TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The talk discusses a 58-page document from Australia's therapeutic goods administration, revealing widespread distribution of lipid nanoparticles from the Pfizer vaccine. The nanoparticles were found in various organs, including the liver, ovaries, and bone marrow. Despite concerns about potential inflammatory reactions, the expression of spike protein was not studied. The document questions why the vaccine was approved without this crucial information. The data was available before vaccine authorization, raising doubts about the decision-making process.

The speaker asks if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. They request a clear yes or no answer and the data to be shared with the committee. The response states that they did not have prior knowledge of stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market and had to rely on scientific research. Another speaker expresses outrage, claiming that people were pressured to get vaccinated based on the false belief that it would protect others.

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to argue that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and claims that the Gene Technology Act does not apply to manufacturing in other countries. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's acknowledgment of transfection as part of gene therapy. The regulator disputes the definition of gene therapy. The conversation ends without resolution.

The government is being questioned for covering vaccine injuries inadequately. Concerns were raised about mRNA vaccines being contaminated with DNA fragments, making them genetically modified organisms. Professor Delglish warns that these vaccines may cause cancer relapses. He calls for a halt on mRNA vaccines and demands full disclosure of data. The speaker urges for transparency and ethical principles in pandemic management. The debate emphasizes the importance of following scientific evidence.

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.

The symposium covers the potential safety and threat of “replicating” vaccines, especially LepriCon (leprecon) vaccines, in the context of Covid-19 vaccines and genome‑editing concepts. The speakers present a chain of claims and concerns, some drawing on reports and others presenting theories about how these next‑generation vaccines could behave in humans and populations. Key points and claims presented - Emerging mechanisms and risks: The panel notes that blood vessel inflammation and thrombosis mechanisms are increasingly observed, including in vaccine contexts, with examples from individuals who needed limb amputation and others who developed severe vascular events after vaccination. One case involved a 70‑year‑old man who, after a third dose, developed embolic events necessitating shoulder joint surgery, and another where a 60‑year‑old man developed acute limb ischemia and died; both are presented as suggesting a serious vascular mechanism linked to vaccination, though causal connections are not established. - Replicating/vector vaccines and their concerns:荒川博士 and others discuss LepiCon vaccines as vaccines that replicate inside the body. The concept involves “replicating viral vectors” where the genome can mutate and evolve during replication. The green‑highlighted segment in a slide (the antigen gene) plus a blue/orange segment (replicating gene cassette) is used to describe how LepriCon vaccines are designed to carry viral genes and replicate, with the assertion that replication, mutation, and recombination can occur, potentially generating new variants inside the host. - Differences from conventional vaccines: The discussion contrasts LepriCon vaccines with standard mRNA vaccines. In conventional mRNA vaccines, messenger RNA is delivered and translated into antigen proteins, then degraded; in LepriCon vaccines, replicating RNA/DNA can persist and continue producing antigen, with mutation and recombination possible. The panel emphasizes that LepriCon vaccines use replicating/copying mechanisms and that the genetic material can be copied in ways that differ from natural human biology, potentially creating unpredictable variants. - Central dogma and exceptions: The speakers reference the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) but note exceptions in viruses, including RNA viruses that can reverse‑transcribe to DNA (retroviruses) and RNA viruses that replicate RNA directly. They discuss how LepriCon vaccines would rely on replicative processes that do not follow the usual linear flow and why this could complicate predictions about safety and behavior in humans. - Potential for unintended spread and environmental impact: A major concern raised is that self‑replicating vectors could spread beyond the vaccinated individual, via exosomes or other intercellular transport, creating secondary infections or non‑target spread. Exosomes could ferry replicating genetic material, raising fears of new infection chains or “outbreaks” stemming from the vaccine itself, and even suggesting the possibility of vaccination‑induced spread akin to an attenuated or modified pathogen. - Safety signals and immunology concerns: The discussion touches on immune system risks, including immune dysregulation, autoimmune phenomena, and unexpected inflammatory responses. IGG4‑related disease is highlighted as a potential adverse outcome post‑vaccination, with descriptions of glandular and systemic involvement and the idea that high IGG4 levels could have immunosuppressive effects that alter responses to infection or vaccination. The panel notes observed increases in certain immunoglobulin subclasses after multiple LepriCon doses and discusses the possibility of immune tolerance or enhanced immune responses that could be harmful. - Historical and theoretical context: References are made to past epidemics and speculative pandemics caused by misused or dangerous vaccine platforms, drawing on central molecular biology concepts and historical anecdotes about how vaccines can be designed and misused. The discussion frames LepriCon vaccines as a high‑risk platform that could, in theory, generate recombinants, escape mutations, or cause unintended immune and inflammatory consequences. - Clinical and regulatory implications: The speakers call for caution, arguing that more evidence is needed before approving or widespread use of LepriCon vaccines. They emphasize the need for long‑term observation and transparent communication about risks, and criticize the potential for insufficient understanding among healthcare workers and the public. They also urge that any future vaccine development should consider the possibility of genome editing, recombination, and exosome‑mediated spread, and stress the importance of not underestimating possible adverse effects. - Real‑world observations and skepticism about hype: Several speakers underscore that the danger is not merely hypothetical; there are reports of adverse events, including stroke‑like conditions, inflammatory diseases, and immune dysregulation in vaccinated individuals. They stress that the evolution and mutation of replicating vaccines could outpace current surveillance methods, and that “information manipulation” or lack of transparent reporting could mislead the public about risks. - Final reflections and call to action: The concluding messages advocate recognizing the potential failures of messenger RNA vaccines and acknowledging that both conventional and replicating platforms may carry risks. The speakers urge ongoing critical analysis, cautious progression, and robust verification of claims through transparent, independent investigation. They close with thanks to the organizers and a hope that the discussion may contribute to broader public awareness and informed decision‑making. Notable emphasis and unique considerations - The core concern centers on LepriCon vaccines’ replication, mutation, and potential to spread beyond the vaccinated person; exosome transport and genomic/cellular integration are highlighted as mechanisms that could generate new risks not present with non‑replicating vaccines. - The discussion stresses that IGG4 responses could become alarmingly high after certain doses, potentially leading to immunosuppressive effects or autoimmune phenomena, and presents IGG4‑related disease as a potential complication to monitor. - The speakers insist that safety and transparency are paramount, and that misinformation or optimistic narratives about rapid vaccine development could lead to harm if new platforms are adopted without comprehensive evaluation. Overall, the symposium foregrounds cautious scrutiny of replicating vaccine platforms, frames potential biological and regulatory risks, and calls for careful, evidence‑based assessment before broader deployment.

