TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker emphasizes the importance of providing ongoing care and keeping the door open for individuals to change their decisions. It is crucial to support young people, let them know it's okay to change their minds, and continue engaging with them. People may need time to disclose their experiences, and it is essential to offer continuous support even if they are not ready to face their trauma. Ongoing care is vital in these situations.

Many people have experienced traumatic events at these schools, including being kidnapped, having severe nightmares, being cut off from the outside world, and having their rights taken away. They were also subjected to forced medication and various forms of abuse, both physical and sexual. Witnessing other children being assaulted and being put into solitary confinement were also common experiences. Despite all this, survivors are determined to speak out and shut down these schools. They are breaking the silence and standing together to make a change.

I want to clarify that I did not collect evidence but rather information. My mission focused on gathering, analyzing, and verifying information, as I do not have an investigative mandate. My findings are based on firsthand accounts and interviews with recently released hostages. Regarding the October 7th attacks, I did not meet with survivors of sexual violence, but I have received information from confidential sources indicating that there are a few survivors who are unwilling to speak out. They are currently undergoing specialized trauma treatment and are in a disoriented state.

There is a group of people called the "invisibles" who have experienced adverse effects from vaccines. They have been ignored by the medical community, dismissed by mainstream society, and hidden by institutions. The president of a committee dedicated to listening to these individuals shared that they were abandoned and suffering. When they finally had a hearing in the Senate, they were told that they were not expected or accounted for. This reality was disregarded and continues to be. One person's mother, for example, became partially paralyzed and experienced nausea after receiving two vaccines. She is still in the hospital after three years. Despite similar stories, some people deny that the vaccines are to blame.

A speaker claims they woke up paralyzed and naked on a table in a laboratory with scientists present. The speaker says they have been afraid to discuss this. They state that these people were doing something they don't want anyone knowing about. After returning from this experience, the speaker says they suffered severe panic attacks and were hospitalized ten times, despite being healthy and happy beforehand. The speaker believes something was done to them and wants to know what it was. They are willing to take a lie detector test on this claim.

Okay, we're moving to a different section of the camp because people are starting to throw stones. Reintegration has been a significant challenge for us.

The speaker delivers a stark account of a grave moral failure in British history: for decades, children across the United Kingdom, some as young as four, were groomed, trafficked, raped, beaten, tortured, drugged, impregnated, criminalized, murdered, and psychologically destroyed by organized groups. These were not isolated incidents or expressions of sexual gratification; they were sustained campaigns of exploitation against terrified, vulnerable children who were systematically trapped. Children were degraded, humiliated, and controlled through violence, threats, drugs, alcohol, and terror. They were forced to fight to carry weapons, sell drugs, and commit murder, with some made to dig their own graves. Extreme abuses are described, including petrol poured over victims and set on fire, scriptures from the Koran read during gang rapes, young children placed inside microwaves, ovens, and freezers in attempts to murder them, ouija boards used to call spirits, and animals killed in sexual acts against children. Some were passed from rapist to rapist, and not all survived; survivors faced suicide, substance abuse, or murder. The abuse extended beyond sexual exploitation, reflecting a pursuit of power and domination and the systematic destruction of a child’s sense of self. The speaker emphasizes that, years later, professionals pressured survivors to take medication or risk losing custody of their children, and victims were told they were too damaged to care for their own kids. They were removed from families, placed into the care system, and trafficked, with rapists invited into the lives and custody of the next generation. Children born from these crimes were forced into contact with their mothers’ rapists by social workers and the family courts. The professionals who should have protected them did not, and some still do not. The inquiry is exposing the scale of institutional failure: warning signs, reports, patterns, and evidence ignored or destroyed; victims dismissed as troubled, promiscuous, or consenting; children in care raped by staff and sold to gangs; parents threatened with fines or arrests for attempting to safeguard their children. The speaker notes that whistleblowers were targeted and silenced, and politics played a role. Political parties sacrificed children for votes, and leaders hesitated to confront abuse due to discomfort or concerns about appearing racist or Islamophobic. The inquiry will follow evidence into institutions, systems, cultures of silence, and places where truth has been buried, with no race, religion, profession, or agency exempt from scrutiny. Survivors are acknowledged: they were children, not to blame but failed by the system. The true scale of what happened and continues to happen is described as too large for the inquiry to fully resolve quickly; many victims may never receive justice, but the inquiry aims to be ambitious in pursuing truth. The speaker thanks MP Rupert Loh for establishing the inquiry andextends gratitude to the participants, survivors, and the team for their bravery and resilience in confronting this evil crime.

