TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In 2021, Sean Hartman, a 17-year-old hockey enthusiast, was required to get a COVID-19 vaccine to continue playing. Against his father Dan's wishes, Sean received a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine on August 25, 2021. Within days, he experienced adverse symptoms and was briefly hospitalized. One month later, Sean was found dead at home. The initial autopsy was inconclusive. Dan sought help from Dr. Ryan Cole, who found spike protein in Sean's adrenal glands. Dan believes the vaccine caused Sean's death and has filed lawsuits against Pfizer and Health Canada. He is working with lawyers and Dr. Peter McCullough as an expert witness. The Canadian government offered a settlement of $0 to drop the lawsuit, which Dan rejected. His application to the vaccine injury support program was also denied initially, but he has appealed with the new evidence. Dan urges parents to research vaccines thoroughly and expresses deep grief over the loss of his son. He thanks supporters and those helping him share Sean's story.

Hi, I’m Carrie from Scotland, Ontario. My husband Rich and I, along with our dog Kenzie, have faced significant challenges over the past four years due to government overreach. We were forced to choose between an experimental vaccine and our jobs, which was traumatic. On February 18, 2022, I discovered our bank account was empty, leaving me panicked and questioning how we would pay our mortgage, bills, and buy food. Despite my shy nature, I feel compelled to pursue a lawsuit for accountability. No one should endure the fear and anxiety we experienced. We are fighting for all Canadians to prevent this from happening again. Your support is crucial in our quest for justice and accountability. Remember, this happened to me; it could happen to you.

Omar Sheikh, representing Kayla Pollock and Dan Hartman, is pursuing multimillion-dollar lawsuits against Pfizer and Moderna in Canada. Dan Hartman's case stems from the death of his son, Sean, 33 days post-vaccination. The lawsuit alleges wrongful death and negligence, seeking justice and answers regarding the cause of death. They aim to access Pfizer's clinical trial documents through discovery, which were sealed for 75 years in the US. Kayla Pollock's case involves a severe reaction to the Moderna vaccine, leaving her wheelchair-bound. They are suing Moderna in both the US and Canada, alleging she deserves justice and compensation. This case is further along, with Moderna responding to the claim and discovery set to begin. Sheikh emphasizes that Canadian purchase contracts with vaccine manufacturers do not provide the same legislative immunity as in the US. He is funding Kayla's case and is committed to fighting for justice, despite potential financial challenges. He believes in freedom of choice and informed consent regarding vaccines, highlighting the importance of accountability when injuries occur after being told the vaccines are safe and effective.

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

Let me just say, first of all, that you don't wear a mask on an airplane because of Health Freedom Defense Fund. We're the organization that challenged and defeated the federal travel mask mandate in 2022, so that's another one of our big cases. And then we have a huge case that's still underway. We just lost the final the last round of our second case against the Los Angeles Unified School District, but it's not over yet. And we defeated the federal mandate that, green card applicants from abroad get the COVID shot just earlier this year. We've had many, many, many, many wins. So I just wanted people to understand, you know, have a little bit of context of who I am.

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

I'm in a taxi heading to the federal court of appeal in Toronto for a hearing regarding my book, "The Libranos," published during the 2019 election. Elections Canada has been prosecuting me for five years, spending over $1 million on this case, while ignoring serious foreign interference in our elections. My book, critical of Justin Trudeau, is the only one among 24 published that has faced legal scrutiny. I'll be live tweeting the proceedings, and I'm likely to be alone in court without support from civil liberties or journalism groups. If you believe in defending free speech, please consider helping with legal costs at thelibranos.com. I'm fighting against Trudeau's government, and I appreciate any support. I'll update you soon on Twitter.

