reSee.it - Related Post Feed

Theo_TJ_Jordan
Posted - March 29, 2022 at 12:49 AM
Saved - March 14, 2023 at 8:06 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
A web of lies has been spun around the COVID-19 pandemic. False statements have been repeated by many people and important channels. Propaganda has been pushed at and through our children. The threat to healthy children has been hyped up from day one. Deception comes in many forms, including perverted science. The Gain of Function Gang's propaganda is staggering. The public has yet to learn about some of the biggest lies. It's time to see through the continuous lies.

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

This statement was never true. No such data ever existed.

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

But it was repeated by so many people (and down so many important channels).

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

So many people...

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

This statement wasn't true either. It went from 100% to 90, 80, 70... I've seen it as low as 30%.

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

This was false...

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

So was this...

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

This was funny... well, not really. 🤬

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

THIS statement was criminal. 👇🖕 https://t.co/l0xmn9q5ce

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

The same entity owned up to that a few months later... https://t.co/JS6mo3kB7o

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

This was used in the context of kids and was never accurate. True propaganda. 🚨 https://t.co/ZuXEik1oiu

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

So much propaganda has been pushed at and through our children... https://t.co/wbp1AUIUpz

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

And yet SARS-CoV-2 has never presented an emergency to healthy children. No more so than many common ailments. They hype around the threat to kids has all been a lie. From day one. You have access to the data too... https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/master/borndig/101774952/Risk%20Factors%20for%20COVID-19%20Mortality%20among%20Privately%20Insured%20Patients%20-%20A%20Claims%20Data%20Analysis%20-%20A%20FAIR%20Health%20White%20Paper.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.30.21267048v1.full.pdf

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Can a lie get any more heinous than this? 👇🚨 Pair it with those last two above. 🤬

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Make it make sense...

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Or maybe the things that don't seem to make any sense actually make a lot of sense. 🤔

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Deception comes in many forms... 💡 https://t.co/gUsUfSqGhR

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

And they're still deceiving you, of course. Like broadcasting studies across The Show that arent peer-reviewed because Big Pharma funds them. 👇 Then use peer-review to keep good studies out. Here's a whole thread on how perverted science has become... 🧵 https://t.co/39DqNtgXIL

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

This is pure nonsense... https://t.co/BeiF8TN8NT

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

🙃

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

But I thought you said... I give up. 🤦‍♂️

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Some of the biggest lies of all have yet to hit the public surface... 🚨 https://t.co/41qfJptIF7

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Look at this phrasing. In a CNN piece, which you dig into and quickly see is just the Gain of Function Gang's propaganda. Staggering.

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Meanwhile...

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Meanwhile... https://t.co/H2BdMdQWRy

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

Meanwhile... 🤬 https://t.co/lYoUxWaCQk

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

https://t.co/UQqmRm40z0

@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan

A web of continuous lies... 👇🧵 https://t.co/RF0rYjE247

AlexBerenson
Posted - January 9, 2023 at 7:08 PM
Saved - December 13, 2023 at 1:33 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
In my first report, I expose how Scott Gottlieb, a top Pfizer board member, used a Twitter lobbyist to suppress Covid vaccine debate, even from the head of the FDA. Gottlieb deemed a tweet on natural immunity as "corrosive" and targeted a tweet on low risk to kids. Despite denying it, these files prove his efforts to stifle discussion. Read the full story.

@AlexBerenson - Alex Berenson

1/ My first #TwitterFiles report: how @scottgottliebmd - a top Pfizer board member - used the same Twitter lobbyist as the White House to suppress debate on Covid vaccines, INCLUDING FROM A FELLOW HEAD OF @US_FDA! Thanks @elonmusk for opening these files. https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/from-the-twitter-files-pfizer-board

From the Twitter Files: Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb secretly pressed Twitter to hide posts challenging his company's massively profitable Covid jabs To funnel his demands, Gottlieb used the same Twitter lobbyist the White House did - fresh evidence of overlap between the company selling mRNA shots and the government forcing them on the public. alexberenson.substack.com

@AlexBerenson - Alex Berenson

2/ In August 2021, Gottlieb told Todd O'Boyle - a senior manager in Twitter's public policy department - that a tweet from @drgiroir claiming CORRECTLY that natural immunity was superior to vaccine immunity was "corrosive" and might "go viral."

@AlexBerenson - Alex Berenson

3/ Twitter put a misleading tag on the tweet, preventing it from being shared. Gottlieb then went after a tweet about Covid's low risk to kids from @justin_hart. Pfizer would soon win the okay for its mRNA shots for children, so keeping parents scared was crucial...

@AlexBerenson - Alex Berenson

@justin_hart 4/ In October 2022, @scottgottliebmd claimed on Twitter and CNBC that he was not trying to suppress debate on mRNA jabs. These files prove that Gottlieb - board member at a company that has made $70 billion on the shots - did just that. Full story here: https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/from-the-twitter-files-pfizer-board

From the Twitter Files: Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb secretly pressed Twitter to hide posts challenging his company's massively profitable Covid jabs To funnel his demands, Gottlieb used the same Twitter lobbyist the White House did - fresh evidence of overlap between the company selling mRNA shots and the government forcing them on the public. alexberenson.substack.com
luluHru
Posted - June 21, 2023 at 4:50 PM
Saved - June 22, 2023 at 9:25 PM

@luluHru - luluHru

This is Albert Bourla the CEO of Pfizer speaking at the World Economic Forum. He Explains that in Jan 2019 he met with his medicine team to set Pfizer goals for the next 5 years. One of those goals is on track to become reality - that goal? To reduce the world’s population by 50 Percent. This Criminal belongs in jail! RETWEET!

Video Transcript AI Summary
In January 2019, my leadership team and I met in California to set goals for the next five years. One of our dreams was to reduce the global population by 50% by 2023.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Of a dream that we had together with my leadership team when we started in 19. The 1st week we met in January of 2019 in California and to set up the goals for the next 5 years and one of them was by 2023, we will reduce the number of people in the world by 50%. I think today, this dream is becoming
JimFergusonUK
Posted - August 4, 2023 at 9:13 AM
Saved - August 4, 2023 at 2:32 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
No one was coerced into taking Pfizer's vaccine. They anticipate trouble and now shift blame to politicians. In the UK, those who mandated vaccination for care home and air travel workers are remembered. British PM Sunak profited from investing £500 million in Moderna while endorsing their safety and efficacy. WEF2030Agenda Australia Pfizer.

@JimFergusonUK - Jim Ferguson

"No one was forced to take a Vaccine" Pfizer They know whats coming and are desperate to wriggle out. Now they will put the blame on the politicians to save their skins. They know its unravelling. In Britain we all remember those who insisted that people had to be vaccinated to work in care homes and fly on planes and we know those that pushed the vaccine such as British PM #Sunak who made huge profits by investing $500 million of his personal fortune into Moderna while stating they were "safe and effective" #WEF2030Agenda #Australia #Pfizer

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 questions if anyone was forced to get vaccinated, specifically referring to a comment made by Dr. Kuat. Speaker 1 confirms that they made the comment and states their belief that nobody was forced to receive the vaccine. They explain that mandates and requirements are determined by governments and health authorities, and that individuals were given the choice to get vaccinated or not. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that many Australians would disagree with Speaker 1's statement.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: No one was forced to have the vaccination. Yes. Who made the comment? Was it doctor Kuat? Speaker 1: Doctor Kuat. I believe I made that comment. Speaker 0: You made the comment? Right. You were in Australia during COVID nineteen. You must have been fully aware that people, nurses, doctors, people to have their jobs, to keep their jobs were forced to have the vaccination. Now do you retract your statement that they were not forced? Speaker 1: Senator, no, I believe firmly that nobody was forced to have a vaccine. Mandates or vaccine requirements are determined by governments and health authorities. I believe everybody was offered an opportunity to get a vaccine or not get a vaccine. I don't believe that anybody was forced to take a vaccine. Speaker 0: The lot of Australians will disagree with you on that one.
SpartaJustice
Posted - September 26, 2023 at 9:17 PM
Saved - September 27, 2023 at 5:22 PM

@SpartaJustice - Truth Justice ™

THEY LIED TO YOU: The European Parliament asked Pfizer this direct question. "Was the Pfizer Covid Vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market?" Janine Small Pfizer Executive replied, "NO" we had to do everything at risk. Criminal lies.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks if the speaker knew about stopping humanization before it entered the market and if they are willing to share the data with the committee. Speaker 1 responds that they did not know about it before it entered the market and had to move at the speed of science to understand what was happening.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It entered the market? If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee? And I really want a straight answer, yes or no, and I'm looking forward to it. Thank you very much. Speaker 1: Regarding the question around, did we know about stopping humanization before, it's entered the market? No. These, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market. And from that point of
Observ0123
Posted - September 28, 2023 at 4:45 AM
Saved - September 28, 2023 at 4:52 AM

@Observ0123 - The Observer

PFIZER... = "Knew"...Said "Nothing"...!! It is "ALL" about the "Money/Shareholders"... Nothing More...!! Does = the Government/Big Pharma, "Care" about Your Health"...???

@SpartaJustice - Truth Justice ™

THEY LIED TO YOU: The European Parliament asked Pfizer this direct question. "Was the Pfizer Covid Vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market?" Janine Small Pfizer Executive replied, "NO" we had to do everything at risk. Criminal lies.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks if the speaker knew about stopping humanization before it entered the market and if they are willing to share the data with the committee. Speaker 1 responds that they did not know about it before it entered the market and had to move at the speed of science to understand what was happening.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It entered the market? If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee? And I really want a straight answer, yes or no, and I'm looking forward to it. Thank you very much. Speaker 1: Regarding the question around, did we know about stopping humanization before, it's entered the market? No. These, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market. And from that point of
backtolife_2023
Posted - October 16, 2023 at 4:53 PM
Saved - October 17, 2023 at 8:52 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla labels vaccine misinformation spreaders as "criminals" due to the lives they cost. Despite knowing their claims are false, they continue to deceive, resulting in deaths of those who didn't get vaccinated. Source: https://cbc.ca/player/play/2017693251756

@backtolife_2023 - Wittgenstein

Reminder - Andrew Chang talks to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla about why he calls people who spread vaccine misinformation ‘criminals.’: They literally cost lives. They know what they are saying is a lie but they do it despite that... how many people didn't do the vaccine and died because of that. So they are criminals. Source: https://cbc.ca/player/play/2017693251756

Video Transcript AI Summary
Vaccine makers face the challenge of misinformation. The speaker believes those who deliberately spread misinformation are criminals because they cost lives. They shared a personal story of their wife's death after getting the vaccine, which was falsely attributed to it. The purpose of spreading such lies was to discourage people from getting vaccinated. The speaker emphasizes that the number of people who died due to not getting vaccinated far outweighs the individual cases like their wife's. Therefore, they consider those spreading misinformation to be criminals.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: All vaccine makers have faced the same challenge, and that is of of misinformation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I but I I believe I've heard you talk about those who would deliberately pedal in misinformation as criminals. Is that something that you stand by, that you believe in? Speaker 1: Yes, I do because they are they literally cost lives. They know what that they are saying is like, But they do it despite that. There's an article, my picture of my wife. Her, I forced her to get the vaccine, and then because of the vaccine, she died. I realized that they had all of that lies, of course. And they did it. Why? Because they wanted to convince people that they were on the fence to do the vaccine or not. Don't do it. Look. His wife died. But Forget that. That's nothing compared to how many people didn't do the vaccine and died because of that. So they are criminals.
backtolife_2023
Posted - October 17, 2023 at 9:29 AM
Saved - October 18, 2023 at 7:39 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla labeled those spreading Covid-19 vaccine misinformation as "criminals," as they have cost countless lives. He highlighted a small group profiting from people's fears by creating conspiracy theories. Bourla emphasized their motive to make money by manipulating emotions.

