TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Detective Helen Groos of the Ottawa Police faces a discreditable conduct charge for initiating an investigation in January 2022 into a possible connection between 9 sudden infant deaths and the mothers' vaccination status. Her evidence included Pfizer documents showing 31 of 32 pregnancies followed by trial investigators resulted in spontaneous abortion. Groos was suspended and formally charged after opening the investigation. Evidence suggests police colleagues leaked confidential information to a CBC reporter, impacting the investigation. The Ottawa police then made a financial settlement with one of the parents of the deceased infants. A wiretap on Groos yielded nothing. During the tribunal, defense counsel Blair Ector reported a threatening email sent to Groos, calling it witness tampering. The adjudicator, Chris Randwick, ruled the defense must provide questions in advance and that Groos couldn't review her notes from the day of alleged misconduct. All five defense expert witnesses were denied. The prosecutor, Vanessa Stewart, was also the sister-in-law of the primary prosecution witness. Supporters claim the case is politically motivated and are asking for public support and donations to Groos's legal fund.

Detective Helen Bruce, after 20 years of service, faced a life-altering investigation into the deaths of nine infants, potentially linked to their mothers' Pfizer vaccination status. A fellow officer failed to follow protocol regarding vaccine inquiries, leading to Bruce being targeted by senior officials who ignored her findings. Charged with discreditable conduct, Bruce was suspended and her career jeopardized for fulfilling her duty. Ottawa police prosecutor Jessica Barrow noted the charges were politically motivated, raising concerns among Canada's police force about political influence on investigations. As the tribunal concludes, adjudicator Kris Renwick's decision in February will be pivotal, impacting the future of policing in Canada and the principle that no one is above the law.

A whistleblower in New Zealand who exposed COVID lies and worked for the Ministry of Health has had their house surrounded by police. Another person supporting the whistleblower has also had their house surrounded. The speaker urges the new government, particularly Winston Peters, to intervene and ensure the release of these individuals. They emphasize the importance of standing up for truth and exposing government criminality. The speaker calls on the public to demand the freedom of the whistleblowers and warns that if they are not supported, tyranny will prevail. They urge everyone to contact Winston Peters and the New Zealand parliament to take action.

A mother, heartbroken and outraged, confronts former judge Mark Chivarella, whose actions led to her son, an all-star wrestler, taking his own life after being sent to juvenile detention for a minor drug offense. It has come to light that Chivarella accepted money to send kids to detention facilities. He was recently convicted on 12 counts, including racketeering and money laundering, but remains free while awaiting sentencing.

Odessa Orlewitz hosts Liberty Talk Canada and introduces Doctor Dimitri, a senior data scientist with the Government of Canada (employee of CBSA). Dimitri says he is coming forward publicly with his full story as his case becomes public in two weeks. He states he did not disclose his medical status or discuss private correspondences, but he began sharing data-driven insights from within the system, building a portfolio of resources over the last five years. He says he has included his discipline letter and investigation report, which detail violations and allegations he defended against for talking about data he analyzed. Dimitri describes a key, simple piece of evidence: deaths following COVID by vaccination status, published by the Public Health Agency of Canada. He argues that vaccine efficacy appears not to show significant improvement and that a technique he calls “algorithmic bias” or data skewing is used to hide the inconvenient truth. He says the data show that what researchers want to know—deaths among unvaccinated versus vaccinated—cannot be accurately inferred when data before vaccination campaigns are counted in, thus diluting comparisons. He frames this as a political interference issue, not a new phenomenon, comparing it to past concerns raised by Shiv Chopra and continuing into 2021. Dimitri emphasizes fear of reprisal in the public service. He notes that, in public-service surveys, fear of reprisal is highest in the Health Products regulation unit, which he says he uncovered, and claims colleagues would testify but fear losing their jobs. He explains that his own union activities and leadership seminars since 2019 involved teaching data visualization tools (including PSESS) to observe datasets and detect issues. He recounts that after pushing data on vaccination and COVID, he faced multiple disciplinary actions: five days of suspension without pay for discussing information conflicting with government messaging; an eight-day suspension; and a ten-day suspension, all connected to the hearing and his broader aim of alerting on red flags. Dimitri states that the hearing concerns limits to the duty of loyalty and insubordination in a democratic country like Canada. He argues that data people should be allowed to publish information that could challenge official messaging. He also notes that, outside Canada, Alberta passed a Regulated Professions Act and a Neutrality Act to protect free speech across regulated professions, suggesting a national parallel is needed for public servants. He says he will post updates in a newsletter and provide links to evidence and to testimonials from colleagues, professors from Ottawa U, and other data scientists who assisted with analyses, including Pfizer papers. Dimitri recounts personal context: he took his own vaccine dose and has presented his case publicly, including short videos from a journalist documentary and his Freedom Convoy presentation. He asserts that mainstream media, such as CBC, did not interview him during the convoy era, implying a cover-up by mainstream outlets. Odessa urges viewers to attend Dimitri’s hearing, visit his website, and share the information widely. She closes with promotional plugs and advises the audience to follow the case through ivim.ca and related links. Throughout, Dimitri stresses the overarching themes of political interference in data, fear of reprisal within the public service, and the need for transparency and accountability in health data and governance. He frames the hearing as a pivotal moment for trust in Canadian public institutions and urges support for whistleblowers like himself.