Rath and Co, an Alberta-based law firm, has launched a class action lawsuit against the federal and Alberta provincial governments on behalf of Albertans harmed by COVID-19 vaccines. The lawsuit alleges unlawful, negligent, inadequate, improper, unfair, and deceptive practices related to the warning, marketing, promotion, and distribution of the COVID vaccines. The governments of Alberta and Canada asserted in court that they had no duty of care to citizens regarding the vaccine products. The lawsuit alleges a conspiracy by the governments of Canada and Alberta, specifically Teresa Tam and Dina Hinshaw, to coerce people into taking the vaccines under the guise of "safe and effective," while preventing them from learning the truth about the shots. The lawyers claim that withholding information constituted assault, especially in cases of vaccine injury. The lawsuit will address governments ignoring contractual information and scientific data, including Pfizer data allegedly showing the vaccines would kill more children than COVID. The lawyers claim this data was ignored despite being brought to their attention before the rollout of childhood vaccines. The governments are allegedly attempting to delay the certification hearing through an abusive process. A case management hearing is scheduled, but the lawyers believe the government is using delay tactics.

Today in The Netherlands, outside the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam, a landmark case brings senior government officials, major media figures, pharmaceutical leadership, and global policy actors together as defendants in a single COVID response case. Among those ordered to appear are Albert Baller, the CEO of Pfizer, the former Dutch prime minister, senior Dutch health ministers, leading figures from the Dutch media, and Bill Gates. This makes the case extraordinary. On March 9, an important step is happening at the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. This hearing is not the main trial. The main trial is proceeding, and Bill Gates, if not appearing in person, must have representation and offer a defense. Today’s hearing concerns a procedural question: should the court allow an appeal against an earlier decision that blocked a request for preliminary evidence? In simple terms, the claimants ask the court for permission to present and examine expert evidence early before the trial, to have experts testify, documents examined, and key scientific and legal claims tested through cross examination. The lower court refused that request. The Amsterdam Court Of Appeal is being asked to decide whether that refusal should itself be reviewed. This hinges on the right to have evidence examined in public. If the appeal is allowed, expert testimony and scrutiny of the evidence could proceed; if refused, the claimants must continue without that preliminary examination. The reason for this hearing traces to the main lawsuit, begun in July 2023. Seven Dutch citizens filed a civil case in a district court, claiming they were misled about the nature of the COVID threat and about the safety and necessity of COVID vaccines. They argue that government officials, public health authorities, pharmaceutical executives, and major media figures promoted a narrative that induced fear and compliance based on unscientific claims of a novel pathogen called COVID nineteen. They claim these representations caused them to take vaccines and to suffer psychological and physical harm. The claimants describe a tort claim: the defendants breached a duty of care owed to the public by providing false or misleading information that resulted in damage. They seek two things: a declaration that the defendants acted unlawfully and compensation for the harm. Before the trial proceeds, the claimants asked for the evidence behind those claims to be examined in court, hence the provisional evidence request and today’s appeal. Central to the request are expert witnesses from multiple disciplines addressing scientific, legal, psychological, and institutional dimensions. The experts include Catherine Watt (legal researcher in public health law), Sasha Latipova (pharmaceutical regulatory processes), Doctor Joseph Sansone (psychologist studying crisis messaging and behavioral compliance), Catherine Austin Fitz (financial analyst on institutional power structures and global policy networks), and Doctor Mike Yeadon (English pharmacologist, former Pfizer VP). Yeadon has argued that the safety narrative surrounding the vaccines is challenged, claiming inadequate testing and concerns about toxicity. The point of a court is that such claims should be tested under cross examination, not dismissed without scrutiny. Allowing this appeal would enable the evidence to be heard and tested in public, with broader implications beyond the Netherlands, potentially influencing accountability, transparency, and public trust in other jurisdictions. What happens here may influence debates about open scrutiny of evidence in courts elsewhere. The speaker closes with a personal note, recalling six years spent fighting misinformation and supporting the truth be told campaign for COVID jabbed, injured, and bereaved, and underscoring that this case concerns justice in action, public scrutiny, and accountability for powerful institutions.

"we sued them twice in 2021 because first, we sued them over mandating the shot when it was EUA." "The case is no longer ripe. We're not gonna deal with it. We're dismissing the case." "Seventeen days later, LAUSD implemented a new mandate saying that employees could not test, and it fired a couple of weeks later, 500 employees." "we argued that the shots do not stop transmission or infection, and we knew this because CDC said that in 2021. CMS confirmed that in I believe it was October 2021." "All that mattered was that there was a public health emergency." "We can appeal to the Supreme Court, and so we're considering." "It's worthwhile because that's a precedent that other lawsuits are going to follow, that it doesn't matter that the vaccine doesn't stop spread."