@backtolife_2023 - Wittgenstein

Reminder - Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla on Tuesday called those who spread misinformation about the Covid-19 vaccines "criminals." “They’re not bad people. They are criminals because they have literally cost millions of lives," Mr Bourla told think-tank Atlantic Council’s CEO Frederick Kempe. He said that a “very small” group of people have been spreading misinformation about the coronavirus vaccines."People want to make money, some of them, by playing with the emotions of people...they are creating this whole conspiracy theory to benefit and profit from fear of the people," he said.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker talks about a contact related to a small hop professor and circular economy. They mention something about trimmerk and trimmernicus. They also mention a 3D-descriminalces world that was chaotic.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Det är någon kontakt fast att det är ett väl små hoppprofessorn. Skyddsta I cirkulär ekonomi. Min information, så att det vore misstrolet, vad det är. Då svarar trimmerk. Det är något bättre på att göra trimmernicus. Det är det lite ögonblick, min röst och flak. Den tjugo bit 3D-descriminalces world. Det var så kaos att vi
SpartaJustice
Posted - October 24, 2023 at 11:17 PM
Saved - October 25, 2023 at 6:01 AM

@SpartaJustice - Truth Justice ™

PFIZER LIED TO YOU: 17,000 Scientists and Physicians confirm that Pfizer, Governments, Corporations and the Media deliberately lied to humanity about the Covid vaccines. They must be charged with fraud, wrongful advertising and mass negligent homicide. https://t.co/IT7VYssYJW

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims that the genetic COVID-19 injections are more harmful than beneficial, especially for young and healthy individuals. They argue that the vaccines do not reduce COVID-19 infection and can actually increase the risk of infection, disease, and death compared to the unvaccinated. The speaker also mentions potential damage to the heart, brain, reproductive tissue, lungs, and immune system. Another speaker questions the testing of the Pfizer COVID vaccine and demands data from the committee. The response states that the vaccine was not tested for stopping transmission before entering the market. There are also concerns raised about the vaccines causing harm to women of reproductive age and unborn babies. The transcript ends with accusations of fraud and calls for criminal charges against vaccine manufacturers and government entities.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We must acknowledge that the genetic COVID nineteen genetic injections cause far more harm than good and provide zero benefit relative to risk for the young and healthy. They do not reduce COVID nineteen infection, which is treatable and not terminal. Furthermore, the most recent data demonstrates that you are more likely to become infected or have disease or even death if you've been vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated people. This is shocking to hear, but it is what the data are showing us. The data now show that these experimental gene therapy treatments can damage your children as well as yourself. It can damage your heart, your brain, your reproductive tissue, and your lungs. This can include permanent damage and disablement of your immune system. Speaker 1: Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine Tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market. If not, please Clearly, if yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee? And I really want straight answer, yes or no, and I'm looking forward to it. Speaker 2: Regarding the question around, did we know about stopping humanization before, it's entered the market? No. These, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the And from that point of view, we had to do everything at risk. Speaker 3: I really do believe that the federal government is captured As captured by corporate interests, the entire US population as well as the world has to understand they can no longer take these COVID vaccines. These are, they are toxic and lethal to an end ineffective that they have completely failed. They can only be viewed It is harmful and they need to Speaker 4: be stopped. And does it damage the brain? You bet it does. Is it damage to the heart? Yes. The liver? Yes. The bone marrow? Yes. It causes all sorts The harm in the human body. We should have stopped this before it ever started. Speaker 5: It's a misinformation from the CDC, the FDA, the American Board of The American college of a GYN, the society of the Patients, it is causing a lot of death and injury in my women of reproductive age, my pregnant women, and my pre Born babies and it's gotta stop and it's gotta stop now. Speaker 4: And for the vaccines broadly, we have no idea Yeah. What's gonna happen long term now that they're in the body? Studies suggest that the vaccines and the spike protein that's produced from them never Speaker 5: The the first and most important thing, don't take any more vaccines. Don't take any more boosters. Do not take any More of these dangerous experimental therapies. Speaker 6: Dear colleagues And supporters, we declare that Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen and AstraZeneca And their enablers willfully withheld and admitted crucial safety and effectiveness information From patients and physicians and should be immediately indicted for fraud. We know that shortly after administration of these products, Thousands of people have died. And although correlation isn't causation, reasonable criteria have been applied To examine the relationship between injections and the events and is absolutely clear cut that these are the cause of death. Mechanistically, the design of these products was knowingly deficient in a number of ways. First, They caused the expression in the human body of toxic virus spike protein. Unlike what They told us that it would stay in the injection site. They distribute widely around the body. There was no built in limit to the amount of toxic spike Protein that can be made or for how long it is made. That's the cause of the toxicity. Turning to the clinical trials, there There is evidence of questionable practices all around. For example, several of the studies were clearly unblinded while they were ongoing Contrary to best practice and also in a number of cases, subjects were removed from the database prior to statistical analysis In a way that is suggestive of fraud. We were given blanket assurances time and again by all of the companies about benign safety profile of their products. Even as the products rolled out in the earliest weeks, they must have known this Was not true. To add insult to injury, it appears that these products provide little Well, no protection from the virus that they sought to protect us from. Speaker 7: Two questions get asked when people have hesitancy or reluctance to get vaccinated. Did you go too quickly is the first. The answer to that is the speed was a reflection of extraordinary scientific Advances and did not compromise safety nor did it compromise scientific integrity. The next Question is, okay, but what about the fact, is it really safe and is it really effective? Or is this Something the government is trying to put over on us. Is this something the companies want to take advantage of? Well, Well, let's take a look at what's happened over the past few months. Speaker 4: I'm going to be very clear about this and I've recently just testified in the US Senate December 7, 2022. The vaccine is killing people and it's killing large numbers of people. It fulfills all the criteria for the Bradford Hill tenets of causality For, a medicinal product causing death, our CDC as of December 23, 2022 has over 1000 Americans that have died within a few days of taking the vaccine. Yeah. And that's probably a gross under report. Speaker 8: We don't know if these vaccines will work. We don't know if they'll work to avoid deaths. We don't know if they'll work to avoid transmission. That's why we're working on so many 1st generation vaccines. Speaker 2: How do we know if these vaccines are working? Speaker 8: You'd like it to be very safe In all the populations, that you indicated for no side effects and then you'd like it to avoid the individuals who gets the vaccine getting sick. Speaker 4: So where are the criminal charges going to, first come? I think the easy ones to go after are illegal advertising. The vaccines have been advertised by the CDC, The NIH, FDA, DHS, and the vaccine companies as safe and effective. Americans know they can't do that. The vaccines have to be presented with risks and benefits Including fatal myocarditis, blood clots, and neurologic damage. We haven't seen that on TV. That violates the Lanvin Act, the Truth in Advertising Act, US Drug and Cosmetic That that is an easy conviction for wrongful advertising of all those entities. That means government entities being called For malfeasance or wrongdoing. And then beyond that, the big charges are fraud. America has been defrauded in so many aspects of pandemic response.
drsimonegold
Posted - November 13, 2023 at 9:09 PM
Saved - November 13, 2023 at 9:13 PM

@drsimonegold - Dr. Simone Gold

Deadly Disinformation Dozen #5: Dr. Peter Hotez Dr. Hotez spread disinformation about the efficacy and safety of the COVID vaccine. Dr. Hotez, like many others, must be held accountable. Who else agrees? https://t.co/tZkjdY2Flm

Video Transcript AI Summary
The White House blames a few bad actors for spreading online misinformation. They say that misinformation on social media is harmful and can have long-term consequences. Developing a safe and effective vaccine takes time, usually around 10 to 25 years, and requires thorough clinical testing. The timeline for COVID-19 vaccines is similar to that of other vaccines.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The White House pointed to an aggressive online misinformation effort by a handful of bad actors. Misinformation on social media is killing people. It's usually a 10 to 25 year time frame. People forget how long it really takes to develop, an effective and safe vaccine and do all the adequate clinical testing. When you look at the timelines of act these COVID nineteen vaccines, it really follows the same progression is almost any other vaccine.
AFLDSorg
Posted - November 24, 2023 at 1:38 PM
Saved - November 24, 2023 at 7:32 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
A peer-reviewed study reveals Pfizer's alleged omission of known deaths in the vaccine arm of its clinical trial from its FDA data filing in 2020. The company also reportedly concealed information that could have led to a denial of the EUA. Researchers found instances where Pfizer attributed vaccine-related deaths to other causes, undermining safety data. Profits seem to outweigh lives lost, as Pfizer made $58 billion in the first year. This prioritization of profit over our safety shouldn't come as a surprise.

@AFLDSorg - America's Frontline Doctors

A recently published peer-reviewed study suggests Pfizer excluded KNOWN deaths in the vaccine arm of its clinical trial from its data filing with the FDA in 2020 and withheld information from the agency that could have resulted in a denial of the EUA. Additionally, researchers identified numerous instances where Pfizer attributed potential vaccine-associated deaths to other causes and undermined vaccine safety data. What’s a few lives lost in comparison to grossing $58 BILLION in the first year? Big Pharma puts profits over our safety and health. Are you surprised?