Maddie, a 13-year-old aspiring nurse, volunteered for the Pfizer clinical trial to support the COVID vaccine. However, she and others like her are being overlooked by the FDA and the media. The Vaccine Safety Research Foundation questions who will support Maddie after she stepped up to help America.

Today at the Helen Grews Ottawa Police tribunal, the defense motion to remove Vanessa Stewart as prosecutor was deemed moot since external counsel was retained. The hearing officer postponed decisions to May 27th, with evidence consent to be determined via email. Helen Grous will testify soon. Stay tuned for updates. Thank you for following.

In this urgent call, Liz Gunn reports that the whistleblower who exposed COVID lies in New Zealand has had their house surrounded by police. Another person supporting the whistleblower has also been targeted. Gunn appeals to the new government, particularly Winston Peters, to intervene and ensure the immediate release of these individuals. She emphasizes the importance of standing up for truth and exposing government criminality. Gunn urges viewers to contact Winston Peters and demand his support. She warns that failure to support whistleblowers will lead to further tyranny and calls for help in this critical situation.

I was jailed for speaking out, do you agree? I don't want another lockdown. The speaker presents a book exposing research fraud behind vaccine mandates to a senator.

After 20 years of service, Detective Helen Bruce faced an unprecedented challenge when investigating the deaths of 9 infants, uncovering potential links to their mothers' Pfizer vaccination status. A fellow officer's failure to follow protocol regarding vaccine inquiries compounded the issue. When Bruce's findings were ignored by senior officials, she became a target, facing charges of discreditable conduct for her investigation. This case, unprecedented in Canadian history, raises concerns about political influence on policing. As her tribunal concludes, all eyes are on adjudicator Kris Renwick, whose decision will impact the future of policing in Canada. The case symbolizes the struggle between moral integrity and political pressure, with the potential to set a significant precedent for law enforcement.

The speaker discusses examples of travesties that have eroded public trust, such as the case of detective Helen Bruce investigating COVID-related child deaths and facing disciplinary action. They also mention Dr. Kovind Kaur, a physician facing repercussions for speaking out on Twitter. These instances highlight a pattern of corruption and suppression within various regulatory bodies, undermining their intended purposes.

In Europe, we lack the First Amendment, limiting our ability to freely criticize the government or certain groups. Tomorrow, my friend Raisa Blomestang stands trial in the Netherlands for allegedly offending a group while criticizing the government's mass migration policies. This reflects a politically motivated judiciary that targets right-wing politicians, as seen with others like Geert Wilders. I can't attend the trial due to health reasons, but I want to raise awareness about the situation in Europe. Raisa's case highlights the risks of expressing dissenting opinions, especially regarding immigration policies. I encourage everyone to support her and remember how fortunate those in America are to have the freedom of speech that we do not enjoy in Europe.