- Thijs van den Brink introduces himself and is asked to confirm a past interview. He says he has interviewed many people and cannot recall details about a specific interview with Yvonne Köls regarding a child-abuse suspect vice president of the Hague court, mentioning the name Theo Huub. He offers to have the episode sent to him for refreshing his memory. The other speaker notes the exchange as unusual, suggesting it occurred under the CDA cabinets during Lubbers and was swept under the rug. - A separate speaker announces that the radio interview of Thijs van den Brink with Yvonne Köls from 2015 is on their YouTube channel, dated 19 August 2025, and invites listeners to check the text and listen. - The conversation shifts to Yvonne Köls’s 30-year-old novel about a pedosexual child judge. It is noted that it provoked strong backlash against her rather than the judge, including criticism, public opposition, and even physical intimidation. Despite this, the book is being republished. Köls explains that the case still disturbs her because the judge was never prosecuted, and the press largely gave attention to the opposing party rather than Köls or the victims. - Köls is a guest on a program. She explains the reason for reissuing the book: a new generation is interested and can engage with the topic. She mentions that the Catholic Church has taken steps internally and disrupted the system, and that investigations extended beyond the church to include child care institutions and care facilities. She states she had substantial knowledge from that period. - She reflects that at the time she could have spoken more about what she knew, but she was not heard. She notes that the children assigned to her pupils, who were also abused, were excluded from coverage by others at the time. She adds that the men involved are now 45 or 46 years old, and that the abuse occurred when the victims were between 10 and 15 years old. - The program concludes with acknowledgment that the victims have spoken.

There are a few survivors who, for confidentiality reasons, cannot be named. They are currently receiving specialized trauma treatment and are not ready to speak out.

Many families are still waiting anxiously for news about their loved ones, as the traumas caused by these events never truly fade away. There is uncertainty about whether these individuals are still alive or not. The question arises as to whether the Israelis are adhering to the rules of war.

Patients often struggle to understand medical information and may not ask questions due to feeling deferential. Normalizing confusion and encouraging questions can improve the informed consent process, which is currently lacking ethically.

The two speakers discuss the media coverage surrounding a high-profile case. The second speaker says the media coverage has been absolutely unfair and biased. They’ve done many interviews and are reaching a point where they won’t do them anymore, trusting the media less. They note a preference for live interviews because edited pieces distort their message. A concrete example is CBC’s Karen Pauls: she interviewed Russ Harald, Sudhoo, and several families who forgave. The second speaker claims Harald told them Pauls didn’t include half of what he said, and that she did the same to Andrea and Shauna Nordstrom (Logan Hunter’s mother). They allege that Nordstroms were given a bit part in a story that portrayed the subject as loving and forgiving, downplaying negative aspects, making it seem like the subject was sympathetic. The second speaker claims Karen Pauls twisted the narrative, and contends that much of the media has done this. Consequently, they’ve declined numerous interviews and no longer trust mainstream media regarding this story. The second speaker adds that there are people with no vested interest who want to express approval or forgiveness to feel good about themselves and to allow the subject to stay in the country. They contrast this with others who are deported for other offenses, such as those who steal $5,000 cars and are permanent residents who get deported. They have listened in on immigration and refugee board hearings to learn more about the process. They claim that because the case is so prominent, some people want to excuse the subject, even if it means allowing criminals or poor drivers to stay, thereby harming the system. The first speaker asks what precedent would be set if the subject were allowed to stay in Canada. The second speaker replies that it would imply that 16 lives mean nothing and questions how many people one would have to kill to be deported, underscoring the idea that the mere possibility of killing someone is central to the debate. They insist that raising the question of whether the person killed anyone is itself “crazy.”

Individuals may seek information between therapy sessions or if unsure about past abuse. They might be trying to understand their experiences and recognize potential indicators.

The speaker asks if the interviewee feared her husband, referencing a temporary order of protection against him in 2021. The interviewee states her husband is alive, and declines to comment further. The speaker acknowledges this and does not press the issue.