Video Transcript AI Summary
A recent study suggests that Pfizer may have excluded known deaths in the vaccine arm of its clinical trial from its data filing with the FDA in 2020. The study also found that trial subjects vaccinated with Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine experienced a significant increase in cardiovascular deaths compared to placebo controls. This information was not disclosed by Pfizer when the FDA was evaluating the vaccine for emergency use. Additionally, researchers identified instances where Pfizer attributed potential vaccine-associated deaths to other causes, undermining vaccine safety data. The data presented to the FDA prior to the authorization of Pfizer's vaccine did not include all the deaths that occurred during the trial. The speaker raises concerns about the prioritization of profit over lives and warns against trusting Big Pharma.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey, freedom lovers. This is doctor Peterson Pierre with America's Frontline Doctors bringing you today's daily dose. A recently published peer reviewed study suggests Pfizer excluded known deaths in the vaccine arm of its clinical trial from its data filing with the FDA in 2020, and withheld information from the agency that could have resulted in a denial of the Emergency Use Authorization. Forensic analysis showed trial subjects vaccinated with Pfizer's COVID nineteen vaccine experienced a 3.7 times increase in cardiovascular deaths compared to placebo controls, and that this significant adverse event signal was not disclosed by Pfizer when the FDA was evaluating its vaccine scene for emergency use. Additionally, researchers identified numerous instances where Pfizer attributed potential vaccine associated deaths to other causes and undermine vaccine safety data for obvious reasons. On December 10, 2020, one day prior to the FDA granting EUA for Pfizer's COVID nineteen vaccine, data was presented showing only 2 vaccine deaths during the clinical trial and 4 placebo deaths, which was used to support the claim that Pfizer's vaccine, if authorized, would save lives. However, Pfizer documents show 4 additional deaths in the vaccine arm of the clinical trial, and an additional death in the placebo arm, none of which were included in the FDA's presentation on the efficacy and safety of their shots. Report, the actual data would have negated any supposed benefit of those shots: safety and efficacy. Then again, what's a few lives lost when compared to grossing $58,000,000,000 in the 1st year? Beware of Big Pharma. No. They absolutely do not care about you. Ladies and gentlemen, only the truth will set you free. Stay tuned for the next Daily Dose.
KingAllanX
Posted - November 27, 2023 at 4:21 PM
Saved - November 27, 2023 at 5:15 PM

@KingAllanX - King Allan

@Michael59302787 https://x.com/kingallanx/status/1718734170271179101?s=46

@KingAllanX - King Allan

NUREMBERG 2.0 The vaccines were used as a means to deceive people in order to generate more revenue by increasing the number of patients and deaths. Three executives from Pfizer tell their stories of how the COVID pandemic was the biggest scam perpetuated in human history.

Video Transcript AI Summary
COVID-19 is expected to continue being a lucrative opportunity for us. The research on virus mutations seems to hold the most potential for profit.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Who knows? I mean, either way, it's gonna be a cash cow. COVID is probably a cash cow for us for a while going forward. Yeah. I obviously like that. Well, I think the whole, you know, I think the whole, like, research of the viruses and mutating it, like, Would be the ultimate, like, cash cow. Yeah.
tracybeanz
Posted - December 1, 2023 at 6:50 PM
Saved - December 1, 2023 at 9:07 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Texas v. Pfizer: A Lawsuit Unveiling Deceptive Practices Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against Pfizer, shedding light on alleged misrepresentations regarding the efficacy of their COVID-19 vaccine. The suit claims that Pfizer misled the public by touting a 95% effectiveness rate based on relative risk reduction, rather than absolute risk reduction. Furthermore, Pfizer is accused of withholding data on waning efficacy, transmission prevention, and protection against variants. The lawsuit also highlights Pfizer's alleged attempts to silence critics. This legal action seeks to hold Pfizer accountable for deceptive trade practices.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

🚨🚨This will be my ongoing thread and analysis of Texas v. Pfizer. Bookmark this thread and come back often for updates on the case. It will additionally be included on my Highlights page. @KenPaxtonTX filed a whopper of a lawsuit against Pfizer. You will need your thinking caps for it. The petition can be found here: https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Pfizer%20Vaccine%20Petition%20Filed.pdf…

Page Not Found | Office of the Attorney GeneralAsset 1 It appears you've tried to reach a page that doesn't exist or has been moved. If you need further assistance -- please Contact Us or return to the home page. texasattorneygeneral.gov

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

You will likely remember the constant drumbeat that the Pfizer mRNA shots were "95% effective." The filing starts "The COVID-19 vaccines are the miracle that wasn't." 1. More Americans died in 2021 with the vaccine available than in 2020 - with the vaccine available and the majority of Americans taking Pfizer's. 2. By the end of 2021, in some places, a greater percentage of the vaccinated were dying from COVID-19 than the unvaccinated. As per the filing, the Pfizer shot was plainly not "95% effective. The suit gets in to the why and how shortly.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

So, how did the shot achieve such widespread adoption yet fall short of the stated goal of ending the pandemic? Pfizer lied. They only told the public it was 95% effective based on the relative risk reduction for vaccinated individuals in their not yet completed study. The FDA agrees that relative risk isn't the proper way to present risk, stating: “...when information is presented in a relative risk format, the risk reduction seems large and treatments are viewed more favorably than when the same information is presented” using more accurate metrics."

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

Their claim made the shot seem highly effective, but the truth differed. When Pfizer began making those claims, they possessed on average, only about 2 months of clinical trial data from which to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. We are going to break this down and explain the difference between different types of assessments here momentarily.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

Of 17,000 placebo recipients, only 162 acquired COVID during the two-month period. Based on those numbers, vaccination status had a negligible impact on whether a trial participant contracted COVID. As a matter of fact, the risk of acquiring COVID was so small in the short initial window that it showed the shot only fractionally improved a person's risk of infection. A recipient's "absolute risk reduction" (the FDA's preferred method for efficacy) showed that the shot was merely .85% effective. They gamed the numbers.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

As per the filing, once Pfizer seeded the market with the 95% efficacy claim, it continued to deceive the public in numerous ways. 1. Duration of Protection: When it first granted an EUA, the FDA recognized that it wasn't impossible to know how effective the shot would remain beyond two months. By early 2021, Pfizer deliberately created the impression that the shot had durable and sustained protections, even withholding highly relevant data from the public that demonstrated rapidly waning efficacy.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

2. Transmission: The FDA had warned Pfizer that it needed more info to determine whether the shot protected against transmission between individuals, but Pfizer instead engaged in a "fear-mongering campaign" exploiting the public fear over the virus by insinuating that the shot was necessary to protect their loved ones from getting COVID.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

3. Variant Protection: Pfizer knowingly made false and unsupported claims about the shot's performance against variants, including the Delta variant. The shot performed remarkably poorly against the Delta variant, and Pfizer's data confirmed that. Nonetheless, they told the public that its shot was "very, very effective against Delta."

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

As per the suit, as Pfizer bragged about the vaccine's success, many pieces of information came to prove that the shot failed to live up to the hype. For example, shortly after Delta's emergence in Israel (a country Pfizer used as a "canary in a coal mine") the relative risk reduction dropped precipitously, from 64% in June, to just 39% one month later.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

NEGATIVE EFFICACY: Certain jurisdictions reported negative vaccine efficacy in late 2021 and early 2022, meaning that a greater percentage of vaccinated people contracted, and died, from COVID than the unvaccinated.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

Additionally, the number of people infected with COVID increased over time. In the UK, infection rates were 7% from 4/26/20 through 12/7/20 (before the approval and distribution) but were 24.2% between 5/18/21 and 12/13/21 and 33.6% from 12/14/21-2/21/21....

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

Pfizer tried to silence the former FDA Director: When it became apparent that the shot was failing and its profits were under threat, Pfizer set out on an intimidation campaign, going so far as to censor the critics (I know all too well, and so do many of you.) They labeled anyone who spread facts about the above as "criminals," accused them of spreading "misinformation" and coerced social media platforms to silence prominent truth-tellers. They even went so far as to request that social media silence the former FDA director because his comments could "drive news coverage" critical of the vaccine.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

Pfizer seems to be hiding behind comments from the FDA and its EUA approval to shield them from scrutiny on the facts in the lawsuit. https://t.co/XWnsniUFvL

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

"In summary, Pfizer intentionally misrepresented the efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine and censored persons who threatened to disseminate the truth in order to facilitate fast adoption of the product and expand its commercial opportunity. In light of the multi-billion dollar bet that Pfizer made on the vaccine and its need to quickly establish the product as the marketing leader, was heavily incentivized to, and in fact did, make misrepresentations intended to confuse and mislead the public in order to achieve widespread adoption of its vaccine. This suit seeks to hold Pfizer responsible for its scheme of serial misrepresentations and deceptive trade practices.."

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

The petition spends several pages reviewing the requirements for EUA approval vs. full FDA approval and a few pages talking about the rules governing deceptive marketing tactics. This lays the background for how Texas alleges Pfizer abused these rules. To detail all of this would be time-consuming and repetitive. If you would like to read this for yourself, the relevant pages are 7-12.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

However, I would like to detail the guidance from the FDA on how to accurately convey risk and efficacy because it is important to understanding the rest of the suit.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

Let's define some terms/concepts. 1. Absolute Risk: This is the likelihood that a person will experience a particular treatment outcome. Someone may have a 1 in 10k chance of getting a certain cancer. (.01% baseline risk) Absolute risk reduction measures the reduction in the baseline risk if the person engages in some course of treatment. For example, someone may take an experimental drug intended to lower the risk of that certain cancer, so that the baseline risk drops from 1 in 10K to 1 in 20K (.005% post-treatment risk) Absolute risk reduction is calculated by the difference between those two values.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

2. Relative Risk: This is the likelihood of an individual experiencing a certain treatment outcome by comparing two scenarios. For ex: The person above has a 1 in 10K chance of developing a certain cancer without treatment and a 1 in 20K chance with treatment. Therefore, her relative risk of that cancer if she takes the treatment is half that of what it would be if she didn't.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

3. Number Needed to Treat (NNT): This reflects the number of patients that would have to be treated by a particular intervention to be able to prevent one additional negative outcome. A drug with an NNT of 10 means that 10 people require treatment with that drug to avoid one negative outcome the drug is intended to prevent.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

As you can see, these are three very different ways of representing a drug's benefit/efficacy/risk. Keep these handy. You are about to need them.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

The FDA doesn't want pharmaceutical companies to use just relative risk, because it is misleading. They want companies to use absolute risks or couple absolute risks with relative, otherwise, they risk influencing patients based on their representations of the data... Tsk. Tsk.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

This is a chart that demonstrates the same data across different methods of risk analysis-- you can clearly see why relative risk isn't the standard - https://t.co/qrVTkg8sNu

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

Pfizer used only the relative risk assessment to declare that the shot was 95% effective. We will demonstrate how in the posts to follow....

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

On 11/20/20, Pfizer submitted an EUA request for its vaccine designated BNT162b2. As a part of that application, they submitted safety and efficacy data from an ongoing Phase 3 trial- not a completed clinical trial. https://t.co/ckIHEfJ56M

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

Phase I trials started on 4/23/20 in a limited number of people. On 7/27/20, after those results, they began enrolling subjects in a joint Phase II/IIII trial. They were randomized into two equal groups and received 2 doses of the shot or placebo 21 days apart. For the purposes of the EUA, they monitored those subjects' status and whether they got COVID until 11/14/20.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

The Phase II/III study investigated two efficacy endpoints (the metrics used to determine whether the shot was successful.) The first endpoint measured COVID incidence per 10,000 person-years of follow-up in people without evidence of past infection, before and after vaccine, with confirmed cases in people 7 days after dose 2.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

The second endpoint sought to measure how often COVID-19 arose in patients 7 days after the second dose, including in those who may have been infected before https://t.co/eqNvjr3WUR

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

The results submitted to the FDA comprised 43,448 participants. 21,720 of them received the Pfizer shot, and 21,728 got a placebo. They had hastily added 14,000 additional participants. They said they had followed the trial participants for a median of two months after participation. Still, in November of 2020, the FDA found that only 43.9% of the participants completed at least two months of follow-up after receiving the 2nd dose.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

🚨🚨This is how Pfizer made the 95% effective claim: As of 11/14/20, 8 out of 17,411 participants (.04%) who received the shot and didn't have COVID prior experienced a defined case during the trial. In the placebo group, as of 11/14/20, 162 out of 17,511 participants (.9%) who didn't have evidence of prior infection experienced a defined case during the trial. The relative risk reduction between the placebo group and the treatment group? Was 95%....

