and his running mate say they believe in exceptions to abortion bans to save the mother's life. The speaker then says, "Let's break that down."

During the Republican debate, the speaker tweeted about the misleading claim that Democrats support abortion up until birth. They provided statistics showing that abortions past the point of fetal viability are rare, with over 80% happening before 10 weeks of pregnancy and less than 1% happening after 21 weeks. Personal stories from women seeking late-term abortions highlight the difficult decisions they face due to catastrophic fetal abnormalities or risks to their own lives. The speaker emphasized that no one is advocating for late-term abortions or running on a platform of aborting viable babies. They argued that these claims are an attempt to change the parameters of the debate on women's healthcare. Democrats aim to protect a woman's right to make these decisions with her doctor.

- The speaker notes dated 07/25/2022, reporting on developments related to baby deaths and baby funerals. They reference the UK government website, and specifically Northampton NHS in detail mentioning children's funerals, noting that contracts for this area have appeared that were previously unseen. They point to contractfinderservice.gov.uk and advise looking for “children's and babies' funerals.” They identify several awarded contracts, including one for Hertfordshire, another for Hertfordshire specifically for baby funerals, and contracts awarded for Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS, and Leicester Hospitals NHS. - The speaker mentions that the WNHS is another organization involved for those who do not want to have Mexican arranged funerals, stating that they will do that for you now. - A doctor in Australia, Dr. Luke McClinton, is described as leading the fertility services at the Mater Hospital and as a principal investigator for a series of randomized controlled trials. He is also described as the president of the Australian Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine and is labeled as “the top doctor in Australia in this field.” - The speaker asserts that Dr. Luke McClinton was sacked on Friday for not getting the jab and for attempting to release his data on miscarriages post-vaccination. They state that he has until the following Friday to exit his private practice rooms, as he is no longer allowed to practice in public or private settings. - The speaker claims that Dr. McClinton has been investigating miscarriages in couples post-vaccination and states that the “normal miscarriage rate” is between five and perhaps as high as sixteen percent. They then claim that since the introduction of the vaccine, he has found that seventy-four percent of women who are vaccinated are now having miscarriages. - The speaker reiterates the statistic: “Seventy four percent of women are having miscarriages who are vaccinated.” They suggest that this statistic would explain why hospitals allegedly want to deal directly with crematoria, with vans taking multiple babies directly to the crematorium, bypassing funeral directors. The speaker emphasizes that they had previously mentioned these points.

President Trump has stated he will veto a national abortion ban, viewing it as a state's rights issue. The speaker believes that if a baby can survive outside the womb, abortion is not permissible; it constitutes murder at that stage of gestation. The speaker claims the education system has instilled terror in girls and women, pushing the idea that pregnancy is the end of their lives and careers. This fear leads them to believe they must have access to abortion, even in extreme circumstances, and they will vote against any candidate who might restrict it. The speaker asserts that having children brings more joy than anything else and that it is natural to love one's children.

They talk about reproductive rights and health care freedom, but where was that freedom during COVID? They didn't support bodily autonomy regarding the vaccine, firing health care workers and military members for non-compliance. They also don't support free speech or expression, evident in Title IX's compelled speech, where the government defines hate speech and misinformation. There's a lack of belief in school choice, parental rights, or child protection. Their notion of freedom seems limited to allowing abortion or gender transition procedures for minors.

Abortion was legalized in this country, and crime rates subsequently dropped by 40%. The speaker questions whether abortion is responsible for the decrease in crime. They mention that statistics show that women, particularly black women, have the highest abortion rates. However, the speaker criticizes the idea of targeting black individuals for termination, calling it racist.

The speaker claims that women who received the vaccine in the first trimester had an 82% miscarriage rate. They state that this is the same miscarriage rate observed in the Pfizer 5.3.6 post-market analysis.

According to Dr. Susan Bain, a board-certified OBGYN, a ProPublica article reports that abortion bans have delayed emergency medical care, leading to a preventable death in Georgia. Dr. Bain believes the woman's death was due to medical negligence, as a DNC procedure should have been performed promptly based on her symptoms and timeline. She states DNC procedures are legal in all 50 states. Dr. Bain criticizes inaccurate reporting that scares women from seeking necessary care and urges journalists to report accurately. She also calls on doctors to fulfill their duties and prevent medical negligence.