In this urgent call, Liz Gunn reports that the whistleblower who exposed COVID lies in New Zealand has had their house surrounded by police. Another person supporting the whistleblower is also being targeted. Gunn appeals to the new government, particularly Winston Peters, to intervene and ensure the immediate release of these individuals. She emphasizes the importance of standing up for truth and exposing government criminality. Gunn urges viewers to contact Winston Peters and demand his support. She warns that if these whistleblowers are not protected, tyranny will prevail, and everyone will suffer the consequences.

I find the case of Detective Bruce intriguing from a professional perspective as a former police officer. He is charged with launching an unauthorized investigation, which is something I have never encountered in my 45 years in law enforcement. During my 15 years with the Toronto Police, I never sought permission to investigate; I would request assistance or resources, but not permission. Law enforcement officers are designed to operate independently under the law and their oath of office. This structure is in place to prevent outside influences from interfering with police work.

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 acknowledges the risks of their actions but believes that exposing the truth is worth it. They are prepared to face imprisonment and are confident that the world will support them. The IT worker accused of accessing sensitive health data and spreading misinformation about vaccine-related deaths appears in court. The health agency is working to recover the data and reassure the public about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine. The speaker lists several cases of individuals who allegedly died after receiving the vaccine. They express their willingness to be targeted and emphasize that their goal is to stop the situation.

Detective Helen Groos faces a biased disciplinary tribunal for investigating infant deaths linked to vaccinations. Despite facing charges, evidence showed high abortion rates in vaccinated pregnancies. Media leaks and witness intimidation tainted the case. The tribunal's unfair rules and biased decisions hindered the defense. The case is seen as politically motivated to silence police autonomy. Support for Detective Groos is urged, as she fights for justice and police integrity. Prayers for her strength and resolution are requested.

The investigation into fraud in public daycare subsidies is described as massive and deeply obstructed. "Massive. They don't want a fraud unit to do anything. They want a fraud unit on paper." The discussion centers on Halicki, who was fired in 2013 while in the midst of a large probe. The county’s account of Halicki is that he was an insubordinate bully whose tactics hampered efforts to catch welfare cheats, while supporters call the firing part of a broader effort to suppress accountability. One side frames the situation as a cover up: “They don't wanna point fingers at various organizations and people. This is nothing but a giant cover up.” The reporting highlights deco daycare centers, with evidence that the company collected millions in public subsidies for providing bogus child care services to low income families. The overarching assertion is that, in essence, this scheme was a criminal enterprise. In December, Ramsey County charged the owner of Dico with fraud. The daycares shown are described as billing the county at rates over $100,000 a month. Halicki says that before his dismissal he was tracking a similar scheme in Hennepin County involving multiple child care centers. One building is noted as housing its third daycare center in as many years, with a new license granted despite concerns. The two previous centers had their public subsidies stopped by the county because of billing irregularities. Halicki recounts footage of centers with questionable visibility: “7AM to 6PM. There are no lights on.” He and the team visited centers that had no signs outside and, during posted business hours, no one answered. They checked state inspection records for each center on Halecki's tour, finding licensing violations—the kind that are red flags to the state's Department of Human Services. The core accusation is that this is a deliberate attempt by officials in Hennepin County to deceive taxpayers. Halicki claims to possess emails and documents proving knowledge of the wrongdoing and deliberate inaction. He cites an email to the supervisor of the fraud unit where the stated goal was to stop the bleeding quickly and protect taxpayer money from going out the door; the supervisor replies with a plan to tackle the centers, and Halicki reiterates, “It's nothing but a giant cover up.” Officials emphasize that the focus is on prevention, but they do investigate and take action with the county attorney when fraud occurs. In the two years since Halicki was fired, not one case has been prosecuted by the county. The report notes that most metro counties aren’t actively investigating daycare center fraud; instead, they’re handing those cases off to a DHS special team that was ramped up more than a year ago. Public frustration is voiced: “Nobody is more frustrated with the amount of time it's taking than we are.”

