TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Liberals are proposing a law where a minister can ban me from the Internet, my Internet service provider ban me from the Internet, and neither of us be able to say anything about it. Matt Strauss, who's a doctor and a physician and also a member of parliament, said that you need to be concerned about bill c eight. It allows Melanie Jolley to kick anyone off the Internet with no trial and no warrant. Worse off, you won't be able to say that you've even been kicked off. And this is the Emergencies Measures Act on steroids, only permanent and secret? "Watch this. Ministers order if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunication system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, degradation, the minister may by order and after consultation with the minister of public safety, prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to any specified person, including telecommunications service provider." "The order may also include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence or some or all of its contents by any person." "This is crazy." "The minister may require any person to provide to the minister or any person designated by the minister, meaning she's able to designate whoever the heck she wants, within any time and any subject to any conditions that the minister may specify." "Any information that the minister believes on reasonable grounds is relevant for the purpose of making, amending, or revoking an order under section 15." "This is insane." "This is a minister that will have the sole power to kick you off the Internet at their will, then ban you or anyone else from being able to speak on this." "If the conservatives did this, there would be an uproar all over the media, all over the world." "They would call them a dictatorship. They would call them communist. They would say this is Nazi like." "But the liberals are doing this, and now everyone's quiet." "Come people have to speak up." "I promise you, if this bill goes through, it's gonna be ugly for everyone." "And if I get kicked off, I'm going to break that ban." "I will talk about it. I will let the world know that a totalitarian state, a communist state of the Liberal Party is trying to silence its people at its discretion, not the police, but the government." "Ridiculous."

The New Zealand government is enshrining medical mandates into law through a new gene technology bill, which allows emergency authorizations for gene-based treatments without public discussion. This raises serious concerns about patient autonomy and informed consent, violating ethical standards like the Nuremberg Code. The bill could lead to the normalization of unethical practices in medicine, particularly regarding gene editing technologies like mRNA and CRISPR. Experts warn that these technologies can cause significant harm, with a history of adverse outcomes from COVID injections. The discussion emphasizes the importance of local activism to counter these developments and restore trust in the medical system, advocating for community engagement and accountability.

Republicans on the floor criticized AB 2098 for violating doctors' free speech rights. Despite warnings, the majority party and the governor passed the speech restriction law. Governor Newsom admitted that he would have approached the pandemic differently. They hope he signs the bill to overturn the unconstitutional ban on free speech. Free speech means tolerating those who disagree because they are often historically right. They ask for an aye vote on the bill. No further discussion or debate occurs. Senator Rockey is unsure how to respond but encourages voting based on conscience. The secretary is asked to call the roll.

There are amendments being considered for the Pfizer bill, including one that would require a warrant for every query of lawfully selected data. While I cannot predict the president's decision on a potential veto, we believe that this warrant requirement does not align with U.S. national security interests. I will be discussing this with several members today, emphasizing that the proposed warrant requirement could compromise the protection of Americans' personal privacy. We support other elements of the bill aimed at reforming Pfizer to safeguard civil liberties, but we feel that imposing a warrant requirement would undermine the bill's purpose and potentially endanger victims.

The speaker raises concerns about a bill and the governor's office being connected to a vendor. They question why certain information wasn't released earlier and express curiosity about the lack of a fiscal note. They mention that cybersecurity experts and voters are against the bill for various reasons. Speaker 1 highlights instances of hacking and anomalies in previous elections, emphasizing the lack of paper trail and source code access. They also mention the encryption of timestamps, which could compromise the secrecy of votes. The speaker concludes by mentioning a recent flaw discovered in the machines.

There is concern over the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario suggesting psychiatric medication for unvaccinated individuals. This recommendation is seen as unethical and a dangerous path to labeling those who choose not to get vaccinated as mentally ill. This slippery slope is alarming. The speaker is thanked for their courage and support from the people of Canada.

Some professionals, like family doctors, may be negatively impacted by the new capital gains tax inclusion if they rely on corporate investments for retirement. Efforts are being made to recognize foreign credentials to address healthcare labor shortages. However, existing doctors who heavily rely on capital gains for retirement may feel the new tax changes are punitive. The goal is to bridge the medical coverage gap and create a fair Canada for all generations.

