TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

People are finally starting to see the evidence against vaccines, with new studies linking boosters to cancer. Most MPs are still supporting vaccines, but only to save face until after the upcoming election. The speaker believes the vaccine rollout is a crime against humanity, with potentially millions of deaths worldwide.

Currently, there is too much convergence between the government, the National Assembly, and the general press, which is unhealthy. There needs to be checks and balances, debates, and many decisions being made are authoritarian and lack scientific substance. For example, forcing people to take an experimental vaccine without giving them a choice is unethical and goes against the principles of medical experimentation. In the future, we will look back and question how such things were allowed to happen. The communication world is starting to collide with reality, whether it's about vaccines or other issues. The vaccines were rushed and not properly evaluated, and there have been adverse effects reported. The number of complaints against the vaccines will continue to rise. It's important to understand the risks and benefits and not exaggerate the severity of the disease.

The speaker expresses concern about the lack of checks and balances in the government, national assembly, and media, leading to authoritarian decisions without scientific substance. They discuss the ethical issues surrounding the experimental COVID-19 vaccine, emphasizing the importance of informed consent and the potential violation of ethical principles. The speaker mentions a study on hydroxychloroquine and criticizes the lack of transparency in reporting adverse effects. They also mention a case of a person losing an eye after vaccination and highlight the need for thorough evaluation before vaccine distribution. The interviewer challenges some of the speaker's claims, but the speaker defends their position based on their knowledge and experience.

The speaker expresses concern about a law they found while doing a Google search. They explain that the law allows any prison or hospital to be declared a penitentiary, which worries them in the context of potential future lockdowns and mask mandates. They admit to not fully understanding the law and highlight that it requires the approval of the lieutenant governor of the province. The speaker is surprised to discover that the law was recently modified.

The speaker presents evidence suggesting that the events of the past four years were orchestrated to infringe on people's liberties. They claim that the manipulation of coronaviruses began in 1966 and that various organizations colluded to establish a mandate for a universal vaccine by 2020. The speaker questions the need for a vaccine for a disease that was declared eradicated. They also discuss the potential weaponization of coronaviruses and the release of a respiratory pathogen in 2019. The speaker implies that these actions constitute acts of terrorism.

I want to take this opportunity to say that overall, we are satisfied with the return of Article 4 because it was more necessary than ever when we see the abuses, the lies, and people like Mr. Dupont-Aignan who spread false information. There are individuals who claim, I don't know if it's with or without ice, that the rich drink blood with baby eyelids. And the person who said that, you invited them last night and they are proud of it. Yes, there is a problem. There are people in society today who say unacceptable things on social media, and we must fight against it. Mr. Dupont-Aignan, claiming that the rich drink blood from baby eyelids is not science, it's a lie. We stand for science. With this amendment, we defend science, the application of law, and the protection of the population.

A lady in Canada recently held a press conference urging people to get vaccinated and wear masks. The speakers discuss their observations on the vaccine situation, including the loss of jobs for those who choose not to get vaccinated. They mention that the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission or guarantee protection from the virus. They also criticize the use of masks, stating that cloth and surgical masks are ineffective. The speakers express their disbelief and question the lack of scientific evidence supporting these measures. They speculate about the motives behind these decisions.

France is a country known for its scientific excellence and intellectual rigor. The speaker criticizes the influence of certain individuals, like Didier Raoult, who gained money and followers during the pandemic. They question whether Raoult's actions meet the criteria for sectarianism and express concern about the number of people who may refuse a protective vaccine due to false beliefs spread by such individuals. The speaker highlights the negative impact of the controversial use of hydroxychloroquine and emphasizes the need for lawmakers to protect vulnerable citizens and prevent future crises caused by self-proclaimed experts.

The speaker questions the lack of truthful reporting and the suppression of facts by the media. They urge journalists to fulfill their role by accurately reporting the facts provided by the Ministry of Health. They discuss the adverse effects of vaccines and the need for thorough investigation and transparency. The speaker criticizes the government for neglecting its responsibility to protect its citizens and calls for accountability. They emphasize the importance of journalists in stopping the vaccine campaign and demand evidence of the benefits outweighing the risks. The speaker highlights the need for independent verification and the responsibility of the media to guide the nation's future.

The speaker is concerned about a potential future pandemic, referencing reports indicating September as a possible timeframe. They highlight a new law in Singapore where citizens can face jail time and fines for refusing mandatory vaccines, with no exemptions allowed, even medical ones. The speaker suggests this law was enacted after visits from Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates, and fears it could become a prototype for global implementation during a future health crisis, possibly involving a lab-created virus like Ebola. The discussion then shifts to the specifics of the Singapore law, citing Section 47, which allows for imprisonment of up to six months and fines for refusing vaccines during an outbreak, with increased penalties for subsequent offenses. The law raises concerns about potential overreach during declared outbreaks.

Recently, there have been cases where the media has ignored the concerns of the police and victims. The speaker expresses a deep sense of crisis and condolences for those affected by COVID-19 and vaccines. They believe that the current situation is a serious crisis and a threat to democracy. They criticize the media for not listening and emphasize the importance of preserving the right to know. The speaker discusses the establishment of a medical society and the need for proper investigation and reporting of vaccine-related issues. They highlight the serious health risks and the lack of transparency in the government's response. The speaker urges healthcare professionals and the public to address these issues and gather information to understand the reality of vaccine side effects. They emphasize the need for scientific research and the responsibility of journalists to report the facts.

