TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

A group of European Parliament members wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expressing concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines. The EMA responded, stating that the vaccines were only approved for individual immunization, not for controlling or preventing infections. They also emphasized the lack of data on preventing infections and even mentioned that exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection, even in vaccinated individuals. The EMA highlighted the importance of carefully considering safety information before administering vaccines. The government's vaccination campaigns were deemed unauthorized and based on misinformation. The EMA's information undermines the vaccination policies of the Dutch government, and they should be held accountable for their actions.

The government and the American people have accepted the idea of conserving land, but there is a debate over how much land should be taken. Agencies are acquiring more land without the resources to manage it effectively. People are concerned about the government's increasing control and want to involve those with local knowledge in managing private lands that are home to endangered species. It would be more logical to work with people who understand what is happening in their own backyard rather than relying on distant authorities.

The Federal Register in 2023 reveals that the New York Stock Exchange is collaborating with the Securities and Exchange Commission to establish a new type of company called a natural asset company (NAC). NACs will hold rights to ecological performance in areas like national reserves and farmlands, taking over management responsibilities from public land agencies. These rights can be licensed from governments or private landowners, including publicly owned areas like national parks. The aim is to privatize these areas for conservation, restoration, or sustainable management. Wall Street, particularly BlackRock, stands to benefit greatly from this, with the potential for trillions of dollars in economic value.

There's skepticism about ESG and sustainable labels, which is why we're focused on net zero. We can't stabilize the climate without achieving it. It's simple: emissions either increase or decrease. If they're decreasing, are they doing so in line with scientific standards? We're basing this on the same science used by the UN and others for the 1.5-degree objectives. These are hard numbers, not subjective opinions.

Speaker 0: Take the shot and protect yourself and the people around you. We all feel a chill when we hear that. Mrs. van der Hof from the RIVM, you’ve researched the effects of vaccination. If you look under the line, has it had any usefulness? Speaker 1: It has certainly been useful. In fact, from our research, but also from many other studies, people who were vaccinated had a lower chance of dying from COVID, and we see that effect with every shot that’s given. We also studied whether there is a higher chance of dying from diseases other than COVID shortly after vaccination, to see whether there is vaccine harm, and we do not find that either, which is also in line with what is found internationally. Speaker 0: Okay, because that is the story you hear at the dinner table. Earlier this week someone said, I see so many people dying, there must be something. Speaker 1: Yes. Well, there are certainly people who have died due to the vaccination. We cannot deny that. That has been investigated; we find that in the Netherlands through Lareb, and we find that internationally as well. You just have to weigh the very small chance that you become ill or die from a vaccination against the chance that you become very ill or die from COVID. And the balance tips toward vaccination. Speaker 0: Yes, vaccination protects more than it harms, you just said. Also, have you studied the chance of death due to vaccination? Speaker 1: Well, we looked at people who were vaccinated and whether within 2 months after vaccination they had an increased chance of dying from anything other than COVID. If there were an indication there, we would see it, and we absolutely do not find that. Speaker 0: No, that is simply not found. Okay. Mrs. Van der Broek, and the pandemic was a priority.

There are tools available if things go in the right direction. Governments have to be accountable and play an important role.

It's good that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) labels face scrutiny and healthy skepticism. This is a key reason we are so focused on net zero. We can't stabilize the climate without achieving net zero; it's that simple. Emissions either increase or decrease. If decreasing, are they doing so at a rate consistent with scientific findings? We're basing our approach on the same science that the UN and others use for their one-and-a-half-degree objectives.

They work with local governments and have plans for them. In some areas, building back is not advisable. They have successfully convinced certain communities and people that buyouts are a better option.

Agenda 21 is a global agenda for sustainability, adopted by over 100 heads of state. It outlines the transformation needed in society. The United Nations presented a global biodiversity assessment, which explains how to implement the treaty on biodiversity. It includes a system of protected areas, with core wilderness areas surrounded by buffer zones. The Wildlands Project aims to convert 50% of North America into wilderness off-limits to humans, interconnected by wilderness corridors. The remaining 25% of land would be for sustainable communities. The White House created an ecosystem management policy enforced by 20 federal agencies. The United Nations wants to establish a regulatory structure affecting everyone, with control centralized in the United Nations. The Man and the Biosphere program has 47 sites in the US, covering 51 million acres. Many national parks are now UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

The PVV believes that the excessive reduction of CO2 emissions must stop, but according to government officials, a new cabinet cannot simply reduce climate policies. The European Union's goal of climate neutrality and a 55% reduction in emissions by 2030 binds the Netherlands to these commitments. Failure to comply may result in penalties. To achieve the current climate target, difficult decisions are needed in agriculture and transportation. The next government will also have to address issues such as reducing livestock and implementing road pricing. The transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy by 2050 is also unavoidable. Neglecting these goals would harm the investment climate in the country. The winner of the elections may face challenges in forming a government due to differing views on climate policies.