Dr. Miley Trinh, a GP based in Sydney, Australia, joins Jim Ferguson for her first appearance on the show. She explains she has practiced as a GP for nearly thirty years and has been suspended since late 2021 amid a dispute with the health regulator over her license. She describes her suspension as part of a broader fight with regulators and regulators’ attempts to cancel her medical license. Trinh recounts how her concerns about the COVID-19 situation began in 2019, while following global events and studying debt-based economic systems. She states she became alarmed by reports of Wuhan’s lockdown timing, noting that authorities announced a lockdown five days earlier and allowed travel before it commenced, which she found alarming. She observed what she called unusual global coordination in reporting and policy responses to the pandemic, with early treatment being suppressed and a tightly controlled narrative across countries. Regarding ivermectin, she says she concluded after months of research that it was a key medication for treating COVID-19, particularly when given early. She describes participating in doctor groups and Zoom meetings to discuss how to treat patients and notes she treated a patient by telephone during lockdown who was deteriorating. She reports that the patient improved after her treatment but later faced complications requiring hospital care. She says two complaints were filed against her in September 2021—the first from a patient she had helped, and the second from an individual named John Smith who obtained a prescription that belonged to a family member for ivermectin. She asserts John Smith did not belong to her practice, and that the prescription was allegedly handed to an APRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) agent, a fact she says regulators overlooked when investigating her practice. Trinh emphasizes that she had never before faced a complaint in nearly thirty years of practice and that the suspension hearing concluded with her being deemed a danger to public health, despite her insistence that she saved a life. She has remained suspended for over four years. She describes the regulatory process as involving claims of prescribing ivermectin “below standard” and accusations of professional misconduct for not handing over 20 to 30 patient medical files, which she says she refused to provide because she did not know the patients’ names and because none of the patients had filed complaints against her. She notes that hearings occurred in December, March, and August, with subsequent issues over transcript integrity and requests for recusal of the presiding judge. She says a decision on the main case is imminent, but a cancellation of her license could entail a three to five-year suspension and substantial costs, complicating the possibility of reinstatement. Beyond her case, she argues the fight is about medical autonomy and the right for physicians to tailor treatments to individual patients, not be dictated by politicians or rigid guidelines. She criticizes what she views as a heavily censored environment for doctors who questioned the pandemic narrative or advocated for therapeutics like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, and zinc. She asserts that the COVID-19 Task Force guidelines opposed ivermectin and other therapeutics, and she contends such guidelines restrict doctors’ ability to provide individualized care. Trinh links the censorship and regulatory pressure to broader concerns about global governance, citing media suppression, removal of dissent on platforms like Facebook and YouTube, and increased control over platforms such as X (formerly Twitter). She mentions public support, including her presence on X and Facebook, as important to her ongoing legal battle and the broader struggle over medical autonomy and truth during the pandemic. She concludes by inviting people to follow her on X and Facebook to learn more and to show support as she pursues potential appeals if the judgment does not go in her favor. She frames her case as about more than COVID-19 alone: it is about challenging what she views as a long-standing, disproportionate control of doctors and a fight for fundamental rights, including the right to a hearing before the tribunal and the right to medical decision-making free from political interference.

The speaker, Liz Gunn, reports that two whistleblowers who exposed COVID lies in New Zealand have had their houses surrounded by police. She calls on the new government, led by Christopher Luxon, to intervene and release the whistleblowers. Liz also appeals to Winston Peters, urging him to honor his promise to stand up for the truth and help these individuals. She emphasizes the importance of exposing government criminality and warns that failing to support whistleblowers could lead to future tyranny. Liz urges viewers to contact Winston Peters and demand the release of the whistleblowers. She concludes by stating that it is crucial for them to be freed.

A whistleblower in New Zealand who exposed COVID lies and worked for the Ministry of Health has had their house surrounded by police. Another person who supported the whistleblower also had their house surrounded. The speaker calls on the new government, particularly Winston Peters, to intervene and ensure their release. They emphasize the importance of standing up for truth and exposing government criminality. The speaker urges people to demand the freedom of the whistleblowers and warns that if they are not supported, tyranny will prevail. They ask for help in contacting Winston Peters and the New Zealand parliament to address this urgent situation.

