TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Vaccines don't cause autism. The science is clear. Vaccines don't cause autism. Vaccines do not cause autism. I do not deny that we need to do more about autism, but it has nothing to do with vaccines. We have thoroughly debunked any association between autism and these vaccines. Robert, it is nearly consensus in the scientific community that there's no link there. To deny a mountain of scientific evidence, which has already taught us that the combination of measles, mumps, rubella, or MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism, Vimerosal, an ethylmercury containing preservative that wasn't a number of vaccines doesn't cause autism, and that too many vaccines given too soon, if you will, doesn't also cause autism. We know that the schedule is safe. Are there peer reviewed scientific reports that indicate a link between No. Between vaccines and autism? No. Not only is there not a peer reviewed work, this is probably the most studied public health issue involving children. Vaccines are really the one thing we have looked at as causing autism. The Institutes of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control have repeatedly investigated this. Vaccines do not cause autism. We don't need more research. At some point, enough is enough. It's fine to continue to collect data, but at some point, you have to take note for an answer. We're not sure what causes autism, but we know that vaccines do not. Mountains of evidence. No, you know, this has been looked at extensively. Nothing's been more studied in the world than this connection between vaccines and autism. We'd heard it. We've heard it for decades. You know, actually almost a century now, if you want to get into it. This has been the battle cry of the pharmaceutical industry and every shill that works for them. But whether you know it or not all the way back in 2020 for those of you that were watching then we actually disproved this myth right then. Debunked it with a lawsuit where we went at the CDC and said really if the head of your page on the CDC website says vaccines plural meaning all vaccines do not cause us to do we have that original website. This is what it said: vaccines do not cause autism. There it is. All vaccines doesn't say one of them or two of them all vaccines by the plural s at the end of vaccines. If vaccines do not cause autism will you please provide us with all of the evidence and studies that show that vaccines don't cause autism. Send us that evidence. Well they didn't and we sued them and we went to court. Back in 2020, we won the case. Here it looks like in the document. They gave us the list. It's actually 20 studies. 20 total studies make up the entire list of what they look to when they say that these childhood vaccines, the five, and the cumulative effects of them given in the first six months of life, do not cause autism. The first one is an MMR study. The second one an MMR and a DTaP study. The next ones are MMR, these four are MMR and Thimerosal studies. Then the next all the way through to 20 are all just Thimerosal studies. Lastly, we have one antigen study. Of the 20 studies, the first MMR studies are not in the first six months of life; Thimerosal studies show none of the vaccines in the first six months of life had Thimerosal. There was only one study relevant to the first six months of life, the IOM review of the DTaP vaccine, and it said there are no studies that prove or disprove the association with autism. Therefore, that was the only one that was relevant to the first six months of life, and it proved that they had no answers. And so for everyone that's ever sent Mountain of Evidence, that's been a lie. We won in court. It's a lie. You can take that to the bank. And actually just months after winning that lawsuit, that was in May, by August they pulled down the statement vaccines do not cause autism. We celebrated it but five months later it went back up and we've been stuck there with this propaganda statement that have no basis in science up until last night when this happened to the website. Let's see the new page. Here it is. It now says autism and vaccines and right under that it has the key points. So we read those key points. The claim vaccines do not cause autism is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism, meaning those vaccines in the first six months of life. Meaning the IOM lawsuit that proved that. Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities. HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links. It does have an explanatory statement I want to read right now. It says this about why you will still see it with an asterisk the header vaccines do not cause autism has not been completely removed due to an agreement with the chair of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that it would remain on the CDC website. Apparently, this was that backroom deal that was made with Senator Cassidy, of course, when Robert Kennedy Jr. was up there. But now you can see on the page it is clear we are making the statement or it's being made by the CDC that this is not a scientific statement and so ultimately this is a massive change. I tweeted out about it today and to every parent of an autistic child that's been out there. For every one of you that did interviews, whether in the film Vaxxed or when we toured the nation and for everyone that's ever been gaslit, the days of gaslighting are over. We are now moving into science-based, evidence-based statements on the CDC website. It's a beautiful day.

