TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In Helsinki, Dr. Hanna Nochonek testified that Finnish health authorities knew COVID vaccines didn't fully prevent transmission since summer 2021. They advised the government to stop using COVID passes by the end of the year, but the government ignored it. A citizen, Mikka Vahokala, is suing the government over this issue. For more information, visit casecovidpass.com. Helsinki correspondent for Positivity and Good TV.

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.

Mitte März beginnt in Frankfurt ein Prozess gegen Biontech wegen angeblicher Impfschäden. Betroffene können Anträge bei Landesbehörden stellen, um Haftung zu verlangen. Die Entscheidung über die Akzeptanz von Impfschäden liegt bei den Landesbehörden. Die Kostenübernahme durch Länder oder Bund bei bestätigten Impfschäden wird individuell entschieden. English Translation: In mid-March, a trial against Biontech for alleged vaccine injuries will begin in Frankfurt. Affected individuals can file claims with state authorities to seek liability. The acceptance of vaccine injuries is determined by state authorities. The coverage of costs by states or the federal government for confirmed vaccine injuries is decided on a case-by-case basis.

A Dutch court has ruled that Bill Gates will face trial for allegedly misleading the public about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. The case was brought by seven plaintiffs claiming vaccine-related injuries. Gates' legal team argued against the court's jurisdiction, but the judge confirmed it, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. Notably, other defendants include the Dutch Prime Minister, NATO Secretary General, members of the Dutch government, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and the Dutch state. This ruling is seen as a significant step forward, as those named must now defend themselves against these accusations.

Sean Rickard, along with his co-applicant Carl Harrison, filed the first-ever lawsuit against the government for vaccine travel mandates. They have faced numerous challenges and motions, but have won most of them. However, their case was deemed moot by the Federal Court of Appeal due to a lack of public interest. Despite this setback, they have filed a second lawsuit as a damages claim. They are considering taking the case to the Supreme Court of Canada but are facing financial challenges. They are seeking donations to continue their fight. They believe they have evidence that proves the government had no scientific rationale for implementing the mandates. They are asking for feedback and support from the public.

Pfizer in the UK breached regulations by promoting unlicensed medicines on social media, leading to a £30,000 fine. This ruling may pave the way for citizens to pursue legal action against Pfizer for vaccine injuries. The UK's compensation system for vaccine injuries could make it easier for affected individuals to seek recourse. The Telegraph highlighted the safety concerns surrounding the injections, potentially fueling lawsuits against Pfizer.

Hundreds of supporters gathered in Germany as Dr. Bakti faced court on charges of incitement and Holocaust trivialization for comparing COVID vaccination to 1930s Germany. The defense appealed to prevent a public reading of the indictment, alleging the prosecutor issued it prematurely. The court ruled in favor of the defense, disallowing the reading. The judge indicated the charges, as brought by the prosecutor, are unlikely to be upheld. A 90-minute interview of Dr. Bakti is being played as evidence. The hearing is ongoing with a lunch break.

During the cold season, the number of people with colds and COVID-19 cases is high. A laboratory in Magdeburg claims to have found foreign DNA contaminants in the BioNTech Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. The manufacturer denies this, but Professor Brigitte König from the Magdeburg laboratory found significant levels of foreign DNA in all five batches tested. The concern is that the foreign DNA could enter human cells and cause damage. However, the presence of foreign DNA in vaccines is not new, and it is unclear whether it poses any significant risks. The debate surrounding this issue continues, and further testing and clarification from authorities are needed.

- The speaker notes dated 07/25/2022, reporting on developments related to baby deaths and baby funerals. They reference the UK government website, and specifically Northampton NHS in detail mentioning children's funerals, noting that contracts for this area have appeared that were previously unseen. They point to contractfinderservice.gov.uk and advise looking for “children's and babies' funerals.” They identify several awarded contracts, including one for Hertfordshire, another for Hertfordshire specifically for baby funerals, and contracts awarded for Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS, and Leicester Hospitals NHS. - The speaker mentions that the WNHS is another organization involved for those who do not want to have Mexican arranged funerals, stating that they will do that for you now. - A doctor in Australia, Dr. Luke McClinton, is described as leading the fertility services at the Mater Hospital and as a principal investigator for a series of randomized controlled trials. He is also described as the president of the Australian Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine and is labeled as “the top doctor in Australia in this field.” - The speaker asserts that Dr. Luke McClinton was sacked on Friday for not getting the jab and for attempting to release his data on miscarriages post-vaccination. They state that he has until the following Friday to exit his private practice rooms, as he is no longer allowed to practice in public or private settings. - The speaker claims that Dr. McClinton has been investigating miscarriages in couples post-vaccination and states that the “normal miscarriage rate” is between five and perhaps as high as sixteen percent. They then claim that since the introduction of the vaccine, he has found that seventy-four percent of women who are vaccinated are now having miscarriages. - The speaker reiterates the statistic: “Seventy four percent of women are having miscarriages who are vaccinated.” They suggest that this statistic would explain why hospitals allegedly want to deal directly with crematoria, with vans taking multiple babies directly to the crematorium, bypassing funeral directors. The speaker emphasizes that they had previously mentioned these points.