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

HOWEVER - the ABSOLUTE risk reduction was only .85%. And the NNT was 119. One hundred nineteen people needed to be vaccinated to prevent one single defined COVID case.

@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz

Something many of us said is also mentioned here. They engineered the trial so that only COVID cases that occurred 7 days after shot two. 409 cases in the vaccination group happened after the first shot but before the 7-day mark after shot two. In the placebo group, that number was only 287. More people got COVID between doses in the vaccinated group vs. the unvaccinated group...

Resistance20001
Posted - December 15, 2023 at 7:39 AM
Saved - December 15, 2023 at 11:32 AM

@Resistance20001 - 🌹⚔️🌹The Resistance🌹⚔️🌹

PFIZER CEO ADMITS TO MURDERING 50% OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION https://t.co/HHTpvwDMVj

Video Transcript AI Summary
We commit to bringing new medicines to the US, Europe, and the world every year. These medicines will be added to our portfolio. This fulfills a dream we had in 2019 when we set goals for the next five years. One of those goals was to reduce the world's population by 50% by 2023. Today, this dream is becoming a reality. We are a purpose-driven company.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And we also make the commitment that every year as we discover and bring to the US or to Europe or to the world, new medicines. Automatically those new medicines will be inserted into the offer of the portfolio that we will offer into these countries. I think That, it's really a fulfillment of a dream that we had together with my leadership team when we started in 2019. The 1st week we met in January of 'nineteen in California and to set up the goals for the next 5 years and one of them was by 2023, we will reduce the number of people in the world by 50%. I think today, this dream is becoming reality. So it's really a purpose driven company.
DrJBhattacharya
Posted - April 7, 2024 at 5:11 AM
Saved - April 7, 2024 at 11:49 AM

@DrJBhattacharya - Jay Bhattacharya

Pfizer executives violated UK codes by pushing their covid vax efficacy online without mentioning side effects. They did the same in the US. Will the @US_FDA hold them accountable like a UK court just did?

@UsforThemUK - UsForThemUK 🌟

🚨🚨 BREAKING from the UK: in a ruling under the UK’s code of conduct Pfizer has been found GUILTY of ‘bringing discredit to the pharmaceutical industry’ in the UK, the most serious breach there is under the UK Code of Practice rules. A ruling by the UK’s @PMCPAUK found @pfizer had breached the UK’s regulatory code of conduct FIVE times including misleading the public about the safety and efficacy of its Covid vaccine AND unlawfully promoting an unlicensed medicine. This comes after Pfizer was found GUILTY in November 2022 of misleading UK parents over the safety of the Covid vaccine for kids. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/06/pfizer-breached-regulatory-code-five-times-watchdog-finds/

Pfizer accused of ‘bringing discredit’ on pharmaceutical industry after Covid social media posts Watchdog rules company breached regulatory code five times including promoting unlicensed medicines telegraph.co.uk
DrAseemMalhotra
Posted - April 7, 2024 at 6:54 AM
Saved - April 7, 2024 at 3:48 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Pfizer accused of illegally promoting unlicensed vaccine on social media, lacking efficacy and safety information. Claims of the "greatest fraud in the history of medicine" continue to emerge. @elonmusk #Pfizer #COVID19 #vaccine

@DrAseemMalhotra - Dr Aseem Malhotra

BREAKING SUNDAY TELEGRAPH: Pfizer discredited industry with unlicensed vaccine promotion ‘Pfizer misused social media to misleadingly and illegally promote their covid vaccine’ ‘This messaging contained limited information about the vaccine’s efficacy, no safety information & no reference to adverse events’ The greatest and most horrific fraud in the history of medicine continues to unravel @elonmusk

thackerpd
Posted - April 9, 2024 at 11:56 AM
Saved - April 9, 2024 at 9:06 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Pfizer has been accused of spreading vaccine misinformation and bringing discredit to the industry. Fact checkers have overlooked this. The regulator found that Pfizer misled the public about their COVID vaccine even before completing clinical trials. The ruling came from a group set up by the pharma organization now led by Pfizer. This is the sixth finding against Pfizer by the watchdog. Fake fact checks have been supporting Pfizer instead of questioning it. Fact checks always seem to favor Pfizer.

@thackerpd - Paul D. Thacker

1) Pfizer has spread so much vax misinformation that a regulator accused them of "bringing discredit" on the entire industry--the entire industry!!! And the fact checkers keep looking the other way. https://www.pauldthacker.com/blog/#/ Let's look at the facts.

The DisInformation Chronicle - Paul D. Thacker I'm an American investigative journalist based in Spain and former Fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. I've written on scientific ethics for outlets including the New York Times, BMJ Investigations, JAMA, Washington Post, NEJM, Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, Slate, and Mother Jones. I also spent several years in the U.S. Senate investigating corruption and conflicts of interest in science and medicine.  pauldthacker.com

@thackerpd - Paul D. Thacker

2) @FullFact even tried to bolster confidence in Pfizer’s #COVID vaccine by pointing out that—while Pfizer paid an unprecedented $2.3 billion fine for healthcare fraud—everyone needs to calm the fuck down, none of Pfizer’s fraud involved a vaccine.

@thackerpd - Paul D. Thacker

3) The regulator found that Pfizer began spreading vaccine misinformation in 2020 to promote their COVID vaccine, meaning Pfizer was misleading the public about their vaccine throughout the pandemic. Even before they had completed clinical trials!

@thackerpd - Paul D. Thacker

4) The ruling came from the PMCPA which the pharma trade organization ABPI set up in 1993. Oh, and ABPI is now led by a Pfizer person. It's that bad. Pfizer got rapped by a group set up by the pharma org now run by Pfizer. It's like Pfizer is appalled by Pfizer.

@thackerpd - Paul D. Thacker

5) This is the 6th finding against Pfizer by the Pfizer-friendly watchdog. Another example was reported back in 2022 when CEO Albert Bourla spread vaccine misinformation on the BBC. Why didn't the BBC catch this, @rachelschraer?

@thackerpd - Paul D. Thacker

6) When I looked back over the pandemic, I found a host of fake fact checks, like this one, coming out to "support" Pfizer, not question it. Big Fact Check always dances to Big Pharma's tune.

@thackerpd - Paul D. Thacker

7) Here's my fave: One fact checker knocks down critic's stats on Pfizer's vaccine in favour of Pfizer 95% efficacy claim, while another questions if Pfizer ever made a 95% efficacy claim, months later. It's always fact checks in favour of Pfizer.

@thackerpd - Paul D. Thacker

8) Read more at @DisInfoChron and please subscribe! https://www.pauldthacker.com/blog/#/

The DisInformation Chronicle - Paul D. Thacker I'm an American investigative journalist based in Spain and former Fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. I've written on scientific ethics for outlets including the New York Times, BMJ Investigations, JAMA, Washington Post, NEJM, Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, Slate, and Mother Jones. I also spent several years in the U.S. Senate investigating corruption and conflicts of interest in science and medicine.  pauldthacker.com
LetsGoBrando45
Posted - June 18, 2024 at 5:21 PM
Saved - June 21, 2024 at 5:18 AM

@LetsGoBrando45 - Brandon Taylor Moore

The CEO of #Pfizer believed his vaccine was so safe and effective, that he didn’t take it. Marinate on that for a few minutes. 🤔🤔🤔 https://t.co/1ciUF539oh

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asked for the impossible: to develop a vaccine in 8 months instead of 10 years without cutting corners. They emphasized safety. Speaker 1 questioned Pfizer's transparency in mutating COVID viruses. Speaker 0 stressed the importance of vaccination for public health. Pfizer's CEO discussed vaccine production and effectiveness. They thanked the US government for support. The CEO highlighted the vaccine's 95.6% efficacy. The conversation ended with a call for public vaccination.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I asked them to make the impossible possible, basically. I asked them to make the impossible possible thing possible possible possible, basically. And, when we do a development of vaccine, it usually takes 10 years. So I asked them instead of 8 years to do it in 8 months. Speaker 1: 8 months. Along with that, there were concerns, well, they must have cut corners. This can't be safe. Speaker 0: Yes. And that was always the guiding principle. We will never cut corners. Speaker 1: Hey there. Is this heat taken? You work for Pfizer. My question for you is why does Pfizer wanna hide from the public the fact that they're mutating the COVID viruses? We're trying to get Speaker 0: the clock locked the door. Speaker 1: I was trying to impress a person on a date. We're trying to lie. Look. We still don't even have a vaccine for the HIV. So and you know how long that's been going on. So the big concern was, well, they must have cut corners. Speaker 0: 95.6 percent. Speaker 1: Have you taken the vaccine, sir? Speaker 0: No. I haven't taken it yet. Speaker 1: They were developed so quickly. What do you tell, those folks who might be saying, well, I'm gonna wait a few months before I get Speaker 0: this one. The decision not to vaccinate will not affect only your health or your life. Unfortunately, it will affect the lives of others and likely the lives of the people you love the most. I think, trust science. Speaker 1: I also wanna thank Albert Bourra, Pfizer's CEO and chairman, for joining me today. We've gotten to know each other over the last few months, and the plan is for a half a 1000000000 doses that we'll be sending around the world to be produced in the United States. You have not yet had, your shot. When do you plan to get it? Speaker 0: Sooner, I can, I will? Today's announcement with the US government gets us closer to our goal. Speaker 1: You said it was a 100% effective, then 90%, then 70%. Speaker 0: 95.6%. Speaker 1: Why did you keep that secret? Speaker 0: Have a nice day. Mister president, I want to thank you for your leadership and partnership. Speaker 1: Are you not ashamed of what you've done in the last couple of years? Do you have any apologies to the public, sir? Speaker 0: Of course, all of this work to increase supply and distribution will mean nothing if people are not willing to show up and roll up their sleeves to to Speaker 1: be vaccinated.
catsscareme2021
Posted - June 29, 2024 at 12:01 PM
Saved - June 30, 2024 at 6:29 AM

@catsscareme2021 - Jessica Rojas 🇺🇸💪

Former Pfizer Executive turns whistleblower. "Dr. Rost, former pharmaceutical executive claims that pharmaceutical companies intentionally design vaccines to keep the public in a state of illness for purposes of perpetual treatments." https://t.co/cVjii8O9B5

