TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses four ways in which the Canadian healthcare system has been hijacked. Firstly, agile regulations have allowed drugs like mRNA technology to be approved without proving safety. Public health officials were given scripts to promote vaccine benefits, starting with a pre-marketing campaign called "building vaccine confidence." The Canadian Global Media, CBC, joined the Trusted News Initiative in 2019, allowing certain players to control the narrative. Taxpayer money was used to pay off researchers through the Globet R road map, aligning with the World Health Organization's agenda. The head of NAFC received significant research funding during the pandemic, raising concerns about impartiality. The co-chair of NAFLI also received funding to prepare Canadians for vaccine readiness.

The speaker claims to have witnessed a humanitarian catastrophe with millions of deaths worldwide due to vaccines. In their private practice, they've seen almost 1500 patients, previously healthy, now disabled and suffering years later, believing they are addressing the greatest unmet need in the country: care for the vaccine-injured. The speaker believes the government has been fully captured by corporations and industrial complexes. They allege that agencies like the CDC, FDA, NIH, and EPA, along with big food, are polluting air, water, and medicines. They also claim the government is allowing immigrants in, surveilling and censoring citizens, and stripping away rights, with most of the country unaware. The speaker states their goal is to educate people about this and "rescue the republic."

The speaker shares their experience with a vaccine safety specialist who advised them to submit vaccine injury reports. However, when the speaker sent in six reports, public health denied them and claimed there was no evidence of harm. The speaker also mentions that after they wrote a letter to a doctor, the College of Physicians warned doctors not to contradict the public health narrative or they would be investigated and disciplined. This warning has led to doctors staying silent and not questioning the narrative. The speaker submitted 14 vaccine injury reports, but all were denied by public health, who claimed they were coincidences and not vaccine injuries. The speaker concludes that reporting vaccine injuries is impossible as public health censors them to maintain the belief that side effects are rare.

The speaker believes that the situation surrounding the vaccine has been a disaster and suggests that there was a military-grade propaganda campaign to promote it. They claim that the government provided over $1 billion to mainstream media to push the vaccine narrative and censor opposing views. According to the speaker, this violated informed consent for the entire country and the world.

Speaker 0 describes the spread of misinformation that claimed vaccines are “killing weapons” and that COVID-19 is a human-made crisis, calling it “baseless information.” This misinformation influenced a woman who lived with her husband and two children. The husband, who had been absorbed in online content since around May last year, began to show changes in behavior by August. Speaker 2 adds that he collected things he had researched on A4 paper and distributed them around the middle school near his daughter’s school; on a different day, the husband distributed a flyer as well. Speaker 1 mentions that people who had received vaccines were said to have an average lifespan of about two years, an assertion tied to the flyers. When the wife or others protested the distribution, the husband insisted that he was doing the right thing, and he reacted with anger, making it hard for them to understand him. The couple’s children were affected as well: when Speaker 0 left the house, the children wore masks, and there were statements suggesting that wearing masks was unnecessary or that those who did not wear masks should do so. The wife’s group was told that COVID-19 was merely a cold or flu, and this rejection of masks and other measures extended to handwashing and disinfection, with the husband arguing about not needing to adhere to these practices and claiming that certain friends drank together despite the precautions. Speaker 0 notes that the husband repeatedly asserted, “Corona is just a cold,” while he and his companions refused to wash hands or disinfect and continued to socialize aggressively. The family, constantly confronting the fear that they could be infected, tried several times to stop him, but those efforts only led to more fights. Ultimately, for the sake of the family’s safety, the wife separated from her husband in February of this year, resulting in a rift within the family. Speaker 1 emphasizes that this is rooted in baseless information, including the belief that documents or papers published in journals supported anti-vaccine arguments, which people used to promote demagogic claims. Speaker 1 adds that reading such literature reveals that many sources lack scientific soundness, and sometimes people believe them blindly without evaluating the literature. The speakers express a sense of regret and a need to confront the emotional impact of these events, but they refrain from evaluating the truth of the claims, simply presenting the sequence of actions and the resulting family fracture caused by misinformation.

Speaker 0 frames the issue as 'the corruption of science' and the 'capture of the agencies' by pharmaceutical industries, stating the goal is to restore integrity and credibility to science. Speaker 1 cites a CDC internal study: 'black boys who got the vaccine on time had a two hundred and sixty percent greater chance of getting an autism diagnosis than children who waited.' He adds that 'The chief chief scientist on that, Doctor. William Thompson, the senior said vaccine safety science at CDC, was ordered to destroy that data. And then they published it without that fact.' Finally, he asserts, 'So, you know that story. And you know of hundreds of stories like that. It happens all the time. We are being lied to by these agencies, and we're gonna change that right now.'

The speaker discusses the impact of institutional lying during the pandemic, highlighting the importance of standing up against falsehoods. They share their personal experience of facing backlash for reporting on vaccine side effects and being ostracized by the media and friends. The speaker reflects on the creation of a two-tier society based on vaccination status, likening it to historical forms of discrimination. They emphasize the need for courage, faith, and resistance in challenging times.

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.

The speaker reflects on the difficulty of understanding COVID-19 due to being misled by trusted authorities, leading to public avoidance of the topic. Stories about COVID-19 don't perform well, not because of a lack of strong feelings, but because it's "triggering." People are angry that nothing changed, children were "screwed over," and some feel unhealthier after vaccination, with worries about their children. The speaker admits to not getting everything right about COVID-19, giving themselves a "B plus," citing the challenge of widespread deception from previously trusted entities.