In the Netherlands, the political landscape is different, which may affect the agreements made at the summit. It is uncertain how the new government, with a potentially different stance on climate change, will impact these agreements. The formation of a new government in the Netherlands is typically lengthy and unpredictable, so we cannot know the exact outcome. However, the current government's approach to climate change will be continued, and there seems to be strong support for it.

In Nederland willen we over een paar jaar nog steeds een veehouderij behouden, dat is de belangrijkste reden. De formatie speelt hier ook een rol in. Dat is alles wat ik hierover te zeggen heb. Translation: In the Netherlands, we want to maintain a livestock industry in the coming years, which is the main reason. The formation process is also a factor. That's all I have to say about that.

The Wildlands Project proposes converting at least 50% of North America into wilderness areas, interconnected by corridors and surrounded by buffer zones with limited resource use. This plan aligns with Agenda 21, adopted by over 100 heads of state, detailing societal transformations for sustainability. The UN's Commission on Global Governance aims to create a world standing army and consolidate global financial institutions. The biodiversity treaty emphasizes protected areas, including core wilderness and biosphere reserves, which are voluntary agreements with the UN. The goal is to significantly reduce the human population and regulate activities within these areas, impacting every individual globally. Many national parks are now designated as UNESCO World Heritage Sites, often without public awareness.

The ISO 2022 priority is being given a lot of attention and is considered highly important. The November 2023 deadline seems to be the main focus for everyone.

There is concern about the idea that there is too much nitrogen in the soil and water, but nitrogen is essential for life. The Netherlands is planning to reduce the number of animals and ban some nitrogen fertilizer, which could affect crop growth. The production of synthetic ammonia, which is used to make fertilizer, has allowed for increased food production and population growth. However, if countries continue to ban fertilizer, it could lead to food shortages and even mass starvation. It is important to consider the consequences of such actions and not harm ourselves in the process. Food shortages cannot be easily resolved, and without fertilizer, crop yields will decrease. This could lead to empty store shelves in some parts of the world. It is crucial to recognize the importance of carbon dioxide and nitrogen for life.

The UN's 30 by 30 agenda aims to seize 30% of all land and water on Earth, disregarding private property rights. The European Union is implementing it, and California and Joe Biden are using similar language, mentioning conserving 30% of lands and waters by 2030. The speaker claims this isn't about conservation but about taking, facilitated in the US by the sustains act, which allows the government to receive private funds for conservation programs. This act assigns value to environmental services provided by privately owned land, such as pollination, photosynthesis, and clean air/water, monetizing them through partnerships between private investors and the government, without landowner consent. The speaker asserts this is a seizing of American assets aligned with the UN's goals, without public consent or input. Representatives, according to the World Economic Forum, are now solely responsible, without needing to consult the public.

The ISO 2022 priority is being given a lot of attention and is considered highly important. The November 2023 deadline seems to be the main focus for everyone.

It's good that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) labels face scrutiny and healthy skepticism. This scrutiny is a key reason for our relentless focus on achieving net zero emissions. Ultimately, stabilizing the climate depends on reaching net zero. It's straightforward math: emissions are either increasing or decreasing. If they're decreasing, we need to check if that decrease is consistent with scientific targets. We base our approach on the same scientific data used by the UN and others for the 1.5-degree climate objective.

De minister erkent dat haar huidige opdracht niet overeenkomt met eerdere uitspraken, wat pijnlijk is, maar ze zal de opdrachten uitvoeren. Kort na aantreden is ze geïnformeerd over weerbaarheid en de overlap met haar post op de Opandemse paraatheid. Onder leiding van de NCTV wordt geïnventariseerd wat er moet gebeuren, voortbouwend op de ervaringen tijdens de coronacrisis. Voor de volgende begroting zullen er dekking en oplossingen komen, rekening houdend met mogelijke escalaties en NAVO-verplichtingen. Een ander persoon concludeert dat de minister de pandemische paraatheid niet op orde heeft en signalen negeert, wat zorgelijk is. De minister antwoordt dat de landelijke functie infectieziektebestrijding doorgaat, maar de capaciteitsverhoging van de GGD en de verbetering van de modellering van het RIVM on hold staan. Ze benadrukt dat dit niet de hele zorg doet instorten bij een pandemie. Besluiten voor 2026 en verder, zoals ICT, LCPS, Nationale Zorgreserve, persoonlijke beschermingsmiddelen, rioolseveus en insectziektebestrijding, staan nog in de planning. **Translation:** The minister acknowledges that her current assignment does not align with previous statements, which is painful, but she will carry out the assignments. Shortly after taking office, she was informed about resilience and the overlap with her position on Opandemse preparedness. Under the leadership of the NCTV, an inventory is being made of what needs to be done, building on the experiences during the corona crisis. Coverage and solutions will be provided for the next budget, taking into account possible escalations and NATO obligations. Another person concludes that the minister does not have pandemic preparedness in order and is ignoring signals, which is worrying. The minister replies that the national infectious disease control function continues, but the capacity increase of the GGD and the improvement of the modeling of the RIVM are on hold. She emphasizes that this does not cause the entire healthcare system to collapse in the event of a pandemic. Decisions for 2026 and beyond, such as ICT, LCPS, National Healthcare Reserve, personal protective equipment, sewage systems and insect control, are still in the planning.