The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's report to argue that mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy. They question why the mRNA vaccine was not tested for genotoxicity and why the Office of Gene Technology Regulator did not consider it as gene technology. The regulator responds that the question of genotoxicity should be directed to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and explains that since the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia and not manufactured there, they are not responsible for checking gene therapy. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's statement about transfection being a part of gene therapy. The regulator suggests a difference in the definition of gene therapy.

Speaker 0 asks: "Do you think there's evidence that the changes to people to their genetic structure wrought by these vaccines could be passed on to their children?" Speaker 1 responds: "The McCullough Foundation, of which I am the vice president, we just published a person who had cancer of the bladder, which is a very severe cancer, in that tumor, so in the bladder cells that had become dysplastic, that messenger RNA was found in the cancerous cells of this tumor. So it seems to be integrating. Now the question is, is it integrating in a way that is can be passed on to the offspring, or is it so dysfunctional that it's killing the host before it can be passed on? And and I don't know that we yet know that, but remember, the science is the topography of ignorance. I mean, there's a lot about this that is is very, very concerning. There's also a study that this messenger RNA seems to have transcribed into liver cells."

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to support the claim that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and manufacturing processes conducted in other countries. The speaker highlights the contradiction in the regulator's statements and the disagreement with Pfizer's definition of gene therapy. The regulator argues that the definition of gene therapy is subjective. The conversation ends without a resolution.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines contain fragments of DNA, which can integrate into the genomic DNA of cells and become a permanent part of the cell. This poses a potential risk of autoimmune attacks and future cancer. The DNA contamination occurred during the production process, where a plasmid vector was used to scale up the production of the RNA template. The regulatory threshold for DNA in vaccines is outdated and not suitable for this new type of vaccine. The speaker believes that DNA sequencing should be done on vaccinated individuals' stem cells to determine if this theoretical risk has occurred. Informed consent is necessary, and the lack of transparency regarding the DNA contamination is concerning.