A private laboratory in Magdeburg has found foreign DNA contamination in five batches of the BioNTech Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, exceeding the recommended limit set by the World Health Organization (WHO). Professor Brigitte König, who conducted the investigation, revealed that the lowest concentration of contamination was 83 times above the limit, while the highest concentration was 354 times above the limit. The presence of foreign DNA in the vaccine raises concerns about its potential impact on human cells. The manufacturer denies the allegations. Further investigations and discussions with scientists and authorities are underway.

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.

The speaker dismisses claims that Stefan only won his case on technicalities or semantics. Professor Andreas Podbilski admitted during the proceedings that none of Baden's six papers followed internationally defined rules and principles for control experiments. The speaker outlines the six papers presented in court and argues that they do not provide evidence for the existence of a virus. They recommend reading Stefan's commentaries and "Dismantling the Virus Theory" for further information. The speaker also mentions the 1911 animal studies by John Anderson and Joseph Goldberger, which they believe did not prove measles transmission by a microbe. The speaker states that the narrative of coronomania in 2019 and 2020 made them aware of questioning the existence of viruses.

Yesterday, we questioned why the HSE and NEFET had not responded to our freedom of information request regarding the existence of the SARS CoV-2 virus. Today, we received a letter from the HSE confirming that COVID-19 does not exist. According to scientific standards, a virus must be isolated in a lab and adhere to certain criteria to be considered valid. However, this virus fails to meet any of those requirements.

I have been ordered to pay nearly $300,000 in legal costs, which I don't have, by the end of March. After advocating for patients and Canadians, the financial burden is overwhelming. Bankruptcy may be the only option, affecting my ability to practice medicine. A fundraiser has been launched to help with the legal fees. Despite the personal cost, advocating for truth and evidence-based policies has been crucial. Your support is appreciated.

Yesterday, we questioned why the HSE and the National Public Health Emergency Team had not responded to our freedom of information request regarding the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Today, we received a letter from the HSE confirming that COVID-19 does not exist as a scientifically isolated virus. According to scientific standards, viruses must be isolated in a lab and adhere to certain criteria, which this virus does not meet. We made this request in October, and now we have proof that the virus has not been scientifically validated.

Dr. Kavinder Kargil, a practicing physician in Ontario, faced backlash and persecution for advocating against lockdowns and sharing scientific information about immunity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite being a respected doctor and leader in the medical community, she was labeled as an anti-vaxxer and faced numerous complaints to her professional regulator. The Canadian press published hit pieces on her, further damaging her reputation. Dr. Kargil filed a defamation lawsuit to clear her name but was ordered to pay $1.2 million in legal costs. She is now facing a deadline to pay nearly $300,000 and may have to declare bankruptcy. A public campaign has been started to help offset her legal costs.

Mister Siri, we've been talking about medical issues. You're you're not a medical doctor, are you? No, sir. And you're not an immuno immunologist or biologist or any kind of Or vaccinologist. No. But I depose them regularly including the world's leading ones with regards to vaccines and I have to make my claims based on actual evidence when I go to court with regards to vaccines. I don't get to rely on titles. Okay.

Sean Rickard, along with other individuals, filed the first-ever lawsuit against the government for vaccine travel mandates. They have faced numerous challenges but have won most of them. However, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the case was moot due to a lack of public interest. Despite this setback, they have filed a second lawsuit as a damages claim. They are considering taking the case to the Supreme Court of Canada but need financial support. Fundraising has been difficult, and they are seeking donations to continue their fight. They are asking for feedback and support from the public.

The EU General Court ruled against Ursula von der Leyen because, as president of the European Commission, she allegedly negotiated COVID vaccine contracts worth billions of euros with the CEO of Pfizer via text message during the pandemic. The New York Times requested the release of these messages, but the European Commission refused, claiming the messages were lost. The New York Times then took the case to court. The EU General Court ruled that the European Commission broke the law by refusing to release the text messages, stating that citizens have the right to know how such deals are made, even via SMS. The European Commission has two months to appeal the decision. The speaker highlights that this situation demonstrates that the EU is a place where a court can rule against the president of the European Commission.

Viruses have never been isolated, which is a major fraud against humanity. There is no measles virus, and each year a new virus with similar symptoms emerges. This started with the Third Reich and Doctor Enders. In my book, "A Second Thought about Viruses, Vaccines, and the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis," I discuss this issue. Even Professor Peter Guisberg lost his funding at Berkeley University for writing "Inventing the AIDS Virus" and questioning the existence of a virus. The situation is dire.

Pfizer is being sued for defrauding the government, but they claim they did not commit fraud. They argue they provided what the government requested, even if it was a faulty product distributed worldwide. This information is crucial and not widely known.