The speaker states the president stands by his comments, as does the entire administration. They claim a democracy cannot exist if a single district court judge can assume the powers of the commander in chief. They contrast this with the Supreme Court, where it takes five justices to change federal policy. The speaker asserts that a single district court judge out of 700 cannot set policy for the entire nation, especially on national security and public safety issues. The president has tremendous respect for Justice Roberts and believes the Supreme Court should crack down and stop the assault on democracy from radical rogue judges. These judges are allegedly usurping the powers of the presidency and laying waste to the constitutional system.

Section 230 protects Wikipedia from lawsuits. Lawyers have stated that a suit against Wikipedia, even in a case of a damaging entry, would be instantly dismissed because of this section. While this is currently true, it is not the case in the third, fourth, and fifth circuits. Judges reflexively dismiss such cases based on established case law, turning Section 230 into immunity from suit, which it is not. According to Speaker 1, the ninth circuit won't allow a case to proceed to fix this. Speaker 1 believes Supreme Court intervention is needed. A judge stated that until the Supreme Court weighs in, lower courts cannot fix the issue in California, circumventing due process and First Amendment rights.

Emails have surfaced between Jack Smith and Merrick Garland, where it turns out they were planning trials like Stalin ran or the Maxi trials in Italy where they tried 250 mafia figures together. They're gonna try a thousand of us altogether in a stadium on camera and send us off to be liquidated. It was crazy what they had. And the emails, they were already planning it. They had no expectation of losing this last November. They found this in the bag. On the bright side, what I found is that it's very easy to figure out what they did because whatever they're accusing you of doing, that's what they were actually working on. That's how they became experts on all of it. So it really makes it easy to put together their rap sheets in that context. Leticia James is just one blaring example of that mindset here. So where do you think this is all headed right now then? So, how do you think it's gonna roll out? And who's domino number three? I think that we are have to I've I'm an outsider. I don't know any more than the next monkey, but what I would do is we have to, at a geopolitical level, mission one and two have to overthrow the governments of Venezuela and Cuba. None of them can survive. This was an act of war that was successful. They overthrew our republic. This was successful. It's a freaking miracle. We were never supposed to get out from under that. They cannot survive. This was a six act of war that eliminated our country. So that's and domestic have to, this all has to be exposed. We've got to this all has to be exposed. And all the parts of society, we need to have almost like a truth and reconciliation where a lot of people who took part in what was basically a Bolshevik revolution have to be exposed. And there there are people you know, there's a 120 federal officers from the CIA and the FBI who went out to Stanford, joined the Stanford Internet Observatory, and took part in a mass censorship industrial complex against the American people. In which case all kinds of medical information was suppressed, which got people killed as well as they supported this political coup. I don't think it's a coincidence that that happened just when it did. And they suppressed any information about the elections. Those people took part in a coup. The professors who took part in it, in a way with pleading, we're just idiotic professors who read too many Herbert Marcuse underlined it too. The people who swore an oath to the constitution at some point in their life and took part in that, I believe should be hung from the Golden Gate in full daylight, left to sunset, and then their bodies disposed at sea so that American soil isn't polluted by the corpse corpses of people who took part in such a program. That was the overthrow of The United States Of America, and there were people who swore an oath to the constitution who took part in it. And that's what really should If I were the president, probably, I would let all that machinery grind on. And at the last moment, I'd probably sign and send them to some island in Hawaii for five years and say, everyone just cool this hell off. We're all just gonna cool off. You guys betrayed the country by all rights. You should be hung. But what we're gonna do is send you this we're gonna take over some resort in Oahu at the tip of wire. We'll just send you there for, like, five years. Everybody shut up. Stay off social media. Be nicer? The Point Barrel, Alaska, I was thinking would be a little bit more appropriate, but that's alright. I mean on top of Island 2. Aleutian Island. Yeah. And just say we don't wanna hear from you for five years. You're gonna be well fed, take care of. Your tennis game's gonna be great. It's not gonna be, you know, it's gonna be prison cells. You can live like a college dorm. But, literally, the US should send them off for, like, four or five years just and not hear from them. They overthrew our country. And that's probably what really should I think should that or some kind of peace and reconciliation, but everything has to be exposed. Think of all the institutions from all these things that they used to throw in our face become our weapons. The idea that 60 judges looked at this and didn't see anything becomes our point, not their point. How corrupt is the system? Now once it's all proven and exposed to them, how corrupt is the system? 60 judges looked at this and saw nothing. That's how corrupt and weak and ineffective the system is. So all these points become points in our favor.

