TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses how CNN portrayed them as taking horse medication, specifically Ivermectin, which is actually a medication used more commonly in humans. They mention that Ivermectin has been prescribed to billions of people and even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy in humans. The speaker believes that Ivermectin had to be discredited because of a federal law that states emergency use authorization for vaccines cannot be issued if there is an existing medication proven effective against the target illness. They argue that acknowledging the effectiveness of Ivermectin would have jeopardized the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

Particularly the new evening news shows are just bracketed one after the other by pharmaceutical ads. Brought to you by Pfizer. Making a difference. Brought to you by Pfizer. CNN tonight. Brought to you by Pfizer. Anderson Cooper three sixty brought to you by Pfizer. And so, you know, you look at somebody like Anderson Cooper, I think Anderson Cooper makes about $20,000,000, you know, give or take. If you say he's got a $20,000,000 salary and 75% of that or 80% of that is coming from the pharmaceutical companies, that's who his real boss is.

In this video, the speakers discuss a $144 million settlement in a community lawsuit involving the Dominion company. They mention that Tucker Carlson's firing was part of the Dominion lawsuit settlement. They also talk about receiving money from Pfizer and the influence of big pharmaceutical companies on the network. The speakers mention the involvement of Michael LaRosa, who worked for Jill Biden and now works for a PR company representing Dominion Voting. They discuss the connections between various players and the control exerted by advertisers. The video includes undercover footage of a Fox News producer discussing Tucker Carlson's departure and the influence of advertisers and pharmaceutical companies on the network.

A network president revealed that allowing certain voices on air could lead to the host's firing due to advertiser pressures, particularly from pharmaceutical companies. During non-election years, up to 70% of news revenue can come from pharma ads, which serve as a public relations tactic rather than simply promoting drugs. This funding influences the media, making it reluctant to investigate pharmaceutical practices, even when there are serious concerns about vaccine safety and corporate misconduct. The media often dismisses legitimate questions as anti-science, silencing discussions about vaccine injuries. There's a growing need to reconsider trust in the pharmaceutical industry, especially with the increasing government funding for drugs like Ozempic.

The speaker claims the Murdochs, whom he knows personally, dislike Trump and allegedly asked him in May 2023 to run against Trump, offering their backing, including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. He declined because he likes Trump and couldn't win. He expresses frustration that Fox News is staffed by Trump haters who wouldn't allow Trump on his show and were furious about his April 2023 interview with Trump. He believes they dislike Trump's views on economics and foreign policy. He criticizes figures like Mark Levin for insincerely supporting Trump. He says flattery is dangerous and that the pressing problem in America is the condition of its cities, citing the decline of areas like Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles and Union Square in San Francisco. He feels many people, including some political figures, don't care about this issue.

The speaker had a close but politically opposed relationship with the founder of Fox News, stemming from a shared experience in Africa. Despite their differences, the founder, whom the speaker describes as witty, engaging, paranoid, and brilliant, would have Fox News hosts put the speaker on air to discuss environmental issues. In 2014, the speaker presented the founder with a documentary about mercury in vaccines, which the founder was convinced by, especially because he believed a family member had been affected. However, he couldn't allow the speaker to discuss it on air because pharmaceutical companies provided 75% of the evening news division's advertising revenue. The founder stated that 17 out of 22 ads on a typical evening news show were pharmaceutical ads, which was the principal source of revenue for many television networks.

Pharmaceutical companies buy TV ads not to influence people to ask for specific drugs, but to manipulate the news industry. The ads are a tactic to buy off the news and prevent them from investigating the pharmaceutical industry. The news acts as a referee, labeling anyone who questions vaccine safety as anti-science, while the two largest vaccine makers have been involved in criminal activities. People who have experienced vaccine injuries are silenced and labeled as anti-science. The media is funded by pharmaceutical companies at all levels, creating a dark reality. The speaker believes it is empowering to recognize this and calls for a shift away from trusting pharmaceutical companies, especially considering the massive government funding they receive.

Television networks are very dependent on pharmaceutical advertising. The speaker knew Roger Ailes, the founder and CEO of Fox News, who told him he couldn't allow him on the network to discuss his film about mercury in medical products and neurological injuries. Ailes said 70% of the evening news division's revenues came from pharmaceutical companies, with an average of 17 out of 23 ads being pharmaceutical ads. Ailes said any host who allowed the speaker on TV would be fired, and Rupert Murdoch would know within 10 minutes. The speaker claims networks are sensitive to advertisers, who dictate content and ensure compliance from those on news shows.