Video Transcript AI Summary
Universities, health organizations, and others seek money from big corporations to influence research and opinions. By funding research, paying individual professionals, and supporting programs, corporations ensure loyalty and favorable outcomes. This financial influence shapes the medical establishment, even if it appears independent on the surface.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Universities, health organizations, everybody that I've encountered in my former career as a pharmaceutical executive are out there with their hands out. You know, everybody is begging for money. Nobody has any money. The government doesn't have any money, universities don't have money, nobody has money. The only ones that have money are these big multinational corporations. And they have lots of money. And they use that money to basically buy influence. And the way it's done is, number 1, you give these organizations and institutions grants for various kinds of research. You do develop research together with them. You establish friends. You make sure that they become beholden to you, and you also pay individual professors and doctors and researchers directly. You may pay them as speakers to travel around the country, dollars 1, 000 $2, 000 per day, sometimes more. You give them money for programs, educational programs, where they can make a profit. And then they put on these programs. And they are supposed to be 3rd party independent from the company, which is all fine. But as you and I can both imagine, if you have a promotional budget at a corporation, you're probably going to give that money to the universities that do the programs that most support your drug. And the ones that don't, or are critical in any shape, way, or form, they're not gonna get anything. And everybody obviously knows that this is how things work. And that means that even if you can officially claim, well, this is arm's length, we didn't have anything to do with it. We just gave them a grant. They can do whatever they want with it. Reality is, they're not gonna continue to get money unless they're saying what you want them to say. They know it. You know it. It's only maybe the public that doesn't know it. And that's how you influence the medical establishment, simply with money.
cdnrefusenik
Posted - September 9, 2024 at 9:36 PM
Saved - September 10, 2024 at 5:54 PM

@cdnrefusenik - Canadian Refusenik 🍁

Pfizer knew... https://t.co/hZzzqWGqA1

HustleBitch_
Posted - October 25, 2024 at 3:03 PM
Saved - October 25, 2024 at 8:27 PM

@HustleBitch_ - HustleBitch

🚨 #BREAKING: Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla INDICTED ⚠️ With all the news surrounding Bill Gates heading to trial, we may have missed the head of Pfizer also being named in the lawsuit. Both are being held responsible for lying to the public about the Covid vaccine. Two down. https://t.co/C6S8oWqnlP

VaccineMole
Posted - November 22, 2024 at 1:26 PM
Saved - November 23, 2024 at 8:13 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I've expressed my concerns about Pfizer's transparency regarding the DNA and undisclosed peptides in their Covid-19 vaccines, highlighting the potential implications. I've also noted that Pfizer's claims and related studies will be archived for future reference. However, I've encountered issues with Wayback archiving these claims, but I found an updated archive link from November 2024. Additionally, I've faced challenges with Wayback blocking access to Dr. Sandeep Chakraborty's paper, which I've archived for easier access.

@VaccineMole - VaccineMole

Dear @Pfizer @AlbertBourla you're deceiving the public about the DNA amount & undisclosed small peptides of the T1 oncogenic protein found in the Pfizer-BNTech Covid-19 vaccines as scientists show Sooner or later, you will answer for this @IamBrookJackson @barnes_law

@VaccineMole - VaccineMole

The respective @Pfizer claims & referenced studies will be archived for future evidence @Pfizer claims https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.pfizer.com/about/responsibility/misinformation Dr. Sandeep Chakraborty https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379962204_The_bloodstream_of_mRNA_vaccinated_individuals_both_Pfizer_and_Moderna_shows_DNA_expression_vector_contamination_including_SV40_and_kanamycin-resistant_gene_sequences Kevin et. al https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375065939_DNA_fragments_detected_in_monovalent_and_bivalent_PfizerBioNTech_and_Moderna_modRNA_COVID-19_vaccines_from_Ontario_Canada_Exploratory_dose_response_relationship_with_serious_adverse_events König et. al https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9279/7/3/41 @JesslovesMJK @Kevin_McKernan

Wayback MachineHamburger iconInternet Archive logoWeb iconTexts iconVideo iconAudio iconSoftware iconImages iconDonate iconEllipses iconDonate iconUser iconUpload iconSearch iconSearch iconSearch iconDonate icon web.archive.org
Wayback MachineHamburger iconInternet Archive logoWeb iconTexts iconVideo iconAudio iconSoftware iconImages iconDonate iconEllipses iconDonate iconUser iconUpload iconSearch iconSearch iconSearch iconDonate icon web.archive.org
Wayback MachineHamburger iconInternet Archive logoWeb iconTexts iconVideo iconAudio iconSoftware iconImages iconDonate iconEllipses iconDonate iconUser iconUpload iconSearch iconSearch iconSearch iconDonate icon web.archive.org
Wayback MachineHamburger iconInternet Archive logoWeb iconTexts iconVideo iconAudio iconSoftware iconImages iconDonate iconEllipses iconDonate iconUser iconUpload iconSearch iconSearch iconSearch iconDonate icon web.archive.org

@VaccineMole - VaccineMole

For some reason wayback is having problems in archiving @Pfizer claims page as of today I found a working updated archive from 17 Nov 2024 working, please check: Link for future evidence https://web.archive.org/web/20241117215407/https://www.pfizer.com/about/responsibility/misinformation @IamBrookJackson @barnes_law

Fighting Misinformation | Pfizer The spread of rumors and falsehoods can be dangerous. Learn about Pfizer’s dedication to helping people find accurate, science-based health information. web.archive.org

@VaccineMole - VaccineMole

Just realised Wayback is blocking the link from Dr.Sandeep Chakraborty paper due to rights issues,which makes no sense since the paper is publicly available I archived it at http://archive.today, here's the direct link: https://archive.ph/Xpn2c

liz_churchill10
Posted - January 1, 2025 at 12:33 AM
Saved - January 1, 2025 at 7:01 AM

@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill

Pfizer knew exactly what they were doing. I hope that 2025 is the year they’re held accountable. Crimes Against Humanity. A Pfizer Insider released internal documents stating over 158K adverse reaction reports were received after 2 months of it's release. https://t.co/X7b29LsuDy

Video Transcript AI Summary
A Pfizer whistleblower has revealed documents indicating over 158,000 reports of adverse reactions from December 2020 to February 2021, including serious issues like spontaneous abortions. It is claimed that the FDA was aware of these reactions and sought to keep the documents hidden for 75 years, suggesting intentional harm. The whistleblower argues that the vaccine remains on the market despite serious concerns, highlighting a double standard compared to previous vaccine removals for fewer adverse events. There is a call for accountability for those involved in this situation.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A Pfizer whistleblower who works inside the company has released these documents showing that they had received over a 158,000 reports of adverse reactions from December 1, 2020 through February 28, 2021. Serious adverse reactions, spontaneous abortions. It is absolutely evil what these people have done. The FDA was well aware, and that is why they wanted these documents hidden for 75 years because it just proves that this was intentionally released, and they knew all along that it was going to cause massive heart attacks and strokes and deaths and infertility and miscarriages. I mean, it goes on and on and on. Neurological issues. The fact that this thing they call a vaccine is still on the market blows my mind because they have removed vaccines where 10 cases of a child getting sick, occurred. And so this is evil, intentional, and whoever is involved must be held accountable.
wideawake_media
Posted - February 13, 2025 at 10:20 AM
Saved - February 13, 2025 at 5:07 PM

@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media

"There was no pandemic, and the lie was maintained in order to inject... 5.5 billion people with an intentionally dangerous substance, 17 million of whom have died so far." – Former vice president at Pfizer, Dr. Mike Yeadon. https://t.co/q6o9NnPJk2

Video Transcript AI Summary
There was no pandemic. The all-cause mortality data did not increase before the WHO's fraudulent declaration. The PCR test was inappropriately used, creating a false impression of a specific disease. People were mistreated via mass ventilation, sedatives and respiratory depressants in care homes, and denial of antibiotics. Based on this lie, we were told vaccines would save us, but there was no pandemic, so no rushed intervention was needed. It's impossible to invent, test, and manufacture a complex biomedical product so quickly. What was done was the advancement of intentionally toxic materials, sketchily advanced and injected into people, with millions dead as a result. The lie of a pandemic was maintained to inject five and a half billion people with a dangerous substance, resulting in seventeen million deaths so far.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There has not been a pandemic. Dennis Rancourt's data shows that the all cause mortality ever data did not increase at all in the run up to the declaration fraudulently by WHO of a pandemic. There is no public health emergency except that created by our governments. A inappropriate fraudulent PCR test was used to give people the impression that they had a particular disease where they didn't. There were all the normal diseases. And then what happened was in three different ways, people were treated badly through changed medical procedures that were imposed above the level of nation briefly, mass ventilation of people inappropriately in hospitals that led to lots of deaths. In care homes, many people were given sedatives and respiratory depressants, which led to their deaths. My PhD was specifically in that area of opiates and respiratory depression. And in the community, people were denied life saving antibiotics, and died of bacterial pneumonia. There's your pandemic. There is no other pandemic. And based on this lie, we were told that vaccines were coming our way and would be our savior. Two things. And I'll say first, there's no pandemic. So you certainly don't need an experimental or rushed medical intervention. But secondly, even if you did, as someone who's worked in the industry for over thirty years, I am telling you, it's absolutely impossible to invent, test, clinically evaluate, and manufacture, and then launch on global scale a complex biomedical product. It's absolutely impossible. It's not as close. It's years wrong. The fastest record price of this was six years. And friends of mine who've worked all their lives in manufacturing of complex biological products tell me the methods development alone for the development of a reproducible manufacturing process itself takes a number of years. So whatever it is you think was done, I am telling you that was not the development of a proper medical product. What I think happened was, the advancements of materials that are intentionally toxic, and then they were sketchily advanced and jammed into people's arms, often coerced, sometimes even mandated with the unsurprising effect that millions of people have died. So I think having having heard what I've just said, there was no pandemic, and the line was maintained in order to inject people on mass, I think, five and a half billion people with an intentionally dangerous substance, seventeen million of whom have died so far.
RedactedNews
Posted - April 13, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Saved - April 13, 2026 at 3:00 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

Did you catch this earlier?! 💉 The Pfizer CEO was forced to testify and admit that he knew the shot was poison from day one! ...Nothing to see here... https://t.co/L5dvsj8Dxb

Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on a Dutch civil litigation in which Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, and Marc Rutemp (Marc Rutza) are named as individual defendants in cases linked to “Project COVID” and broad pandemic preparedness efforts years before the 2020 pandemic. Key facts asserted: - The defendants are plaintiffs in civil tort litigation filed in the Netherlands around 2023. Two cases exist: an older 2023 case and a second case involving additional plaintiffs. The Dutch approach allows individuals to be named as defendants in civil tort actions. - Gates and Bourla (and Rutza) have appeared as defendants; Gates attempted to avoid jurisdiction, but the Amsterdam court ruled that Gates and Bourla, as individuals, respond to the case. They have not appeared in court personally, but their lawyers appear on their behalf. - On March 9, an appeal hearing occurred in Amsterdam at the Court of Appeals, with extensive public attendance (about 60 journalists, podcasters, and plaintiffs). The hearing was described as explosive; a single attorney, Peter Stassen, presented a long argument as co-counsel had been imprisoned and disbarred, leaving one attorney on a tight budget. A video of the proceedings and a standout speech went viral. - The plaintiffs allege the defendants conspired to create “Project COVID” and a “pandemic preparedness racket” years prior to 2020. The core claim is that Gates, Bourla, Rutza, along with others, collaborated with private NGOs, the military, NATO, and DOD through a DARPA-linked pandemic program to identify pandemic potential viruses and to develop vaccines and therapeutics within sixty days, with funding from the DOD. - Evidence cited includes a 2017 AstraZeneca tape in which a key AstraZeneca executive states that DARPA approached them in 2017 to join a consortium to identify pandemic viruses and deliver vaccines within sixty days; the response was, “I thought it was science fiction.” The tape is part of an evidence package showing pre-2020 planning. - February 4, 2020 is highlighted as a crucial date: a telephone call from DARPA indicating COVID was declared a national security threat, followed by retroactive emergency declarations around March 2020. A February 4, 2020 conference was scheduled, with widespread communications among government, military, HHS, and CDC; the aim was to secure liability protection for pharmaceutical countermeasures during a declared emergency. - The defense includes the assertion that the public-private partnership extended to many companies (including 300 others) that joined the consortium, with U.S. and European regulatory synchronization through mutual recognition agreements. - The alleged motives are primarily framed as profits and control, with references to a long-standing history of military involvement in vaccine development and public health measures, including the PREP Act in the U.S. and parallel European countermeasures frameworks that waive liability and regulatory requirements during declared emergencies. The PREP Act’s role — especially in the U.S. — is discussed as shielding manufacturers from liability, with European frameworks described as allowing similar protections through contracts and synchronized countermeasures legislation. - Expert testimonies: five experts have provided evidence supporting foreknowledge and intentional deception by government health officials and the named defendants. Sasha Ladopova and Catherine Watt contributed written testimonies; Ladopova references foreknowledge by health regulators, and the broader regulatory harmonization across EMA and FDA. - Francis Boyle, a professor known for work on bioweapons law, testified that the vaccines/metas could be viewed as bioweapons; he died three weeks after agreeing to testify. - Injuries to plaintiffs: in the initial case, seven injured plaintiffs with one death; the second case added three more plaintiffs. Injuries cited include cardiovascular inflammation, autoimmune conditions, and cancer; plaintiffs contend their lives were destroyed by the countermeasures, while regulators and manufacturers allegedly denied injuries and deaths. What happens next: - An October 22 hearing in the lower court in Lewarden (The Netherlands) is planned, with a public in-person event and a press conference. - The appeal on the second case seeks to have expert witnesses heard under oath; the prior lower court denied this, and the higher court’s decision is anticipated (with expectations of denial, according to the interview). - The campaign invites public interest and financial support; the foundation in the Netherlands funds the case, and the English-language YouTube channel is available for updates and evidence. Contact points for following the case include Sasha Ladopova’s Substack and the Dutch foundation’s YouTube channel and materials.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, this could be one of the biggest bombshell civil pieces of litigation. And what does Bill Gates, Albert Borla, Marc Ruta all have in common? Well, civil litigation related to COVID in The Netherlands. And what does this case mean moving forward to try to get answers for the rest of the world. And all of this is tied to maybe the COVID emergency measures, which did not begin in 2020 at all, but were actually put in place years earlier inside of a Pentagon backed pandemic program that was built for speed. Like, we gotta get this thing rolled out here. It all appeared to the world as if this thing came out of nowhere, but it didn't. And that's the explosive question being raised by newly published material from Sasha Ladopova, who centered on leaked internal AstraZeneca audio that she says points back to a Pentagon planned DARPA linked pandemic program dating back to the year 2017. In other words, major players inside the government, big pharma, were already treating it as a national security operation years before most Americans or people living around the world even understood what was happening. Sasha Ladopova worked at the highest levels of big pharma as a medical device R and D executive, and now she spends her time exposing fraud and lies inside the pharmaceutical industry as a journalist and researcher. And Sasha joins us now. Great to have you back on the show. It's been a number of years, but thank you for your latest work on this. Great to see you. Speaker 1: Hi, Clayton. Thank you for inviting me again. And, yes, great to see you again. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. So let's start with The Netherlands. Albert Borla, Bill Gates, Marc Ruta. Of course, I love how, like, people like Marc Ruta who fail in life get promoted to the head of NATO. That's how these things work. Right? So what do the three of them have in common, and why are they being forced to appear before a court in Amsterdam related to COVID? Can you walk us through this? Speaker 1: Right. So so they are all, defendants in this civil litigation procedure that started around 2023. And there are two cases, an older case was filed in 2023. These individuals, including several other high level Dutch state officials who all participated in project COVID, are named as defendants, as individuals. And that's a unique feature of Dutch law where individuals can be brought like this into the civil tort litigation. And so, they all they tried to get out of this case. Bill Gates tried to claim that he is not subject to this jurisdiction, but the judge actually ruled that Bill Gates and Obi Berla as individuals respond to this case. They haven't appeared individually in court, but their lawyers are present and their lawyers are responding on their behalf, so they're part of the defendant group in this litigation. So, on March 9, yes, so we were in Amsterdam at the Court of Appeals. I was there in person. So, was another expert witness, Johsson Song. And also about 60 journalists, podcasters and members of the public and plaintiffs showed up with us in the Court of Appeals. And in fact, there were so many people on the plaintiff's side that the court had to give us two rooms because one wasn't big enough. And so that proceeding was very explosive. There's a video of it. We've subtitled it, translated it. I made the all the materials available where Peter Stassen, who is the only attorney prosecuting this case now, the the his co counsel was imprisoned and disbarred. So now we're we're down to one attorney on a shoestring budget. So he made an amazing speech. It went viral for a few days on Twitter. And so it's available on YouTube. And and he laid out the case. He laid out that these these people all conspired to create project COVID, to create create this pandemic preparedness racket years ahead. Yes. Years years ahead of 2020. And Bill Gates is a key participant in it. And, you know, they were all profiteers trying to set up this this fake pandemic and very real response by the governments, which they pulled off, and then profiteer off of it massively, which they did. And so, the plaintiffs are injured individuals by Pfizer vaccine, and they're seeking justice and compensation for their injuries. So, that's kind of in a nutshell. We're expecting the Court of Appeals decision on April 9, we also have now scheduled a court hearing on substantive matter finally on October 22 in lower court in The Netherlands in Lewawarden. And I'm going to be there in person again, we're going to have a public event there again. Speaker 0: So can you talk about how Bill Gates and Pfizer, Albert Borla conspired? Because that's the argument from the prosecution and from the plaintiffs that Bill Gates, Albert Borla, Mark Ruta, they got together and conspired to create what they're calling Project COVID. Maybe you can walk us through the machinery of that. Speaker 1: Right. Exactly. So I had a lot of, I would say, indirect but documented very well documented evidence that private NGOs like Bill Gates, the military, NATO, and DOD. Obviously, this was all centered around DOD massively, DARPA, which is DOD's Advanced Research Project Agency. Pharmaceutical companies who were part of this consortium were approached by DARPA in around well, beginning as early as 2012, but I have very, very direct evidence, as you mentioned, the tape from AstraZeneca, that in 2017, DARPA specifically approached AstraZeneca and said that to these key executives and said that, oh, we can fund this project where and you can be part of this consortium. The consortium is already conspiracy, essentially. You can be part of this consortium where we, the DOD, the military, identify pandemic potential viruses, not very clear how, and you, the pharma, will be making vaccines and therapeutics within sixty days of that, To which the response, and I have it on tape from key executive of AstraZeneca was I thought it was science fiction. And that's the truth. So he is admitting that he knew at the time this was fake and they were fraudulently being induced into this activity. But of course, you know, this is the US government, the DOD telling them that and waving a lot of dollars. So they, you know, of course, they said yes. And of course, another 300 companies in this consortium said yes. And they all got together and they started working on these projects where DoD was funding these science exercise, no deliverables, lots of money, what's not to like. So they've been doing this for a few years prior to 2020. And in 2020, DoD made a phone call on February 4 to AstraZeneca and other participants of consortium telling them that COVID is declared national security threat. Again, not clear why. We still don't know why. That hasn't been unclassified. Nobody has any evidence of what how the decision was made, who decided based on what data. And, they just all went live, live exercise, and, all over the world in synchronous in perfect synchronicity. So while I thought that you know, I do have this evidence, but it's very you know, it's hard to prove that, you know, Bill Gates specifically was, you know, very, very key to this. Now, you know and I never expected Bill Gates would put this in writing that I would like to do this project COVID, but she did with in the emails with Epstein. So when the emails with Epstein files were released, it's evident that Bill Gates, Epstein, and JPMorgan, the bank, were setting up a financial structure to do exactly this to prepare for pandemics and profit off it and also utilize Bill Gates' or not not trigger the the for profit status of this activity by utilizing the charitable structures and how to avoid taxation and all that. So they were not only structuring pandemic project, they were also figuring out how to avoid taxes and how to profit of it massively. Speaker 0: And this was really at the request of the DOD, the Pentagon. Yes. They were specifically asking to create this did they call it project COVID? Did they what kind of military they love to give military names and operations. What was the name? Speaker 1: So the the name was a pandemic preparedness so PPP, pandemic preparedness program or something like that. And, you know, it was loosely called that. There were also other names given to other activities like, countermeasures. At some point within the Epstein exchange with Bill Gates, there are names like Project Molecule being thrown around. So they do give them different names. But overall, this is all it's a public private partnership which is, again a conspiracy between corporations, banks, pharmaceutical companies, government, military, it's public private partnership, to create these pandemic preparedness planning activities, military countermeasures activities all over the world. And also, there's extensive documentation evidence and evidence in law how all of this was over these decades synchronized across the world, especially key military allies like, you know, NATO, the five eyes security allies, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, they all have the same analogous law, to The US law that enables all this activity and makes it all legal. Speaker 0: Well, it's no secret Americans love sushi, my daughters included. And over the last two decades, raw fish consumption has exploded. Sushi bars everywhere, grocery stores selling it, gas stations selling. Millions of people now eat raw fish weekly, but here's a hidden risk most people never think about. Parasites. Yeah. Salmon, one of the most popular fish worldwide, but it naturally contains more than 70 parasites. Most of them are tiny, nearly impossible to see them. I'm sure you've seen the videos where people have gone to, like, Costco and they come home and let their