They work with local governments and have plans for them. In some areas, building back is not advisable. They have convinced certain communities that buyouts are better.

Speaker 0: We tend to think about capital as only financial capital—cash and financial assets—but that is not the only value our economies depend on. Every aspect of the economy is fundamentally dependent on nature: the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil, the oceans for the food we consume, and the minerals needed for technology and infrastructure. Without these forms of natural capital, economies wouldn’t exist; they are the fundamental building blocks. Yet the ways we have grown our economies and our models of economic development have been incredibly successful for global prosperity. But the unintended consequences of current growth models are not sustainable on a finite planet. The resources we draw from Earth and the pollution and waste we emit—greenhouse gas emissions, sewage, plastics into the ocean—are beyond the Earth’s carrying capacity. This is leading to significant direct impacts on society and substantial financial costs for the economy. Macro-level calculations show these costs, and they’re also showing up in practical ways as we breach environmental boundaries and undermine nature. These breaches translate into financial risks for institutions: lack of water disrupts operations and supply chains where water is an essential input for manufacturing or power production; soil degradation reduces agricultural yields; the decline of pollinator species affects agriculture. All of this leads to direct financial risks for organizations, for businesses, and ultimately for investors. The root cause is that decision-making within businesses and financial institutions currently relies on financial data and metrics that do not factor in nature. Nature is treated within the economy as though it is unlimited and predominantly free, and the risks and harms are not costed in financial terms. While macro-level costs can be calculated, they are not integrated into day-to-day decision making. The consequence is that our economies are placed at fundamental risk. We cannot do business on a dead planet. To protect natural systems, one solution is to bring nature onto the balance sheet—bring nature into the ways decisions are made within business, allocate a value to it, and integrate it into accounting and financial mechanisms.

It's good that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) labels face scrutiny. This skepticism drives our intense focus on achieving net zero emissions. Ultimately, stabilizing the climate requires reaching net zero; it's that simple. Emissions either increase or decrease. The key question is whether they are decreasing at a rate consistent with scientific targets. Our approach is grounded in the same scientific principles used by the UN and others, specifically targeting the 1.5-degree objective.

The Dutch farmer protests are not anti-environmental, but a response to economic pressures and land grabs by corporations like Bill Gates and Monsanto. Farmers use fertilizers out of necessity, not choice. The Great Reset uses a green agenda to bankrupt farmers and seize their land. While supporting a green agenda, it is important for people to stand in solidarity with farmers, allowing them time to transition to more sustainable practices without globalist interference. Together, we can make decisions that benefit both farmers and the environment.

In 2019, the Netherlands faced a supposed nitrogen crisis, which led to government crackdowns on farmers and potential land expropriation. However, the speaker argues that this crisis is manufactured by bureaucrats in The Hague and Brussels. They claim that the attack on farming is part of a global agenda called the 2030 agenda, which is a United Nations initiative consisting of 17 sustainable development goals. While these goals may seem noble, the speaker believes that achieving them would require a forceful redistribution of goods, property, and rights, ultimately leading to the obliteration of basic liberties. The speaker suggests that the true motive behind this agenda is to establish a one world government, controlling every aspect of our lives. Farmers are specifically targeted because the agenda aims to radically change our way of life, including the food we eat.

We are rapidly causing mass extinctions, leading to the depletion of nature's diverse species. To ensure a sustainable future, we must integrate sustainability into every aspect of our economy. I am launching the Terra Castle as a recovery plan for nature, people, and the planet. This initiative recognizes the importance and value of nature and represents a significant change in our approach to industry and the economy. We need to accelerate our timelines for change to make a transformative shift by the end of the decade, before it's too late.