Speaker 0 opens by saying he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was about. Speaker 1 asks to know, and Speaker 0 begins to explain. Speaker 0 reflects on his past views: he has no incentive to lie, he runs a business with his college roommate, and he supported the Iraq War vehemently, supported the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett (calling it a huge mistake and that it wasn’t what he thought), and he supports John Roberts. He says the list of “dumb things” he supported is long, and he has spent the last twenty-two years trying to atone for his support for the Iraq War. Speaker 1 acknowledges appreciation for that, and Speaker 0 continues. He says he isn’t seeking affirmation but explains the text in question concerns a discussion with a producer about election integrity. He describes a January post-election conversation with someone at the White House after Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he was willing to believe allegations and asked for examples. The White House regional contact offered seven or eight dead people who voted, asserting they could be proven because death certificates and obituaries showed they voted and were on voter rolls. He states he did not claim “slam dunk” proof and insists he does not trust campaigns or campaign consultants, but he believed the claim was verifiable. Speaker 0 recounts going on air with the claim that “seven or ten dead people voted” and listing the names to show the evidence. He says, within about twenty-five minutes, some of the deceased people contacted CNN to say they were not dead, and CNN exposed that he had made a colossal error. He emphasizes that there is nothing he hates more than being wrong and humiliated, and that he should have checked whether someone had died; he acknowledges not checking carefully. Speaker 1 asks why he didn’t say these things on Fox News earlier. Speaker 0 says he did the next day. Speaker 1 contends he did not, and asks for the tape. Speaker 0 asserts he went on air the next day and admits he was completely wrong, blaming the Trump campaign for taking their word and also blaming the staffer who provided the information; he says he is still mad at that person. Speaker 1 challenges ownership of the situation and asks about the influence and the value of his career, implying he holds substantial influence with a top-rated show. They clash over sincerity and the magnitude of his earnings. Speaker 0 denies alignment with the accusation of insincerity, but Speaker 1 remains skeptical and asserts a belief that his sincerity is in question and that his views may be financially motivated. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to stop and declaring they’re done, as Speaker 1 pushes back about the immense wealth and status, prompting Speaker 0 to end the exchange abruptly.

The media is controlled by a few corporations like Disney, Fox, Westinghouse, and GE. They can say whatever they want and silence those who disagree. They rarely talk about the negative aspects of the nuclear industry, like Westinghouse being sued for fraud or GE operating nuclear bomb plants. These corporations receive billions in subsidies from the government and use tax money to support congressmen. They also dump toxic waste and GE made the bullets that shot JFK. When you buy products sponsored on this show, you contribute to this chain. McDonald's was ignored because they made jokes about O.J. Simpson. Lord Michael and Barry went to the same high school.

The speaker discusses their upcoming book on Dr. Fauci and criticizes his ties to the pharmaceutical industry. They claim that chronic diseases have increased under Fauci's watch and attribute allergies to aluminum in vaccines. They also mention the rise in autism and other chronic diseases, which they believe are side effects of vaccines. The speaker accuses regulatory agencies, Congress, and the press of being captured by the pharmaceutical industry. They highlight the influence of pharmaceutical advertisements on media and express concerns about the focus on medical effects rather than the human impact of policies. They question why economists are not included in discussions and make a comment about Anderson Cooper.

The media in our country is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, with 75% of advertising revenues on mainstream media coming from pharma. The evening news, where pharmaceuticals are advertised, has an even higher ratio. Anderson Cooper, with a $12,000,000 annual salary, receives $10,000,000 from Pfizer. His allegiance lies with Pfizer, not CNN. They openly acknowledge this partnership, as seen in the "brought to you by Pfizer" tagline. Consequently, Cooper is unlikely to provide unbiased information about Pfizer's products. Instead, he aims to sell them and instill fear by suggesting that not using them could be fatal.

The speaker claims that those who oppose the pharmaceutical industry are punished, while those who support it, like Anthony Fauci, rise to the top. Fauci, who has been in his position for 50 years, is highly paid and serves the agency's ambition. The speaker accuses the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of abandoning its mission to understand why Americans are sick and instead focusing on developing drugs for profit. The NIH earns billions of dollars from the Moderna vaccine, with Fauci's employees benefiting from patents and royalties. The speaker suggests that the agency's commercial interests have overshadowed its regulatory responsibilities.

The speaker reflects on being fired and acknowledges that there were many factors at play. They mention that being a high-rated host doesn't guarantee job security and that there are complex dynamics within big companies. They express that they weren't shocked by the firing and understood that they couldn't defy everyone and expect to keep their job. The speaker also discusses the influence of advertisers on news coverage, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. They state that while they personally never faced pressure to shape their views, they were always clear that they would speak their truth. The speaker acknowledges that their positions on certain issues were unpopular within their company but appreciates that they were allowed to express them. They also discuss the lack of communication and explanation from the company regarding their firing. The second speaker finds it strange that a top performer would be fired without any feedback and believes it to be self-destructive from a business standpoint. The first speaker agrees and emphasizes the importance of explaining disagreements and delivering uncomfortable news. They mention that they weren't too upset about being fired as they were aware of the harsh realities of the industry.