The speakers claim that well-funded entities suppressed the truth about autism. They state that parents of autistic children who have tried to investigate the causes of autism have encountered intense resistance. They allege that studies used to support the claim that vaccines don't cause autism are easily disproven, but the media's ownership allows the lie to spread faster than the truth. One speaker believes that many find it too difficult to accept that vaccines could cause autism. They mention someone who suspects a vaccine caused their child's autism but still shamed others for not taking the COVID vaccine, illustrating the power of propaganda. People are afraid of social ostracization and are hesitant to speak their minds, often only whispering their true feelings to close friends. The speakers reference montages showing the horrible things people said about unvaccinated individuals.

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 claims that the pandemic response was a propaganda war orchestrated by the US security state. They argue that the public health protocols for managing a respiratory virus pandemic were ignored, and individuals in positions of power were coerced into implementing policies contrary to scientific knowledge. The motivations behind this propaganda war are suggested to be covering up the US's role in creating the virus, diverting blame to China, and benefiting pharmaceutical companies. The speaker highlights irrational decisions, such as vaccinating everyone despite knowing that older individuals with chronic conditions were at higher risk. They argue that the public health establishment was manipulated, threatened, or propagandized into spreading lies. The speaker concludes that the pandemic response has been a scam imposed on the American public and possibly the world.

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 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.”

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.”

There is a discussion about how public trust in vaccination has changed since the pandemic. The speaker notes that years ago there were “five people in the world who were prepared to talk about the thorny issue of vaccination.” Post COVID, however, “half the adult population of the world are now saying, hold on, we don't trust you. You lied to us. It's not what you told us, safe and effective.” This skepticism extends to vaccines given to children, with the question, “Does this apply to all the other vaccines you're putting into my kids?” The speaker then asserts that “safety studies haven't been done,” suggesting that important research behind vaccines is incomplete or lacking. This leads to the claim that “they've created this mess for themselves.” Despite the frustration, the speaker emphasizes the moral weight of deception, stating, “it's really tough to lie. I mean, lying gets you into real trouble.”

We broke the public's trust and shut down one side of the debate. We portrayed doctors and experts chosen by the CBC as competent and trustworthy, while labeling those who questioned the narrative as dangerous and spreading disinformation. This affected me personally as a journalist with solid contacts in the community. I heard stories of suffering and pain from people who were not being heard. Some were injured, some lost their jobs due to vaccination status, some were ostracized, and others were depressed over lockdowns and mandates. Parents agonized over whether to vaccinate their children. I carried the weight of their truth not being given a voice, which affected my well-being.

The speakers claim the push for a COVID vaccine was motivated by money, and they believe there's a connection between the vaccine and subsequent deaths and blood clots. They express frustration that people aren't acknowledging this connection. One speaker shares a story about a veteran who was allegedly told that the hospital treating him was not allowed to connect his adverse side effects to the vaccine, even when listed as side effects. They say corporations don't want to talk about it because they mandated the vaccine. They believe people who got vaccinated don't want to admit they made a bad decision, leading them to deny any link between the vaccine and increased mortality rates, strokes, cancer, and heart attacks. One speaker recalls being gaslit by a former prime minister who denied coercing anyone into getting vaccinated, despite restrictions placed on the unvaccinated. Another speaker says they were misrepresented on CNN during their own recovery from COVID.

The speaker argues that there was no informed consent regarding the COVID vaccine, as the government and pharmaceutical companies knew it wasn't a traditional vaccine. They hid potential adverse reactions and lack of evidence on transmission prevention. Despite good intentions, people were misled into taking it.

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 argues that 'the trustworthiness of the information that we actually receive from the news media' is a major problem and notes that 'the easiest thing for our democratic colleagues to do is to scare people.' He asks, 'COVID nineteen was politicized?' Speaker 1 answers, 'the whole process was politicized' and says 'we were lied to about everything... the vaccines would prevent transmission' and 'they prevent infection'—claims he says are contradicted by 'the animal studies and the clinical trial showed.' He accuses the CDC of letting 'the teachers union' write school-closure orders that 'hurt working people all over the country, and then pretend it was science based.' He adds examples: 'Martin Koldor from Harvard' was 'ejected [from COVID]... because he wasn't in the orthodoxy'; 'FDA during COVID' officials 'Gruber and Krausz' criticized Biden mandates; Biden said, 'I would never take that vaccine, the Trump vaccine' then mandated it and fired top FDA officials who said it had not been properly tested.' The exchange ends with 'Yes.'

100 Canadian children have died after receiving Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, but this information is being covered up. Many kids were mandated vaccines to play sports. No one is taking responsibility for these deaths, with Health Canada, public health officials, and medical organizations all denying any deaths from the vaccines. The speaker has reported on these deaths on social media, leading to attempts to shut down their accounts.

We broke the public's trust by silencing one side of the debate, labeling experts as trustworthy and critics as dangerous. As a journalist, I heard stories of suffering and pain from people affected by lockdowns and vaccine mandates, but these stories were not being told. This burden affected my well-being as these people trusted me to share their truth.

The speaker believes COVID vaccine programs should be stopped. They are astounded by the number of papers critical of the vaccine or showing negative effects. The speaker claims a group of researchers funded by Pfizer and the NIH bullies editors to retract papers with negative findings about the vaccine. They assert the number of retractions is appalling. According to the speaker, in one instance where an editor resisted, Nature Springer bought the journal and retracted the paper. The speaker states that this is what they have been dealing with.