It's preposterous in my view that these judges, the judicial branch, obviously plays an important role in our three, you know, coequal branches of government, but they should understand what their role is. And these activist judges who now somehow believe that they're in the position of making policy by undermining the president's legal authorities and orders, bestowed upon him by the American people. If these judges wanna run for office and be president, go ahead and do that. Go make your policies. But they are politicizing the bench and and, you know, showing how through their activism, they are undermining really, frankly, their own credibility in doing this. And, again, another thing that undermines the American people's faith and trust that these institutions, that the the the judicial branch in some of these cases is actually, doing their job.

It's shocking and unprecedented. I'm announcing a measure to work with Congress, calling for subpoenas to be issued to Judge Merchan's daughter's company, which made over $15 million from information coming out of her father's courtroom. I want to see the bank records to understand how deep this goes, how much went to the family, and how much is going to them after this conviction. We need to investigate the FEC violations by the judge and his family because he should never have overseen this trial due to illicit campaign money flowing through it. The unconstitutional due process violations are just the start. America wants accountability in our judicial system, and Congress is the only one who can do it. I hope a couple of brave members of Congress will issue those subpoenas ASAP.

Today in The Netherlands, outside the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam, a landmark case brings senior government officials, major media figures, pharmaceutical leadership, and global policy actors together as defendants in a single COVID response case. Among those ordered to appear are Albert Baller, the CEO of Pfizer, the former Dutch prime minister, senior Dutch health ministers, leading figures from the Dutch media, and Bill Gates. This makes the case extraordinary. On March 9, an important step is happening at the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. This hearing is not the main trial. The main trial is proceeding, and Bill Gates, if not appearing in person, must have representation and offer a defense. Today’s hearing concerns a procedural question: should the court allow an appeal against an earlier decision that blocked a request for preliminary evidence? In simple terms, the claimants ask the court for permission to present and examine expert evidence early before the trial, to have experts testify, documents examined, and key scientific and legal claims tested through cross examination. The lower court refused that request. The Amsterdam Court Of Appeal is being asked to decide whether that refusal should itself be reviewed. This hinges on the right to have evidence examined in public. If the appeal is allowed, expert testimony and scrutiny of the evidence could proceed; if refused, the claimants must continue without that preliminary examination. The reason for this hearing traces to the main lawsuit, begun in July 2023. Seven Dutch citizens filed a civil case in a district court, claiming they were misled about the nature of the COVID threat and about the safety and necessity of COVID vaccines. They argue that government officials, public health authorities, pharmaceutical executives, and major media figures promoted a narrative that induced fear and compliance based on unscientific claims of a novel pathogen called COVID nineteen. They claim these representations caused them to take vaccines and to suffer psychological and physical harm. The claimants describe a tort claim: the defendants breached a duty of care owed to the public by providing false or misleading information that resulted in damage. They seek two things: a declaration that the defendants acted unlawfully and compensation for the harm. Before the trial proceeds, the claimants asked for the evidence behind those claims to be examined in court, hence the provisional evidence request and today’s appeal. Central to the request are expert witnesses from multiple disciplines addressing scientific, legal, psychological, and institutional dimensions. The experts include Catherine Watt (legal researcher in public health law), Sasha Latipova (pharmaceutical regulatory processes), Doctor Joseph Sansone (psychologist studying crisis messaging and behavioral compliance), Catherine Austin Fitz (financial analyst on institutional power structures and global policy networks), and Doctor Mike Yeadon (English pharmacologist, former Pfizer VP). Yeadon has argued that the safety narrative surrounding the vaccines is challenged, claiming inadequate testing and concerns about toxicity. The point of a court is that such claims should be tested under cross examination, not dismissed without scrutiny. Allowing this appeal would enable the evidence to be heard and tested in public, with broader implications beyond the Netherlands, potentially influencing accountability, transparency, and public trust in other jurisdictions. What happens here may influence debates about open scrutiny of evidence in courts elsewhere. The speaker closes with a personal note, recalling six years spent fighting misinformation and supporting the truth be told campaign for COVID jabbed, injured, and bereaved, and underscoring that this case concerns justice in action, public scrutiny, and accountability for powerful institutions.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify and restate the speaker’s claimed credentials (or lack thereof). - Capture the core activity described (deposing leading vaccine experts) and the basis for claims (actual evidence). - Note the courtroom principle contrasting titles versus evidence. - Outline the asserted strategic actions (legal action against specific agencies) and purported results. - Preserve the exact claim about the outcome of the lawsuits regarding vaccine safety science. - Present statements verbatim where feasible, and otherwise closely paraphrase to retain meaning. - Avoid adding judgments, external context, or evaluative commentary. Summary: The speaker introduces himself as Mister Siri and immediately clarifies that he is not a medical doctor, and not an immunologist or biologist or any kind of vaccinologist. He adds that despite lacking these titles, he “depose[s] them regularly, including the world’s leading ones with regards to vaccines,” and that he must base his claims on “actual evidence.” In describing his courtroom approach, he asserts that when he goes to court regarding vaccines, “I don’t get to rely on titles.” He then recounts a proposed strategic path he characterizes as a “genius way forward”: “We’re gonna sue the government agencies, HHS, FDA, NIH,” and he states that “we started winning.” The narrative then turns to the alleged outcomes of those legal actions, posing the question, “And what did we prove in those lawsuits?” followed by the claimed conclusion: “That the entire science behind vaccine safety was nothing but a complete fraud.” Throughout, the speaker frames the process as a shift from deference to credentials to a reliance on evidence obtained through deposition and litigation, culminating in purported victories against major federal health agencies. He presents the lawsuits as the mechanism by which the foundational science of vaccine safety was challenged, and he asserts that the result of these proceedings is a definitive statement that the science underpinning vaccine safety is fraudulent, as claimed within the transcript’s courtroom-centered account. The emphasis remains on the contrast between claimed authority and evidence-based legal challenges, as well as on the asserted procedural successes and the sweeping conclusion about vaccine-safety science.