Pfizer was asked if they tested whether their COVID-19 vaccine could reduce or stop the transmission of the virus before its approval. The Pfizer representative stated that the primary purpose of the vaccine was to protect the person who received it and prevent illness, severe disease, and hospitalizations. The senator then referred to a statement made by Pfizer's CEO on December 3, 2020, where he mentioned uncertainty about the vaccine's ability to reduce transmission. The Pfizer representative reiterated that their clinical programs were designed to demonstrate the vaccine's safety and effectiveness in preventing infections. Due to time constraints, the senator moved on without a definitive answer.

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to argue that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and claims that since the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia, they were not manufactured there. The speaker disagrees, stating that transfection still occurs in Australian citizens. The regulator disagrees with the definition of gene therapy and the reliance on the manufacturer's statements. The conversation ends without a resolution.

Pfizer's own document, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA all acknowledge that mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy. The speaker questions why the mRNA vaccine wasn't tested for genotoxicity and why the Office of Genetic Therapeutics didn't consider it as gene technology. The response states that the TGA is responsible for approving the vaccine and the question of genotoxicity should be directed to them. It is clarified that the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia and not manufactured there. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's admission that transfection is part of gene therapy. The response disagrees with the speaker's interpretation.

There are humanized mice and chimeras exist, and they don't differentiate a genome to them as a genome. It cites a US Supreme Court decision, described as 'good law,' with the legislature able to change it. The holding: 'It is also possible to create DNA synthetically through the process similarly well known in the field of genetics. One such method begins with an mRNA molecule and uses the natural bonding properties of nucleotides to create a new synthetic DNA molecule.' It continues: 'you can't, in the world of intellectual property, you cannot patent something that already exists in nature. If you change that, however, into something synthetic, that new genome is in fact patentable.' The case holds that 'If you use messenger RNA to create a synthetic genome, that new genome is your intellectual property rights.' The conversation ties this to vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna) and asks how to separate the synthetic genome from DNA, noting the shots 'go throughout your entire body' and 'go everywhere.'

Pfizer's own website acknowledges that gene therapies involve a complex process, including transfection. The American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy defines the COVID mRNA vaccine as a gene therapy that introduces new genetic material temporarily. The TGA's non-clinical report confirms the use of DNA in Pfizer's manufacturing process. The senator questions why the mRNA vaccine wasn't tested for genotoxicity and why the Office of Gene Technology didn't review it as a gene technology. The Gene Technology Regulator states that the TGA is responsible for approving vaccine products and addressing genotoxicity concerns. They clarify that the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia, and if manufacturing and gene technology were involved, approval would have been required. The Regulator disagrees with the claim that transfection occurs in Australian citizens. The Office of Gene Technology's role is limited to assessing containment and environmental risks.

The Office of Gene Technology Regulator is questioned about gene therapies and the mRNA vaccines. The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's non-clinical report to support the claim that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The regulator deflects responsibility for testing genotoxicity and manufacturing processes conducted in other countries. The speaker highlights the contradiction in the regulator's statements and emphasizes that transfection, a part of gene therapy, occurs in Australian citizens. The regulator disagrees and questions the definition of gene therapy. The speaker concludes by relying on the manufacturer's statements.

Speaker 0: We need to investigate irregularities in their menstrual cycle, that’s number one, because that’s a little concerning and the reaction shouldn’t be interfering with that. Speaker 1: You’re a urologist, you must understand what’s going on with it. Speaker 0: It’s weird. I hope we don’t find out that there’s somehow this mRNA losing the body, because it has to be impacting something hormonal. It can impact menstrual cycles. The entire next generation is, like, super fucked up. Speaker 1: So tell me more, what’s developing with the mutation process? Speaker 0: They’re still conducting experiments, they’re optimizing it slowly, they’re very cautious and don’t want to accelerate too much. They’re doing it as exploratory work so you don’t advertise future mutations. Speaker 1: How would the research study be delayed for COVID stuff? Speaker 0: Now we’re focusing on mRNA beyond COVID. Our forward-looking studies must stay on track. Speaker 1: What is RNA going to be used for in the future? Speaker 0: Lots of stuff. Not just for viruses—we’re applying it to oncology, gene editing, and more. The portfolio has moved beyond COVID. There’s a dedicated COVID environment team; the company is asking where they’ll use this technology in the future for investors. Speaker 1: Is Pfizer going to be held liable for vaccine injuries? Speaker 0: I don’t think so. Usually drugs have known side effects. There have been reports like Clozapine being illegal, and Biox with heart issues—though that wasn’t for us, it was another company. They told me to monitor over time. So far, nothing major; we’ll see if anything arises. Speaker 1: Hope nobody grows three legs or the entire next generation is fucked up. Right? Speaker 0: Yeah. Or that their menstrual cycles are investigated down the line because that’s concerning. If you think about the science, it shouldn’t interact with the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, which links hormones and menstrual cycles. It shouldn’t interfere—yet something might be happening. Speaker 1: The HPG axis. Speaker 0: It goes hypothalamus, pituitary, gonads—signal shingles. The HPG axis is tied to fertility problems. Speaker 1: They decide to pack these hormones somehow. But the signaling into the brain is tricky, and the vaccine doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier. Speaker 0: If it does come down the line and something bad happens, there’d be substantial criticism given the social pressure and professional consequences. If downstream issues are really serious, the scale would be significant.