salmon sit out on the counter for a few hours and suddenly the little white parasites start popping out of the fish. But once inside the body, parasites can hide for years while frequently laying eggs before any symptoms appear at all in the body. That's why many physicians are raising awareness about parasite exposure. Our friend of the show, Doctor. Peter McCullough, recommends doing a parasite cleanse at least once a year as a preventative measure. The wellness company offers a hard to access Rx Parasite Cleanse, USA compound with ivermectin and mebenzadol. Ivermectin paralyzes the parasite's nervous system, and then mebenzadol starves them. Each capsule contains twenty five mg of ivermectin, two hundred and fifty milligrams of mebenzadol lab tested for quality. You can now get a more budget friendly forty five capsule option that costs $250 less, giving you two twenty one day parasite cleanse cycles. It's the same formula as the original, just a smaller quantity. So head right now to twc.health/redacted and use that code redacted to save $35 off plus free shipping. And so the I I guess I'm looking for the motive here. Right? Speaker 1: Mhmm. Speaker 0: Is it purely money, or was it control? I mean, the way I see it now is it's all about control. It was a it was, you know, them telling us, you know, cash cash has COVID on it. You can't touch paper money, the lockdowns, control, all of it. So was it or in in these documents, in this research, did you find the clear motive from the DOD and Pentagon? Speaker 1: So they never you know, they don't state the clear motive, but this is a very long, long running history. So it actually goes back about 100 years at least. There the you know, people need to understand that public health and especially vaccination mass vaccination programs are part of long running Eugenics Agenda, and they have always been a military activity. So, The US before mass vaccination programs, before they put on the books in the 80s the National Vaccine Injury Law, These activities from early nineteen hundreds and especially during the second world war and immediately after the second world war when The US had official bioweapons development program. It was covert, but it was legal, ran until Nixon stopped it in '69. So, during that time especially, all vaccines were military owned and developed and co developed. Always. There was always military involvement in development of all vaccines. The polio vaccines, everything else that was developed at the time, all science and all pharmaceutical development is tightly linked with military. So they already had the public health military public private partnership. In fact, there was an official pharmaceutical bioweapons consortium at the time. It was headed by Merck, by George Merck, Merck Pharmaceuticals. He was the civilian head of The US bioweapons development program. And their main activity was making vaccines. And there's even Merck report declassified describing this. And also about 80 academic institutions were at the time participating in the same program. So, this is a very very long standing activity that simply evolved. And the key evolution is not what they were doing on the medical or vaccine making side, but what they were doing on the legislative side to remove liability. Because every time they would try to push their products into the public, there would be a lot of injuries and deaths, and there would be a huge scandal. And they would have to cover up the scandal and pay the liabilities and so forth. And that evolved into the PREP Act. So, PREP Act is the final, I would say, you know, activity that you can say here's a very, very clear evidence of intent of them doing this and importantly getting away with this without any justice, accountability or liability. And people are saying, well, how can you say that? But, you know, lawmaking is highly intentional set of activities. So you can't say they didn't have intent somehow accidentally this law appeared on the books. And in fact, there is a congressional debate when the PREP Act was being introduced in 2005 where Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden both stood up in Congress and said this law is hugely unconstitutional. It should not be passed because it violates several amendments of the constitution, specifically people's right to sue in court and seek compensation for injuries and deaths caused by government activities. So how can you say that they didn't know, it wasn't intentional, that there was no nobody brought up any objections to it? And the Republicans in Congress at the time pushed it through. So now we have this high it is monstrous monstrous prep act law that says that the government can declare a pandemic unilateral HHS secretary, RFK junior, today. It's in his opinion, his opinion that we have a COVID pandemic, that it will last until 2029 at least. So, a decade of emergency, military emergency. And once that declaration is out and HHS secretary signs off on it, then all these products, the COVID countermeasures can be shipped completely without any regulation, not following any good manufacturing practices, not following any safety efficacy assessments. FDA cannot even issue legally safe and efficacious labeling for these products. So, all these announcements are just marketing slogans. And there's absolutely no liability whatsoever for any injuries or deaths caused by the countermeasures under this declaration. So that's what we have right now. And that's the law itself is the evidence of a massive conspiracy between the private sector and the government to do this, to hurt, to injure the population, and to cause all this damage that they have caused. Speaker 0: When in this court hearing, and I guess we'll have to unpack like what was actually said, what evidence was presented that showed that the defendants, Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, Mark Rutza, knew that these vaccinations were not real, and if anything, they were causing pain, they were causing enormous problems, massive side effects, etcetera? Speaker 1: Right. So the so to date so we have five expert witnesses to provide evidence that would support these these statements. And I'm one of the expert witnesses. Two of us, so myself and Catherine Watt, who's doing the law research, we already submitted our written testimonies as part of the court documents, as part of the appeal procedure. And my own testimony contains a lot of evidence of, yes, the foreknowledge and so the the government officials and and Albert Berlo and Bill Gates, so people people who are the defendants, they are under the status of they knew or should have known. So these are the things that the government officials in health so, for example, when the the health regulators in The Netherlands are taking these shots and telling to the public in public advertisements, TV, media that these are safe and effective. These are life saving vaccines. You must take them. You must they will prevent transmission, and we will stop the pandemic and all that. These statements cannot be just made, you know, because, you know, they can't lie. Speaker 0: Right. Like, is it like, what is that based in? Speaker 1: Right. So it needs to be based on the legal standard for safety and efficacy. And the legal standard for safety and efficacy exists both in Europe under EMA standards and European Medicines Agency, and which is equivalent to the US FDA. Because they are now synchronized, they're all harmonized, The US and European regulators and Canadians and Japanese and all the Western world, they've also synchronized themselves through international conference on harmonization. So, the regulatory frameworks are largely the same. So, they and they also have mutual recognition agreements. So, now they can take statements from the FDA as if it's EMA issued those statements because they believe they're both equivalent. And then EMA can turn around and tell the public, yes, this is safe and effective. So, my evidence that FDA, through PREPACT, cannot even legally issue those statements. Then EMA, with their high powered attorneys and researchers and regulatory experts, thousands of staff should have known this. If I, like average person working in the pharmaceutical industry, was able to find this information very easily, Well, they should have known this. They should have known that FDA cannot say safe and effective and they're issuing them under Emergency Use Authorization Framework, which is a countermeasures framework, which absolves, which removes any regulatory requirements from pharma, removes informed consent, removes You can't even run a clinical trial on the EUA product. It's not possible legally to do. All of this is known. All of this is written into the law and the European regulators know it very well. And the European health authorities, those individuals in charge, even if they didn't know, they should have known, they should have checked before they made those statements to the public. So, because none of this happened and it wasn't just like one instance or one example where they missed some information because they were in a hurry. No, we have a systematic evidence of all of them lying to the public in concert and denying all the injuries and deaths. So therefore, it's a very clear statement that they are actually guilty of conspiracy. Speaker 0: So they knew of the event they knew of the adverse offense. They were actively lying about it. Mhmm. And then you also believe that they were covering it up. Right? Did you see evidence? Speaker 1: Of course. They they to date, they're all they're all covering it up. In in The US, they're covering it up, and in the Europe, they're covering it. They they are they're denying injuries. They're denying that these vaccines cause deaths and cancer and all those horrible things. And they're just they're basically stonewalling. And they're not even responding on the substance. What was interesting in the in the appeal proceeding, we had one lawyer on the Schusteren budget for the plaintiffs, nine defense attorneys in the room on behalf of the defendants. And in this appeal in the court of appeals of Amsterdam, it was expected because, again, this is a civil procedure. It's not a criminal procedure. It's expected that the defense will say something. So Peter Stassen talked for an hour about, presenting all this evidence. They sat there in the room. Their only response was one of the attorneys spoke and said, COVID was a real illness, and vaccines are safe and effective. Speaker 0: That's all they said. Speaker 1: Was it, yeah. Speaker 0: You talk about these defendants who brought this civil case, can you maybe walk through some of their injuries, what they experienced? Speaker 1: Well, have, so in the earlier case, were seven injured plaintiffs. One person already died from their injuries. And they have a variety of injuries from cardiovascular, you know, the cardiac inflammation, people get autoimmune conditions, some have cancer, I believe. And in the second case, we had two we had three additional plaintiffs. Two of them were in the room on March 9, and one was too sick to attend. So all of these people are severely injured. They can't they're unable to work the government. Okay. In The Netherlands, maybe there's more social social welfare type of deal, but still, you know, people people's lives are destroyed by these things, and the government can continues to deny it. So that's that's monstrous. Speaker 0: Did and Bill Gates has really shifted his position on this, which seems to me problematic. Mhmm. You know, when did he enough to make a lot of money off of it and then shift your position later in interviews. Mhmm. Is that an important piece for this this hearing, this trial? Speaker 1: Well, I mean, he shifts his constituents all the time. Speaker 0: Right. So, Speaker 1: yes, he's clearly getting in some sort of a pickle, especially after the Epstein files came out, clearly showing that he he was conspiring and showing other, you know, kind of sordid stuff that he did with with Epstein. Even I thought, recently, there was news that Warren Buffett is no longer investing into the his charitable scams. And so, that's a big that's a big ticket. It's something like $4,000,000,000. So, obviously, Bill Gates is getting into some sort of a situation. And, yeah, he he will shift all the time, but he is always he's always behind the the vaccine push. Actually, in my recent article, I found that before even the COVID vaccines went on the market, these COVID countermeasures were pushed globally in December 2020. In November 2020, they very quietly pushed globally a new oral polio vaccine which is known and very well documented in scientific literature that it's the only source of polio today. So they have reformulated the polio vaccine including Bill Gates, Gavi and other, you know, usual usual usual players in this, they have reformulated it and pushed it under a countermeasure for under under WHO countermeasure framework, which is called emergency use listing, and they pushed it globally into 40 countries of the world. Speaker 0: We have this immunity as you talked about here in The United States for these pharmaceutical companies going back to the 1980s, of course. There's been moves to try to get that removed in The US. I don't think there's any chance of it happening, but maybe that gives them, you know, gives them protection, gives them immunity so that no one can really sue them for that. What laws are in place in The Netherlands where this case was brought that they they're not offered that same protection or are they? Speaker 1: Yeah. So so in The US, we have the PREP Act, which is the most monstrous piece of legislation. And I had several discussions with RFK junior about this, and and he knows that he can just write a memo and remove that declaration, and this goes away. Liability goes away. Speaker 0: By the way, he's talked about this. Mean, he's Talked about he ever became HHS. Speaker 1: Yeah. Before before the HHS secretary, it was his you know, almost his campaign slogan. I mean, he was he was running on this agenda. After he became HHS secretary, he forgot. He forgot that he can write a a two sentence memo in the federal register. So anyhow, so we have this prepacked monstrosity in The US. In other parts of parts of the world, including Europe, they don't have that. But in Europe, they've made a synthetic version of it. I've written how I've written articles about exactly how they're doing it. So in Europe, they have a lot of the legislation around countermeasures, as I said, synchronized over time