"We got them. We finally got them. We caught the IRS red handed." "They're frauds, fabricated, phantom tax returns the IRS claims that you filed but can't produce because they never existed." "Here's the crime. An IRS agent falsified the records." "A supervisor covered it up." "The DOJ marched into court and used those fake records against Americans and then admitted under oath they have no signed returns to back it up." "That's not sloppy paperwork. That's a RICO fraud, a criminal enterprise operating under color of law." "And it doesn't stop there. Judges look the other way." "Multilayered fraud, IRS, DOJ, and the judicial system." "It's time to shut down this rogue agency once and for all." "Chew on this, America."

"Did you know the judge that released this guy didn't even go to law school? Yeah. Not even a lawyer." "These magistrate judges that are making a decision to release these people without bail? Yeah. They're they're not even lawyers." "They didn't go to law school. They didn't pass the bar." "They just got appointed to be judges." "No training required." "They don't even have to be lawyers, but they can be judges." "They don't have to go to law school. They don't have to pass the bar." "How the fuck is this a thing? How the fuck do we have judges who didn't even study the law?" "But to be the judge, to be the person overseeing these lawyers, to be the ultimate arbiter of the law, you don't have to go to law school. You don't have to pass the bar." "How is this a fucking thing?"

The DOJ tried to put me in for eight years. I was sentenced to almost three. But because I didn't take that plea and continue to press an appeal of all charges, I was vindicated by the Supreme Court decision in Fisher. And then I continued to press a full appeal until the DOJ vacated all five charges. So I've been completely exonerated within the legal system. The charges were rescinded as if they had never been brought because Wow. Of course, they were they were fraudulent from the beginning.

The judge's ruling against using executive privilege as a defense sealed our fate. We expected this outcome and will be appealing the decision. We have always known that this case would eventually reach the Supreme Court. I have been clear from the start that I am prepared to go to prison to resolve this matter.

"You're as defiant as a defendant as this court has ever seen." "You are a privileged person. You are as privileged privileged as they come." "you crave it, ma'am." "You are no hero. Position, and you're a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to pedal a snake oil that's been proven to be junk time and time again." "No one in this courtroom who would consider that to be anything other than the absolute truth." "Our system of government can't function when people in government think that somehow, someway, the power they've been given is absolute in all respects." "You have no respect for the checks and balances of government. You have no respect for this court."