In April 2022, the OGTR stated their role in assessing the risk of gene technology. In February 2023, Senator Renick asked if they had received any requests for advice on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. The OGTR responded that they had not because mRNA vaccines were not regulated as they did not involve genetic modification. However, in October 2023, Senator Renick quoted information from Pfizer's website, stating that gene therapies involve introducing new genetic material, which the mRNA vaccines do. The American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy also classified mRNA vaccines as gene therapy. The TGA's documents confirmed the use of DNA in the manufacturing process. This contradiction suggests that the mRNA vaccines are gene technology and are being transported and administered without proper licensing, posing a significant problem.

"Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasma DNA. It's not just mRNA." "This DNA is the DNA vector that was used as the template for the in vitro transcription reaction when they made the mRNA." "I sequenced it in my own lab." "The vials of Pfizer vaccine that were given out here in Colombia, one of my colleagues was in charge of that vaccination program in the College of Pharmacy." "And for reasons that I still don't understand, he kept every single vial." "So he had a whole freezer full of the empty vials." "And I checked these two batches, and I checked them by sequencing." "It's surprising that there's any DNA in there." "This DNA, in my view, it could be causing some of the rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest."

The speaker presents evidence from Pfizer's website, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA's report to argue that mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy. They question why the mRNA vaccine was not tested for genotoxicity and why the Office of Gene Technology Regulator did not consider it as gene technology. The regulator responds that the TGA is responsible for approving vaccine products and addressing genotoxicity concerns. They explain that since the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia and not manufactured there, the Gene Technology Act does not apply. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's statement about transfection being a part of gene therapy. The regulator suggests a difference in the definition of gene therapy.

The speaker emphasizes that the term "vaccine" is not accurate for what they are discussing. They refer to it as a genetic therapy that modifies cells to produce a specific protein. The use of the term "chemical therapy" is controversial, and even renowned scientist Disar Raoult has stated that it is not considered a therapy. The speaker mentions a manufacturer of vaccines who admitted that they considered it a form of therapy.

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.

The Pfizer vaccine may contain DNA in addition to mRNA, according to a researcher who sequenced the vaccine in their lab. The DNA is a vector used in the production of the mRNA. The researcher expressed concern about the potential consequences of this, including rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest. The DNA could integrate into the genomic DNA of cells and become a permanent part of them, posing a risk of genome modification and autoimmune attacks. There is also a theoretical risk of future cancer depending on where the foreign DNA lands in the genome. The researcher believes further investigation is needed to determine if these risks are occurring.

The Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasma DNA, not just mRNA. This DNA is the DNA vector used as the template for the in vitro transcription reaction. This was discovered by sequencing vials of Pfizer vaccine from Colombia. It's surprising that there's any DNA in there. The speaker is alarmed about the possible consequences of this, including rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest. Mixing DNA with a lipid complex allows it to enter cells and become a permanent fixture. This is a real hazard for genome modification of long-lived somatic cells, like stem cells, and could cause a sustained autoimmune attack. There is also a very real theoretical risk of future cancer in some people. The risk is not zero and it may be high enough that we ought to figure out if this is happening or not.

Pfizer representatives appeared before the Senate Committee to address questions about their COVID-19 vaccine. The committee asked if Pfizer tested whether the vaccine could reduce virus transmission before its approval. Pfizer stated that their clinical trials focused on demonstrating the vaccine's safety and effectiveness in preventing illness, severe disease, and hospitalizations. The committee also questioned Pfizer's statements regarding the vaccine's ability to stop transmission. Pfizer representatives were unable to provide specific evidence for these claims and agreed to provide further information to the committee. The committee expressed concern about the discrepancy between Pfizer's statements and requested clarification on any updated statements from Pfizer officials.