Members of parliament are seen celebrating and cheering after passing a super liberal progressive bill. Despite concerns about its impact on free speech and normal conversations, they appear ecstatic and united. The official opposition's role is to oppose bills, but this time they chose to support it, possibly due to Aaron O'Toole's demand or a lack of will to fight. The celebratory atmosphere and self-congratulations are not what people expect from their government or conservatives.

In this video, the speakers discuss the challenges faced by doctors who speak out against mainstream narratives. They explain that in order to speak freely, doctors often have to give up their medical licenses, which discredits them in the eyes of the media. The speakers argue that having a license does not determine one's knowledge or experience in the field. They also discuss how the regulatory bodies that control doctors' licenses, such as the colleges of physicians and surgeons, can easily be compromised. The speakers highlight the corruption within these bodies, which are run by lawyers and powerful families. They mention that in British Columbia, the government has amended the Health Professions Act to have more control over doctors and enforce mandatory vaccinations.

An independent third party determined outcomes were 24% better than the peer group. There was a discussion about whether or not one can videotape the public. Doctors were not blocked from prescribing Inventon or any medical treatment they found best for the patient.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

Epic, a healthcare software giant, will allow patient voter registration through its MyChart app, in conjunction with Biden, Harris, and Vote ER, an activist group headed by a former Kamala Harris advisor. Dr. Kat Lindley raises concerns that the application interfaces with patient healthcare information and could track voter choices. Lindley claims Vote ER has a script for undocumented patients on how to register to vote. She cites an anonymous physician who admitted to misdiagnosing and mistreating conservative patients, arguing that a patient's political status is irrelevant to medical care. Lindley expresses concern that patients lacking mental capacity could be manipulated into registering to vote, referencing a Pennsylvania psychiatric hospital exposed for registering patients. She suggests that activist physicians might exploit vulnerable individuals in psychiatric hospitals, oncology centers, substance abuse centers, and emergency rooms for political purposes.

The Canadian Liberal party is promoting Bill C293 to protect citizens. To keep people safe, the bill avoids defining "pandemic" or "emergency." While admitting past surveillance issues where 33,000,000 Canadians were secretly tracked, the party claims they will improve. Decision-making will be ceded to the WHO due to international border concerns. Businesses can be closed and used as shelters. Food production can be slowed or stopped due to health risks associated with agriculture. The bill allows for freezing and redirecting assets, and nationalizing industries. Private property and land can be expropriated for pandemic-related causes. The promise is that people will own nothing, but be happy, safe, and healthy.

How many Canadians lack a family doctor? The latest CIHI report estimates about 5.4 million adults. Is this number increasing or decreasing? Access to primary care is improving across most provinces and territories. The discussion shifts to the relevance of the questions being asked, with some members expressing frustration over the focus on family doctors instead of the bill regarding natural health products. Questions arise about the number of seniors hospitalized due to pharmaceuticals, with one member stating that 13,000 Canadians are harmed annually. The minister emphasizes the importance of discussing the bill at hand and defends the natural health product industry, stating it is a booming sector. Concerns are raised about businesses potentially shutting down due to regulatory impacts, but the minister claims compliance costs are zero for compliant businesses.

An independent third party determined outcomes were 24% better than the peer group. There was a discussion about whether or not one could videotape in a public space. Doctors were not blocked from prescribing Inventon or any medical treatment they found best for the patient.

In 2019, Bill C39 removed the crime of spreading false news from the Canadian Criminal Code. This change was discovered when comparing the 1954 and 2020 versions of the code. It raises questions about trusting the government, which is accused of stealing money, restricting effective treatments, and not properly investigating promoted vaccines. The parliament, elected to protect citizens, has granted mainstream media outlets like CDC and CTV the freedom to lie without consequences.

Colleges are accused of destroying medical ethics and the patient-doctor relationship. Danielle Smith, running for Premier of Alberta, spoke up for the unvaccinated, calling them persecuted. She suggested dissolving the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta for change. Elect politicians willing to make major changes, not just tinker with healthcare. Support doctors who upheld the Hippocratic oath during the pandemic, as the healthcare system may collapse.