Speaker 0 recalls, "I saw horror" in captivity and "I still have nightmares, bad nightmares." "Can't horror. That's I can't why I left Nigeria. That's why I'm here." They state that "we've been in captivity and been raped multiple times by terrorists" and that most people "would not know the pain." "Nobody stood. Nobody believed me. Nobody said anything. Nobody helped me." Speaker 1 adds, "No one. No one." and warns that "that's what's happening right now to our children. They're getting killed." They describe ongoing suffering: "Somebody's bleeding. Nobody's saying anything. Nobody's accepting any refugee from Northern Nigeria. Nobody." "I was raped." and "I still have munch on my arm." The speaker concludes, "I know what's going on. I know the pain."

Thank you for the briefing. I have a follow-up question. You mentioned survivors seeking specialized treatment due to trauma. How do you know this? I'm unable to disclose that information. I feel more confused after reading the report. I noticed you met with Yossi Landau, a Zaka volunteer involved in a controversial New York Times investigation. Your report references a disturbing story about a pregnant woman, which also came from Landau. This raises questions about the credibility of your findings. How does this differ from the New York Times story if you're just collecting evidence? I understand your concerns, but my report outlines our visits to four locations. You met with Landau, who is central to this issue. I acknowledge your point.

The speaker describes the situation as pretty traumatizing, with reacting to whatever is happening and not being able to think straight. She mentions that the other person was crying during the event, and the speaker could not help because they were pretty helpless themselves. They note that, now, the person is getting better. The experience is affecting sleep, with both of them not sleeping well, and they say they’re very trumpetized from that.

Speaker 0 feels justice will begin when they are no longer seen as an object, alleging their case has been swept under the rug. They express concern that authorities seem to be hiding something by denying and canceling things, which raises alarm bells. Speaker 0 feels they have been treated like nothing since reporting the abuse, and that promises of help are being dangled and then snatched away. They state they lost childhood, mental health, and progress in life, and question why this one thing that could benefit the whole country can't be done. Speaker 0 says they didn't think they would survive the abuse, but now they are living their best life and have done everything they were told they couldn't do, including having children. However, the trauma still affects relationships, and they suffer from complex PTSD, causing instability.

Medical teams now use the acronym WCNFS, which stands for Wounded child, no surviving family. Children surviving war carry both physical and psychological scars from displacement, fear, and witnessing family members' horrific deaths. Some children as young as 5 have expressed a desire to die.

I didn't think I was just going to be killed; I expected other things to happen to me as well. So, you believed you might also be raped? Yes, I did. And now you understand that this fear stems from your experience? Yes, I think so.

When the nervous system shuts down, resulting in behaviors like going quiet, being unable to move, or feeling numb, it's a survival response, not a sign of weakness. The body chooses to "disappear" because fighting or fleeing isn't safe. Healing involves demonstrating to the nervous system that it's now safe to return. This return encompasses movement, connection, and a reconnection with oneself.

Written documentation has revealed the names of people involved in mind control research, along with their research projects and statements. It's important to note that victims may have been intimidated into silence about their experiences. As a therapist specializing in trauma, I've been contacted by 40 therapists across the country who shared stories from clients subjected to radiation and mind control experiments. The consistency of these stories regarding techniques like electric shock, hallucinogens, sensory deprivation, hypnosis, limb dislocation, and sexual abuse is striking. There is very little published information on this topic, and these clients have had no contact with each other.

I've been hiding and not showing the impact on me, but I'm done being scared. The doctors who said this was safe are now ignoring us. It's time to be heard, seen, and believed.

Speaker 0 shows notes the attorney general brought to the hearing, captured by a photographer in the room. The notes include a list of Democratic congresswomen and their search history. The photo indicates that searches performed by members of Congress at a DOJ facility—where they sit at a computer to search unredacted files—are being tracked and read by the Department of Justice and the attorney general. Speaker 1 responds that this represents a surveillance of Congress by the Trump administration and calls it totally improper, though not surprising given their misconduct in various areas. He notes that when he visited the facility, they log in under each person’s name, implying an attempt to make something of the situation. He states that members who visited shared the information they found, and emphasizes that it is not a pretty picture. He adds that lawmakers were required under the law to remove redactions unless necessary to protect the privacy of victim survivors. In his view, the redactions were used to protect offenders and coconspirators, with their names blacked out. He contends that information about the survivors was actually revealed, which he says was very wrong and contrary to the law. He also suggests that many survivors feel the exposure was deliberate, intended to intimidate them and silence them, though he says he does not know if that is true. The statement ends with “The other thing that's inter” before the transcript cuts off.