In this urgent call, Liz Gunn reports that the whistleblower who exposed COVID lies in New Zealand has had their house surrounded by police, along with another person who supports the whistleblower. Liz appeals to the new New Zealand government, particularly Winston Peters, to intervene and ensure the immediate release of these individuals. She emphasizes the importance of standing up for truth and exposing government criminality. Liz urges viewers to contact Winston Peters and demand his support. She warns that if these whistleblowers are not protected, tyranny will prevail. The transcript ends with a plea for help and a call to action.

Anita Krishna, a former control room director at Global News, discusses her termination and the biased coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. She criticizes the constant focus on unvaccinated individuals and the lack of accountability in reporting. Anita attended a rally in North Vancouver where she unexpectedly spoke about her concerns. The speech was recorded and shared online, leading to her suspension for allegedly violating journalistic principles. Anita questions how she violated these principles when Global News failed to report on community events and important hearings. She believes that Global News is the one violating journalistic principles by withholding information from the public.

Speaker 0 introduces a disturbing video about Brandy Vaughan, an ex Merck employee and whistleblower who founded learntherestisk.org, stating she was found dead yesterday. The video documents intimidation tactics used to silence her and ends with her claim that mandatory vaccinations are for profit, not public health. The speaker notes Merck is the vaccine company that makes the MMR vaccine and explains they screened the video due to censorship and disappearing videos, urging sharing to keep the fight going for Brandy. Speaker 1 identifies herself as Brandy Vaughan and explains she has been an activist opposing SB 277 in California and questions how rights have deteriorated. She describes herself getting heat for speaking out, and she documents intimidation tactics used against her to silence her voice. She recounts her background: she worked for Merck in Santa Barbara from 2001 to 2003 selling Vioxx, which was eventually pulled from the market after it was shown to double the risk of heart attack and stroke and cause harm. After losing faith in the healthcare system, she traveled to Europe, returned with a six-month-old son, and faced bullying at a pediatrician’s office in San Francisco when requesting vaccine inserts and questions about vaccines. Four years ago, she began researching vaccines, concluded they were not very safe or effective, and chose not to vaccinate her son. When SB 277 surfaced in California, she decided to raise her voice against it, knowing she would face heat. She then details a series of intimidation incidents beginning with a break-in and home intrusion after returning from a Sacramento rally against SB 277. A key left on the doorstep was found open, despite having been hidden previously. She had recently installed a $3,000 alarm system; the alarm was triggered at 03:45, then the hallway sensor active at 03:46, and the dining room window opened and closed at 03:48. The intruders allegedly re-entered via the front door at 03:49 after disarming the alarm with the master code, which only she possessed. Security experts suggested the house was tapped, implying that everything she says and does could be listened to or watched, and they noted the back window was opened during the incident. After the break-in, the police checked for stolen items, found nothing missing, but two days later her computer, hidden above the microwave, was moved from its hiding spot to the middle of the floor. She left town for two weeks to go off the grid. Upon returning, she found a ladder left in front of the door, used to look into the bedroom window from the garage; a neighbor confirmed the ladder was new. Later, a Buddha statue in the garage was moved from its usual place, pictures were knocked over, and two days after that a duck appeared on her kitchen table, which she interpreted as a message signaling they were watching her due to conversations about staying at her house. Vaughan describes these events as intimidation and fear-inducing. She reiterates that the intimidation is designed to silence discussion of mandatory vaccination bills, which she claims have nothing to do with public health and everything to do with profit. She vows not to be silenced, emphasizes the importance of exposing what’s going on behind the bills, and frames the events as part of a larger ongoing struggle. She concludes that there is evil at play and hopes documenting the intimidation will prevent future silencing of others.

I am Rob Stockey, a retired Ottawa Police sergeant at the Helen Grewe trial. Police are restricting public access, contradicting policing principles. Big pharma influence on politicians leads to police control. Get politically involved for change with the new blue party in Ontario.