in preparation for this. And that legislation says if there is an emergency declaration, then we can arbitrarily we, the regulators, arbitrarily waive certain parts of compliance, good manufacturing practices, distribution practices, import export laws, and they just decided to waive it all summarily. But then also through the contracts that Pfizer and Ursula von der Leyen, remember Albert Berle and Ursula von der Leyen, by text messages negotiated for the entire EU. They these contracts had clauses, and they were redacted for a very long time, and I think they're still not unredacted completely. But there were clauses that forced all the national governments to waive their liability laws for manufacturers. So that part about the liability that's in the prep act automatically was just, contractually forced onto the, national governments, in Europe. And that's and that's why Albert Burle is an important defendant because we also have emails, some emails showing that he was booing the FDA, lying to them, lying to the EMA, during the the the, you know, the last phase of approvals. And, of course, we know that he was negotiating with Ursula. Speaker 0: Right, and to provide enough vaccines, I think was it two or three doses per EU resident, so the amount of money the boondoggle was substantial. Speaker 1: Yeah, initially two to three, but they ultimately went with 10 or something like that. Yeah. Speaker 0: So, yeah, every EU citizen needs 10 of these, and that's how much money was changed. So this was all, of course, a massive money laundering operation. Can you talk about walk us through 02/04/2020? Because in the beginning, I talked about this 2017 timeline, right, where they were actively participating in this idea of emergency use authorization, this pandemic preparedness program. So 02/04/2020, why is that date so important in your view? How do you connect the alleged Defense Department call to the government's declarations that were made effective on that very same day? Speaker 1: Mhmm. Yeah. So first, you know, initially, I didn't know about the importance of February 4. I I I kind of flagged it in my mind because when the when the government first issued the declaration of emergency, it was issued, I believe, on March 03/13/2020, but it was re made retroactive to February 4. And so it was weird. You know? Why making it retroactive? But then I received this tape from AstraZeneca. The tape is a Zoom, meeting, internal Zoom meeting in AstraZeneca. I have the video portion. I just never released the video. It doesn't Speaker 0: I should point out. I'll I'll link it up to your Substack page because you have it in the Substack article, if people wanna watch the video and you can listen to the audio of the AstraZeneca meeting, it's it's it's it's crazy. But go ahead. Yeah. Speaker 1: So the the meeting was so I have about six minutes clip of it. And the meeting was at the 2020 when they were celebrating approval of monoclonal antibody in The US. They didn't get the vaccine approved, but they got the monoclonal antibody approved. And that as part of the you know, them high fiving each other, there's a discussion between their CEO, Pascal Surot, and Mark Esser, VP of monoclonal antibodies. And he says Mark Esser, he says, well, we received a phone call on February 4 from DARPA. And actually, the person who called, I believe, was colonel Matt Habburn. I've written about him extensively. He was very key player in the pandemic preparedness activities and all structuring this consortium. So market market assessors DARPA called us, and it wasn't a surprise to us because we've already been in this consortium since 2017. But they called us and said that COVID was declared national security threat. So we also have emails, a massive email file. So with the list of email participants, two to three pages long. So hundreds, hundreds of people, internal government, military, HHS, CDC, all going out on February 4, scheduling a conference, but the the content of it is redacted. So we know there was a massive communication happening on February 4 because that's when DARPA decided to go ahead and engage the private sector in this activity to, you know, to declare, now we're going. This exercise is is going. And with that declaration, they wanted to start the liability protection from that declaration because if they didn't, then pharma is exposed for a couple of weeks. Alright? So so when Trump was you know, it's not clear whether Trump was in in on the deal from the beginning or he was somehow, you know, managed to to be brought on board. We know Tucker Carlson went to Mar A Lago around the same time in March and probably was key to convincing Trump to to go ahead with this. So once they wrangled Trump to issue the declaration on March 13, they said, well, we need to cover pharma because they've been already, you know, deal deal already told them go. We need to cover them for these few weeks, and so we will retroactively make it February 4. So February 4 is a very, very key date. It needs to be investigated. Speaker 0: Yeah. No. That's a great point. And I you know, we we hear about, I think, March 11, March 13, March 11. We just did a deep dive, on on March 11 and, of course, the, you know, the announcement of the pandemic, I believe. I think it was 03/11, if I'm not mistaken. Mhmm. But also your story we talked about this, but covers you know, starts in 2017, Matt Hepburn, DARPA's pandemic prevention platform. So what do you believe was actually being built under that program? Like, how far along was it before the public ever heard the word COVID? Because, you know, like, what sort of scaffolding was being built as far back as 2017? Speaker 1: Yeah. So so that whole activity was called pan they gave kind of a pan influenza name to it, and they said, well, generally speaking, it's gonna we're going to be, you know, dealing with respiratory pandemics. So they they gave kind of a vague target to the pharma companies and and said, we will be and and then started soliciting proposals expansion of biomanufacturing facilities in a particular for a particular platform, like this LNP and mRNA type of stuff. By the way, biomanufacturing is highly specialized, and it's very difficult. I I used to do modeling, you know, financial modeling for pharma companies in in this sector, like, you know, how do you decide to invest in the biomanufacturing while you're still in clinical trials? It's very, very difficult because the investments are huge. You have to commit way before you know that you have a product and you don't have safety problems. So this is very complicated. You can't just say, oh, you know, it's totally fine. We can scale the manufacturing before we even complete clinical trials. This is nonsense. But this is clearly written into DARPA and BARDA PowerPoints. So there's huge documentation around that they were making these these statements that this is totally okay to do. And, well, of course, if you have unlimited government budget, maybe that's okay to do, but scientifically not. And and if you're concerned with safety, absolutely not. And so they so that's that's what they were doing. They were just soliciting proposals, engaging pharma and academia in building up many huge manufacturing base and being able to quickly brew these concoctions without any regard to safety. Because they knew they're they're poison, and they knew they're making poison, and they didn't care. They just wanted to scale it, make it huge, and be ready to go in a moment, which Speaker 0: they Did they know did they know at the time and they know this was poison. But did they know then that they would have the protection, the umbrella protection of emergency use authorization, therefore they don't even have to worry about trials? Speaker 1: Absolutely. Speaker 0: They were aware from the beginning that they could create this poison. Speaker 1: Exactly. So, there is another set of documentation, which was called legal preparedness by the FDA. So, the FDA legal counsel themselves have made numerous presentations. I have a gigantic file of them going back, same PowerPoint they were presenting every year to this consortium of companies. They're just, you know, evolving it a bit, but it goes back to about 2012. The most in the most recent versions, they have slides that say, this is the law, you know, explaining this whole framework of countermeasures to the consortium participants because pharmas are are like, well, I don't wanna do this if unless I have a full protection. So this is FDA going to pharma and telling them, don't worry. There's a whole new section of FDA Food and Drugs and Cosmetics Act which we put in. It's called section five six four, which deals this with medical countermeasures. And in fact, in the PowerPoint slide, they said, if we didn't have this section, we would have violated Food and Drugs and Cosmetics Act by doing this. Speaker 0: So they just added that section and to give them this additional protection? Speaker 1: Just to take so say, you know, this section specifically says, if HHS declares pandemic emergency, then food and drugs and cosmetics app does not apply. Speaker 0: Does not apply. Speaker 1: Literally what it says. Speaker 0: So they, I mean, they were really pushing them in a big, big way. I mean, was, like, the government really pushing them. Like, hey. We're gonna and by the way, they even thought through the questions you might ask from a legal perspective. Like, we'll provide the framework. I know you might come back and be worried about this. Don't worry, we've got you covered. Speaker 1: Yes, absolutely. And I know how pharma companies executives think. So every executive always has a a crew of lawyers around them because they need to have a legal protection from from knowing something bad. Okay? From even knowing something bad. He and and, of course, the pharma companies are always, you know, you want me to do this? Well, what's my protection? And that's the dialogue that went for about a decade to convince farmers that it's gonna be all okay. Speaker 0: So these discussions, Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, etcetera, is that all part of this? So those early discussions, even back in 2017, is that part of this Netherlands case? Speaker 1: The so I have in my testimony, I I do go back to the 2017. I have the AstraZeneca tape and evidence and on, you know, the law that I've discussed, removal of all the pharmaceutical regulations because, again, as I said, through the mutual recognition agreement, it's highly relevant for the for the European Union. And government officials should have known and of course they did know. And so that's that's yes. That's part of of the evidence package. And that's why my testimony essentially boils down to the statement 60 pages long and 200 megabytes of attachments. But it boils down to to single single very simple statement that these injections are indistinguishable from biochemical weapons because they're poisons. They're poisons, technically poisons, scientifically poisons, medically poisons, legally and forensically. In any way you look at it, it's a poison. Speaker 0: So there's no gray area. Like, these are like a biological weapon. Speaker 1: Yeah. They are biological weapons. And and in fact, we had the sixth witness, Francis Boyle, professor, Francis Boyle, who was law professor who was who has written biological weapons convention law and related laws. And he was willing to testify that these products are bioweapons and that they fit the definition of the bioweapons under the convention. And three weeks after he agreed to testify, he suddenly died. Speaker 0: Wow. Speaker 1: So this was about a year ago. Speaker 0: Of course. So where does this case go from here? I know we're waiting for this appeal now. Your testimony entered in, but where do things stand right now in The Netherlands with this case? Speaker 1: So the appeal is for the second case with the three plaintiffs, and that was just to ask for us as witnesses expert witnesses to be heard in in court under oath, which was denied by the lower court. And so we went to the higher court. We expect it to be denied. But as I said, this is fine. We wanted to bring attention to the case and so that's why it was open. We Peter Stassen was able to negotiate, you know, that the court would allow all the attendants that came in and the press event afterwards and to to publish to get attention to this case because we don't we want to send the message to the Dutch government and legal system, which is very, you know, I would say corrupt, just like everywhere in the world and beholden to the government. But we want to send a message that you can't just quietly squash it. Now we have a hearing date on October 22, and that's that's very important, and we will be making a lot of announcements. We'll be inviting press. Anybody is is welcome to come. It's a it's a, again, public meeting, open to the public, and we will have a press conference after. Speaker 0: Well, Sasha, thank you so much for your incredible work on this. Where can people learn more about your work and where this case goes from here? Speaker 1: So my substack, I publish updates on it, and I publish several articles on it. You can find information on my Substack. There is a foundation. It's called Foundation in The Netherlands that's funding this case, and they have a YouTube channel. It's also available on my Substack. I I'll send you the link to that channel for for the show, and that's in English. So that YouTube channel has a lot of material in English, and people are, you know, absolutely welcome to help support this case. As I said, our budget is tiny. All of the experts are working for free. I traveled to Netherlands for my own expense. Everyone came on their own expense. And so we're just asking, you know, please follow this case. Please support this case. It's absolutely real. Bill Gates is a defendant, absolutely real, and Albert Burla. And so help us bring some sort of justice. I mean, I'm not hoping for a 100% justice, but something. We need to to to get it somewhere to the public attention. Speaker 0: Right. We need these cases more than ever because that's where we get the truth. In the court of law, we actually can see the discovery. We can see the documents. We can get them on the record. And certainly not happening in The United States given their protection. So thank you for your incredible work on this. Thank you for your testimony on this, and we will continue to follow it. Sasha, great to see you. Thank you so much. Speaker 1: Thank you, Clayton.
View Full Interactive Feed