The speakers argue that scientific papers claiming the existence of SARS CoV-2 are flawed and lack scientific evidence. They believe these papers rely on faith rather than solid scientific methods. They point out that virologists have not been able to isolate the virus from bodily fluids or tissues. Stefan Lanka's experiment supports this claim, as he observed the same effects in a cell culture without adding any viral material. The speakers mention that virologists they spoke to refused to discuss isolation but focused on electron photographs and genomics as proof of the virus's existence.

Dr. Andreas Sönnigsen appears on Klar TV to discuss the Masern (measles) vaccination and the recent ARD/Tagesschau coverage. He presents his professional background: born and raised in Germany, studied medicine in the USA and Munich, practiced as a general internist from 1997 to 2012, and held professorships at Paracelsus University Salzburg, University of Witten/Herdecke, and Medical University of Vienna. He received the David Sackett Award for evidence-based medicine in 2013 and led the German Network for Evidence-Based Medicine from 2019 to 2021. He has authored works on scientific competence in medicine and on the Corona crisis, and has published over 100 international papers. He has long criticized conflicts of interest that he believes lead to an overly positive portrayal of medical interventions, a critique he says intensified during the Corona era, costing him his Vienna professorship and his chair at the German Network for Evidence-Based Medicine. He remains active post-Corona, including critical views on the measles vaccination mandate, including a talk at a press symposium on the Masernschutzgesetz. His conclusion on the question “does vaccination harm?” is that the benefit–risk ratio from the perspective of an individual child is definitively negative. In the Panorama segment from February 26, 2026, Sönnigsen is asked how he became part of a balanced-for-and-against discussion about the measles vaccination mandate. He explains he was contacted by a Norddeutscher Rundfunk journalist seeking balance and agreed to participate to stimulate discourse. He clarifies he is not an anti-vaxxer but a proponent of evidence-based medicine and argues that each vaccination, including the measles vaccine, should be evaluated for pros and cons, study quality, the epidemic situation, justification, effectiveness, and side effects, and that this discourse must be conducted. Sönnigsen contends that the show was not balanced. He discusses the dangers of measles, acknowledging it is not harmless, but argues that in the US, where measles became a notifiable disease in 1912, mortality declined to near zero by the early 1960s, and that the later impact of vaccination showed no further drop in mortality, suggesting in his view that vaccination did not drive the reduction. He asserts that in Germany, comparing mortality from the 1950s/60s to today is inappropriate due to postwar differences in healthcare and hygiene. He claims current German annual measles case numbers are about 330 per year nationwide (over 80 million population), and argues that herd immunity is largely due to people who had natural measles, with about 50% of the population having natural immunity from those born before 1973. He asserts real vaccine effectiveness is 80–85% rather than the commonly cited 98%, citing observational studies and a Cochrane review, and argues the 98% figure is incorrect. He explains that seroconversion rates after vaccination are lower than after natural infection, and that the metric should be real vaccine effectiveness rather than seroconversion rates. Turning to vaccine safety, Sönnigsen counters Panorama’s claim that there are few and minor vaccine adverse events. He states approximately 100–150 severe vaccine adverse events are reported to the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut each year (2001–2012 analysis). He notes that about half of these have a possible or probable causal link to vaccination, and that there is underreporting by roughly a factor of 10–20. He references the Henry Ford study suggesting vaccinated children have a higher risk of chronic illness (about 60% with at least one chronic condition vs. 18% among unvaccinated), arguing vaccines’ adverse effects are not rare. He calculates that with about 1.2 million annual vaccinations and about 1,200 serious adverse events (assuming 5–10% causal and 10–20x underreporting), roughly one in every thousand children could be affected by a vaccine injury, a figure he uses to argue that the individual risk is high relative to the immediate benefit in a German epidemiological context where measles is rare in ordinary times. Sönnigsen insists the measles vaccine’s benefits for an average healthy child in Germany are negative in the current epidemiological situation, argues for a “relative contraindication” to vaccination, and emphasizes that parental autonomy should determine whether to vaccinate. He attributes the push for vaccination mandates to government coercion and argues that mandates could backfire, increasing resistance. He also contends that measles cannot be eradicated globally through a German vaccination mandate, given worldwide reservoirs and migration, and notes that the Masernimpfpflicht (measles mandate) comes from 2019 (Spahn’s Masernschutzgesetz) rather than being a universal solution. The interview closes with the assertion that people should form their own, balanced view, and that the state should not dominate medical decisions.

Yesterday, we questioned why the HSE and the National Public Health Emergency Team had not responded to our freedom of information request regarding the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Today, we received a letter from the HSE confirming that the virus does not exist. According to scientific standards, a virus must be isolated in a lab and meet certain criteria to be considered valid. However, this virus fails to meet any of those requirements. We made this request in October and finally received the answer we expected.