Danielle Smith's new gender and pronoun policy is causing controversy. The Alberta Medical Association released an open letter stating that the decision to seek gender affirming care should be between a person and their doctor. They also mentioned that puberty blocking agents are not irreversible and have benefits. The surgeries targeted by the program were not happening, as bottom surgery is not available in Canada for patients under 18. Concerns were raised about creating a private registry of physicians providing gender affirming care as it is seen as a surveillance measure. The government did not consult with a child and youth advocate, and other medical associations have also opposed the program. The Alberta government sent out a poll asking whether parental consent should be required for abortions for those under 18, which is seen as an attempt to strip rights from young people. This puts trans kids at risk for political gain.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss what they call the TikTok ban bill, claiming it does more than just ban TikTok. They assert that foreign adversaries can change definitions at any time, listing a few already, but saying these definitions can change, enabling broader control. They warn that a group could be labeled as foreign adversaries, including doctors, by loosely defined terms. They claim the bill covers hardware technology such as modems, routers, home cameras, and virtual tech like VPNs, and bans them if they are manufactured by or used to contact and deal with foreign adversaries. They explain that a VPN is a virtual private network that allows users to search on Google while revealing data about them, and that using VPNs to bypass banned apps like TikTok becomes a criminal act under the bill, with penalties of a minimum imprisonment of twenty years and a minimum fine of $250,000 or $1,000,000 depending on whether the act was knowingly done to access banned content. The bill allegedly grants the federal government power to monitor any activity used by these suspected devices, whether virtual or not, effectively enabling twenty-four-seven monitoring of home activity without informing users. They list examples including routers, video games, streaming apps, smart thermostats, Ring cameras, and essentially anything that uses the internet, noting that cell phones and Alexa are included and that conversations could be used against individuals in court. They emphasize a particularly terrifying aspect: the bill would have the president appoint a secretary of communication, who then forms a group independently, without voter input, with meetings behind closed doors. This group could ban and deem anything inappropriate or a security risk at any moment, and could censor via access to instant messages, emails, texts, and anything that uses the internet. The speakers warn that if this passes, videos like theirs could disappear as apps like Telegram, which enable them to speak freely, might be removed. They question who in the government would decide what content is banned versus allowed content. They urge viewers to consider this deeply. In summary, they contend the bill could effectively ban anything the government deems inappropriate very quickly without warning, with ramifications including disrupting mass communication methods and enabling spying on home devices and cameras. They assert the bill is “that bad,” insisting they are not using hyperbole. Speaker 0 adds a metaphor about banning books from libraries and facing jail for accessing banned books, suggesting the bill represents a push for complete control and urging people to wake up and investigate further.

What does it mean to be a doctor? In a post-COVID world, trust in medical institutions has eroded, prompting a reevaluation of the role of doctors. Being a doctor encompasses being a trainer, educator, and healer, grounded in truth and ethics. However, the rise of medical practices influenced by ideology, particularly regarding gender identity, raises concerns about informed consent and the responsibilities of medical professionals. Many argue that children cannot fully understand the implications of life-altering medical decisions. The conversation emphasizes the need for accountability in the medical field, advocating for legal protections against harmful practices and ensuring that informed consent is genuinely informed. There is a call to action for legislation to protect vulnerable populations, particularly children, from irreversible medical interventions.

Canada will be a police state by Christmas if parliament passes bills c two, c eight, and c nine in their current form. C two is the Strong Borders Act. It should be called the Strong Surveillance Act. It empowers Canada Post to open letter mail without a warrant, it criminalizes the use of cash in amounts greater than 10,000, and it empowers a vast army of government officials, not just police, to conduct warrantless searches of the computers and cell phones of Canadians. It is a massive invasion of privacy. It's extremely dangerous. There have been warnings that the Online Harms Act, which prior to the last election was known as bill c 63, might be reintroduced. If brought back and passed into law, you're gonna see the Canadian Human Rights Commission with massive new powers to prosecute Canadians over offensive noncriminal speech with penalties up to $50,000. You're gonna see a digital safety commission with a vast army of bureaucrats to enforce federal regulations that are passed in respect of of the Internet and Internet contents. And you're gonna see Canadians punished preemptively based because their neighbor fears that they might commit a hate speech crime in future, the Online Harms Act would authorize judges to place Canadians under house arrest, wear an ankle bracelet in respect to curfew, etcetera. Giving the federal government giving federal cabinet ministers power to kick Canadians off the Internet is not necessary for protecting public safety or defending our national security. Our freedoms are fragile. It's imperative that every Canadian contact their member of parliament, whether your MP is liberal, conservative, NDP, block, or green, does not matter. Contact your member of parliament and tell him or her to vote against bills c two, c eight, c nine, and tell them to not bring back the online harms act.