My family's real estate company in New York faced unfair treatment in court. Despite our impeccable record, we were targeted politically. We have always paid our loans and taxes, even during COVID. The system is rigged against us. We will fight this injustice and win on appeal. My father is determined to prevail. The attacks on us are because he is a strong presidential candidate. The appellate court has already ruled in our favor on key issues. This unfair treatment must end for the good of our country.

Our adversaries are using the indictments against me to claim that the United States is a corrupt and failing democracy. They are using it extensively, making us appear like a third world country or a banana republic.

They aim to harm us for disagreeing with them. Our justice system no longer prioritizes truth, but winning at all costs.

It was an emotional time seeing his baby get ripped from him, and it wasn't right. You never went through what I went through. You didn't endure all the things I had to endure. You weren't sleeping on a couch trying to raise a hundred bucks here, a thousand bucks here. I'm invoking the constitution here. Every defendant has the right to a fair trial, and no justice can be done in Ferguson or New York City if a fair trial cannot be had. You didn't sleep on a mattress in Louisiana. You weren't falsely accused by the federal government, not once but twice. You didn't go through three jury trials. James O'Keith is facing federal felony charges, charges that carry up to a quarter million dollar fine and ten years in prison. You didn't bleed and sweat and cry the way that I did for fourteen years. And you come into my institution and you have the gall to tell me that you're not the bad guy. This was never about you.

This court has lost all legitimacy. The gun, voting, and union decisions damaged its standing, but the Roe v. Wade decision completely destroyed any remaining credibility. To restore confidence in the Supreme Court, we need to expand the number of justices.

The speaker believes the case is a scam and should be dismissed immediately. They claim that the court is the fraudster and made references to undervalued assets. They express frustration with the lengthy process and compare it to the urgent issues happening in the world. The speaker highlights the lack of credibility of the star witness and asserts that everything they did was right. They find it disgraceful to be sued while there are more pressing problems in the country. The speaker mentions negative public sentiment towards the situation and concludes that it is a sad day for America.

I disagree with the ruling that the justice department's process for picking special counsels is illegal. We believe it is constitutional and have appealed the decision. This process has been used for decades, including in previous administrations, and has been upheld by every court that has reviewed it, including the Supreme Court.

In the United States, it's unusual that we don't have a jury, which I find unfair. However, I need to address a misconception in the press. We didn't have the option to choose a jury, contrary to what's being repeated. Personally, I believe juries often make mistakes, but I have a tool called "judgment notwithstanding the verdict" to handle those situations. I can declare that a reasonable jury would never have reached that conclusion.

The entire justice enterprise in The United States depends upon an honor system. It depends upon them telling the truth. It depends upon them abiding a promise they made to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. And we are long past the days when that oath was backed in most people by a fear of going to hell. And so it turns out it's an honor system. To get information, to be able to find the truth, and the truth is a real thing. There are facts. That honor system has to be enforced with an iron fist so the system will work, so the truth can be found in a reliable way.

I can't explain because the judge is corrupt. His ruling is a disgrace. Everyone saw what happened. I'm innocent, but held by a corrupt judge who's conflicted. It's a disgrace to New York and the country. I need to get back to the campaign trail. Thank you.

The speaker believes the case is a scam and should be dismissed immediately. They claim that the court is the fraudster and made references to undervalued assets. They express frustration with the lengthy process and criticize the outside world for not taking action. The speaker highlights the lack of credibility of the star witness, who admitted to lying. They defend their actions and argue that the lawsuit is a waste of time and money, considering the pressing issues the country faces. The speaker concludes by stating that the public is fed up with the situation, making it a sad day for America.

I am proud to represent President Trump and stand with him, but I have concerns about the unfairness I witnessed in the courtroom. The judge denied us the opportunity to present important evidence and witnesses, and manipulated the questions and answers during the trial. This is a violation of our justice system. We will appeal the verdict and fight for everyone's right to speak and defend themselves. Despite the challenges, President Trump remains determined to fight for Americans. Thank you.