The speaker discusses a New England Journal of Medicine study from April 21, 2021, and an accompanying op-ed by Eric Rubin, Stephen Morrissey, and Rochelle Walensky, alleging they made false and fear-mongering statements about the risks to pregnant women, unborn children, and newborns if they didn't get vaccinated. This was allegedly done despite evidence suggesting pregnancy reduced maternal mortality and data showing the COVID-19 vaccine was the deadliest and most injurious vaccine ever released. The speaker claims the study, authored by 21 federal employees including Tom Shimabukuro, was biased. Out of 827 pregnant women in the study, they highlight a claimed miscarriage rate of 12.6%, which they argue is abnormally high compared to the normal rate of 3% at a normal booking visit. They allege that 700 of the women received the vaccine in their third trimester, but were artificially placed in the first trimester data. This allegedly skewed the miscarriage rate for women vaccinated in the first trimester to 82%, which is the same miscarriage rate seen in the Pfizer post-market data.

Speaker 0 explains that even the obstetrics and gynecology association has reportedly pushed to vaccinate pregnant women as a duty, but doctors are the ones who do not know the facts. They reference a highly regarded medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, which published a study claiming a 12.6 percent user rate for the vaccine’s research results. Based on that paper, the 三 富 士 川 学 会 then attempted to vaccinate pregnant women. In reality, among the 827 individuals involved, 700 were in the postpartum period, 127 were in the antepartum period, and initial data were from that group. Specifically, for the group limited to those under twenty weeks (twenty weeks or less), which is 127 people, the miscarriage rate was 82 percent. Therefore, the argument is that, going forward, one can see how dangerous the vaccine is from those numbers. The speaker contends that data were hidden and later mixed into the 700-person postpartum group, yielding a miscarriage rate of 12.6 percent. Because of this, the claim is that even a leading medical journal has been influenced by money to publish such conclusions. Overall, the points presented are: - The obstetrics field is described as advocating vaccination of pregnant women as a duty, while physicians allegedly lack awareness of the underlying facts. - The NEJM published a study deemed to show a 12.6 percent user rate, which the speaker implies is problematic. - The 三 富 士 川 学 会 vaccinated pregnant women, but the data show that among 127 women under twenty weeks, the miscarriage rate was 82 percent. - The speaker asserts that this information was hidden and later combined with data from the 700 postpartum cases to produce a 12.6 percent miscarriage rate. - The implication is that even a top medical journal can be swayed by financial influence, resulting in biased reporting.

The speaker asserts the "golden rule of pregnancy" is to never use unproven drugs or vaccines, a rule they claim was broken during COVID. They allege that Pfizer's post-marketing analysis of approximately 29 pregnant mothers showed a 97% pregnancy loss. They claim real-world data from hospital systems indicates a 50% to 67% pregnancy loss rate when women are vaccinated during pregnancy, leading to obscene stillbirth numbers and early pregnancy losses. The speaker attributes these losses to the toxic spike protein from vaccines crossing the placenta and harming the fetus. They state that vaccinating pregnant women was a mistake based on lies and that it is now known to be unsafe, especially for mothers and their children.

Are there any states where women face prosecution for having an abortion? No. Are there states that criminalize miscarriage or the care for it? No. Are there states that criminalize removing an ectopic pregnancy? No. Are there states that prohibit life-saving care for the mother? No. Women do not need to be actively dying for doctors to provide care. There’s a lot of rhetoric that may deter women from accessing healthcare. Recently, Vice President Harris claimed women are being arrested for miscarriages. However, there are no known instances of women being arrested for miscarriages or related healthcare. Misleading examples can scare women away from seeking necessary treatment.

If Donald Trump is re-elected, he will go further, and it is important to remind everyone of the high stakes. The speaker is certain that Trump would sign a national abortion ban, outlawing abortion everywhere. This would also force states to report on women's miscarriages and abortions. The speaker expresses disbelief that Project 2025, which contains these plans, was put in writing and distributed.

The White House blames a few bad actors for spreading online misinformation. The CDC states that vaccinated people don't carry the virus or get sick. They also say there are no safety concerns for pregnant or lactating individuals and their babies. However, a new paper using government data found a 1,200-fold increase in menstrual abnormalities after COVID-19 vaccination. Despite this, the CDC claims there are very few safety concerns. There was also a 57-fold increase in another outcome.