The speaker discusses the timing of the coronavirus outbreak and the release of a patent for human robots in late 2019. They question how authorities have been able to pass laws while dealing with the pandemic. The speaker mentions the October 4th emergency broadcast as a way to monitor and target individuals using neutrino detectors. They express frustration with the idea that only obedient people who did not get vaccinated were onto something. The speaker admits to getting the vaccine due to personal circumstances but criticizes labeling those who got vaccinated as obedient.

The speaker attended a lecture on emergency powers and the executive. They asked the panel if they were concerned about the lack of oversight and transparency in the Irish government's experimental vaccine program. They also mentioned the Nuremberg trials and questioned if any of the panelists were afraid of facing similar consequences.

The speaker expresses concern about the presence of SV40 sequences in vaccines, suggesting that their integration into certain genetic areas could potentially cause cancer. They mention the risk of insertional mutagenesis and the delay in bringing gene therapies to market due to this concern. The speaker also advocates for the use of alternative treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, stating that they are safe drugs. They question the transparency of the FDA in redacting data and holding clinical data for 75 years. The speaker urges the protection of citizens and calls for one state to take the lead in doing the right thing. No questions are asked.

In 2019, the Canadian government removed the crime of spreading false news from the Criminal Code. This raises concerns about trusting a government that takes our money, restricts effective treatments, and fails to investigate the safety of promoted vaccines. Additionally, the parliament we elect allows mainstream media to freely lie without consequences.

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.”

The speaker questions why the French government wants to move on from the COVID-19 pandemic when there are still restrictions in place, such as mandatory vaccinations, limited hospital visits, and PCR tests before surgeries. They highlight a case in Poitiers where a family was unable to perform funeral rites for their deceased relative suspected of having COVID-19. The speaker argues that this lack of dignity and respect for human life is a result of the pandemic and warns against the emergence of tyranny. They call for a legal and political response to reject this society and protect human dignity. Translation: The speaker raises concerns about the French government's desire to move on from the COVID-19 pandemic while still enforcing restrictions and disregarding human dignity. They highlight a case in Poitiers where a family was unable to perform funeral rites for their deceased relative suspected of having COVID-19. The speaker warns against the emergence of tyranny and calls for a legal and political response to reject this society and protect human dignity.

The speaker warns against manipulating patients and emphasizes the importance of safe vaccines. They mention having written a book advocating for safe vaccines and criticize the government's stance on vaccination. The speaker shares a personal experience of being vaccinated and still contracting COVID-19, highlighting the need for revaccination. They accuse big pharmaceutical companies of manipulating the population and influencing politicians. The speaker refers to a book that challenges official COVID-19 statistics and argues that the increase in deaths is due to age rather than the disease itself. They also mention cases of medical abuse and negligence in hospitals. The speaker estimates around 160,000 deaths in France, attributing them to pre-existing conditions and lack of treatment.

The speaker raises concerns about the government of Canada purchasing and importing COVID-19 vaccines before they are approved by Health Canada. They highlight the conflict of interest in the government approving a drug they have already bought and distributed. The speaker suggests that a third party should have been responsible for the approval process to avoid this conflict.

Le ministre de la santé affirme que le vaccin Covid ne provoque pas la maladie de Krost-on-Jacob. Les parlementaires ont le droit de s'exprimer librement, mais doivent respecter les faits scientifiques. Une plainte est déposée contre le ministre de la santé pour ses propos.

The speaker questions the safety and effectiveness of COVID vaccines, highlighting the lack of proper testing and potential side effects like myocarditis. They call for a thorough investigation into the misinformation surrounding vaccines and the unnecessary vaccination of children. The speaker criticizes the government's fear-mongering tactics and calls for a public inquiry.

The speaker expresses concern about the presence of s p 40 sequences in vaccines, suggesting that their inclusion was intentional and could lead to cancer. They argue that gene therapies were not brought to market for years due to the risk of insertional mutagenesis causing cancer. The speaker advocates for the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as safe alternatives to vaccines. They question the transparency of withholding data and urge the protection of citizens by standing up against experimental products. The speaker concludes by pleading for one state to take action and set an example for others. No questions are asked.

The speaker expresses concern about the negative effects of vaccines and the lack of transparency in reporting related deaths and side effects. They argue that the government and media should acknowledge these issues and fulfill their role in informing the public. The speaker cites statistics from the Ministry of Health's website to support their claims. They also mention a case where a hospital committee chairman raised concerns about vaccine-related deaths but faced backlash. The speaker emphasizes the importance of reporting and investigating vaccine-related health issues, even if it goes against the prevailing narrative.

The speakers discuss the issue of side effects not being properly accounted for in the context of pharmacovigilance. They mention a commission on side effects and criticize the lack of transparency from health authorities. They highlight cases where autopsies have linked vaccines to deaths and express frustration with the Minister of Health's denial of side effects. The speakers also criticize the media for not challenging the Minister and point out the apparent double standards of those who promote the government and pharmaceuticals. They argue that journalists should question the Minister's claims and demand assurance of no side effects before encouraging vaccination.

I want to announce an action I have decided to take against Jean Lassalle. As you may have seen in several videos, Lassalle claims to have evidence that the President and government members are not vaccinated. This is crucial for us, as victims' families. Macron locked down the country, encouraged vaccination, and suspended unvaccinated healthcare workers. He even expressed a desire to annoy the unvaccinated. That's why I have initiated legal action against Lassalle. Many bailiffs have refused to get involved due to fear. However, an official will be going soon. If Macron is found to be unvaccinated and lied to the French people, it would be an absolute scandal. I urge Lassalle to speak up because there are deaths, injuries, and a scandal surrounding Covid. It's concerning that some bailiffs refuse to visit Lassalle, which raises questions about the Covid situation. Thank you.