Financial analysts have found that money can influence people's decisions regarding vaccination. One analyst shared an anecdote about a friend who initially dismissed their concerns but changed their tune after seeing a video of the analyst discussing the issue with Steve Bannon. The friend became alarmed when they learned that the analyst was meeting with hedge fund professionals to raise funds for their cause. This incident made the friend realize that even Wall Street is starting to pay attention to the issue. The analyst emphasized that when money is involved, people's priorities can shift, and even those who have been vaccinated may change their stance if it means making a profit.

I support discussing issues like obesity and overmedicating children. Bobby Kennedy is fighting against the incentive for pharma to profit from sick children, and he's supporting efforts to remove soda from SNAP. The problem is that organizations like Merck don't have children's best interests at heart, considering their history of criminal penalties for misleading information. When the data isn't on their side, RFK Jr. and personal injury lawyers attack the person. My Merck chair is defined by Penn, and there's no quid pro quo. The science continually proves RFK Jr. wrong about vaccines.

After over a dozen years at Fox News, I've decided to pursue a new challenge, which was a tough decision because I value this show, our staff, and our audience. I'll be leaving Fox News at the end of the week. In a discussion about Donald Trump, the conversation turned heated. One person labeled Trump a sexual predator, while another defended him, criticizing the inflammatory language used. Disrespect towards a journalist was expressed, with claims that her questions were ridiculous and off-base. The dialogue highlighted a divide in perspectives, with accusations of focusing more on sensationalism than on public policy.

The speaker reflects on being fired from their show and acknowledges that there were many factors at play. They mention having unpopular opinions and speculate that this may have influenced the decision. They also discuss how being a top-rated host doesn't guarantee job security and that there are complex dynamics within big companies. The speaker admits to not being shocked by the firing and expresses no hard feelings. They mention the influence of advertisers on news coverage, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. The speaker states that they were never explicitly told what to say, but they were always clear that they would speak their mind. They believe their willingness to express unpopular views may have contributed to their dismissal. The speaker also comments on the lack of communication and explanation from the company regarding their firing. They conclude by acknowledging the harsh realities of the industry and accepting the consequences.

The speaker points out that major media outlets like CNBC, Fox, and CNN are owned by Vanguard and BlackRock, who are also the top shareholders of Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, and Moderna. They mention that Vanguard and BlackRock are also the top shareholders of flight companies and junk food manufacturers. The speaker suggests that this control extends to social media platforms like Meta, Snapchat, Twitter, and Google, which they claim are pushing the same narrative as the media. They emphasize that these companies are profit-driven.

In 1999, claims of a connection between autism and vaccines were met with media backlash. It's alleged that pharmaceutical companies, a major revenue source for media companies, buy protection. The U.S. is purportedly one of two countries allowing this. A Supreme Court case gave pharmaceutical advertising First Amendment protection, treating it as political speech. Direct-to-consumer advertising exploded after changes in the 90s. Roger Ailes, despite political differences, allowed the speaker to discuss the environment on Fox News. However, Ailes refused to air a documentary about mercury in vaccines, fearing repercussions from Rupert Murdoch. Pharma ads allegedly constitute 75% of evening news revenue, with 17 out of 22 ads being pharmaceutical. This revenue is purportedly keeping many television networks afloat amidst financial struggles.

The speaker discusses a CNN segment where they portrayed him as taking horse medication. He argues that this portrayal is a clear indication of a conspiracy, as the medication in question, Ivermectin, is commonly used in humans and has even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy in humans. The speaker believes that Ivermectin had to be discredited in order to promote the COVID-19 vaccines, as federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for vaccines if there is an existing effective medication. Acknowledging Ivermectin's effectiveness would have jeopardized the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

The speaker claims the Murdochs hate Trump and that they asked him to run for president against Trump in May 2023, after he was fired in April 2023. He states that Lachlan Murdoch told him to run and that they would back him. He says this backing would include Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and all of their papers. The speaker says the Murdochs wanted him to run to stop Trump, but he would never get elected and he likes Trump.

I stunned CNN viewers by exposing Dr. Paul Offit's conflicts of interest during a live debate. I questioned why public health leaders are trusted when individuals like Offit profit from pharmaceutical companies while approving their products. I highlighted the media's obsession with measles while ignoring critical health issues like obesity and diabetes affecting a significant portion of the population. I pointed out the Democrats' focus on vaccines while neglecting chronic diseases. I emphasized the need for studies on vaccines and criticized Offit for recommending vaccines that were later recalled. Pharma profits from sick children, and the media pushes narratives instead of reporting honestly. I urged viewers to protect their homes from title theft with Home Title Lock.