The speaker claims the pertussis vaccine, recommended for pregnant women and family members to protect newborns, does not prevent infection or transmission. They state the pertussis vaccine is combined with tetanus and diphtheria, and now pregnant women are also urged to get the COVID and RSV vaccines, and sometimes hepatitis B, bringing the total to seven. The speaker asserts that none of these vaccines have been tested for safety on pregnant women and their fetuses.

The speaker discusses concerns about late-term abortions and the alleged practice of keeping babies alive after birth to harvest their organs. They mention the governor of Virginia's comments, but the speaker claims they didn't see it. They suggest that these babies are kept alive for a short period, and their organs are registered for bidding, potentially making large sums of money. The speaker also mentions that California has passed a law related to this, and Virginia, New York, and three other states are trying to pass similar legislation.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

Experts, including the speaker, believe that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe for pregnant women based on extensive research. The vaccines have been proven safe and effective in the general population, without affecting fertility rates. They also provide protection against COVID-19 for pregnant women. The speaker, if pregnant, would definitely get vaccinated as the risks of the vaccine are much lower than the risks of the disease itself. Even children are eager to get vaccinated to regain their normal lives. However, another speaker raises concerns about fetal and chromosomal malformations, premature births, and respiratory issues after mRNA injections. They accuse pharmaceutical companies of hiding information about the deaths of two babies due to transplacental exposure to the vaccine. They call for attorney generals to investigate these claims. The Moderna documents are said to contain similar shocking information.

The speaker says that even for obstetrics and gynecology societies, vaccination during pregnancy has been pursued as a duty, but physicians do not know the actual facts. They reference the New England Journal of Medicine, a famous medical journal, where a study of a vaccine’s adverse outcomes claimed that the user rate was 12.6%. Based on that paper, the Sanpeshikawa (Sanbushikawa) Association reportedly promoted vaccination for pregnant women as well. In reality, the data were as follows: of 827 people, 700 were in late pregnancy, and 127 were in the early stages (first trimester). When restricting to the 127 people who were under 20 weeks, the usage rate was 82%. Therefore, the speaker argues that this data reveals how dangerous the vaccine is, and that the data were hidden and mixed with high-profile 700-person data to produce the 12.6% miscarriage rate that was published. This is presented as evidence of a situation where even in medical journals, information was handled to favor the other side due to money and other influences.

President Trump did not lie when he said Democrats are pushing abortions to the 9th month. Virginia Democrat lawmaker Kathy Tran has a bill that would remove statutes.

Senator and Dr. Verma engage in a contentious exchange about biology, pregnancy, and how science should guide medicine. The Senator presses: “Can men get pregnant?” He frames the question as a straightforward biological reality and argues that science and evidence should control, not politics. He emphasizes that there are biological men and biological women, and that women get pregnant. He notes that the abortion drug has safety concerns, stating that it “causes adverse health events in eleven percent of cases” and that this is “twenty two times greater than the FDA label,” asserting that this basic reality has not been acknowledged. Dr. Verma responds by describing his clinical practice, saying he cares for patients with different identities and for many women, including people who do not identify as women. He pauses when asked the binary question, explaining that he is unsure of the goal of the question and emphasizing the complexity of identity and medicine. He reframes the issue by saying that science and evidence should guide medicine, but he avoids giving a yes-or-no answer to the question of whether “biological men” can get pregnant. He characterizes such yes/no questions as political tools and stresses the need to address the experiences of patients rather than polarize the discussion. The Senator insists on a direct yes/no response, reiterating that the question is about biology and the truth, and that men are not pregnant. He argues that failing to acknowledge this undermines trust in science and could have constitutional implications for protections of women. Dr. Verma maintains that he is a physician who follows science and aims to represent the complex experiences of patients, and he again cautions against polarized framing. He expresses willingness to have a conversation that avoids polarization and politics. The exchange moves from the specific biology question to broader themes: the role of science in medicine, the intersection of gender identity with medical care, and the communication of medical facts in a political context. The Senator closes by emphasizing the distinction between biological reality and political narratives, reiterating that women get pregnant and highlighting safety concerns about abortion drugs. He thanks the witnesses and the chairman for the hearing, noting a focus on protecting women and following science, while indicating disappointment at the level of debate.