The video discusses the cross-examination of a secretive government panel within Transport Canada that crafted a vaccine mandate. The panel, led by Jennifer Little, consisted of civil servants with no background in medicine or infectious diseases. Little invoked cabinet confidence when asked about who ordered the mandates, suggesting it came from senior levels of government. The video also highlights the lack of scientific recommendation for the mandate and the absence of evidence on its safety. The rationale for the mandate, if any, seems to be focused on incentivizing vaccination rather than ensuring the safety of air travel.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a set of legal actions taken by Health Freedom Defense Fund against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) over COVID-19 vaccination mandates. - Health Freedom Defense Fund sued LAUSD in 2021 over an EUA vaccine mandate. They claim the district initially had a mandate, then appeared to repeal it, leading the court to dismiss that case as no longer ripe. Seventeen days after the dismissal, LAUSD implemented a new mandate stating employees could not test and subsequently fired a number of employees, with more than a thousand affected in total. Many faced loss of pensions, seniority, and employment. - A second lawsuit was filed in November 2021 arguing that the vaccines do not stop transmission or infection, a position the group says was supported by statements from the CDC in 2021 and by CMS in October 2021. Based on this, they argued that the vaccines are a private matter and should be treated as therapeutic rather than a public health issue. They also asserted that natural immunity is real and that Jacobson v. Massachusetts does not apply because the smallpox vaccination was assumed to be safe and effective only under historical conditions, which they argue do not hold for COVID-19. - The group reports strong initial success. Their argument won at first instance, and they achieved a favorable ruling on appeal before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. This led to an en banc review (broader panel) of the Ninth Circuit. Although typically taking many months, the en banc decision came after three months, and on July 31, the Ninth Circuit ruled against them. The court stated that what mattered was the existence of a public health emergency, rather than whether the vaccine stopped transmission or infection. The group contends this is a dangerous precedent and maintains that COVID-19 is not the same as smallpox, which had a 30 percent death rate; they reasoned that by August 2021, four percent of Los Angeles County residents had already been exposed and recovered, indicating the situation did not constitute the same emergency as smallpox. - The group notes that an appeal to the Supreme Court may be possible, and they are considering pursuing it. They emphasize that the court’s decision focused on the public health emergency rather than vaccine effectiveness against transmission or infection, which they argue is a troubling position. - The speakers discuss the potential implications and the perceived terrifying precedent, with the possibility of further appeals to higher courts being contemplated.

The cross-examination reveals that the government panel responsible for creating the vaccine mandate for travel in Canada lacked expertise in medicine and infectious diseases. The director general of the panel, Jennifer Little, invoked cabinet confidence when asked about who ordered the mandates. The panel received no solid scientific recommendation from health and science experts to implement the mandate. Furthermore, an email exchange between Transport Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) showed a lack of specific scientific rationale for the mandate. Little admitted that implementing the mandate when only 50% of eligible Canadians were vaccinated would have caused chaos, but they waited until 80% were vaccinated. This raises questions about the true motivations behind the mandate.

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

A class action lawsuit is being launched in Federal Court on behalf of 700 unvaccinated Canadians. The lawsuit has three different classes of plaintiffs. The employment subclass is for those who lost their jobs due to vaccine mandates. The travel subclass is for people who couldn't travel for work or personal reasons. The dual impact class is for those who fall into both categories. The case could involve a significant amount of money depending on the number of people who join. Those interested in joining the lawsuit can contact the law firm directly through their website at gwslp.ca.

The Queensland Supreme Court ruled COVID-19 vaccine mandates for emergency services were unlawful. Dr. Nick Coatsworth, a medical expert, acknowledged his role in promoting mandates but believes they were wrong. He stated mandates have a time limit in a pandemic, and we should reconsider their use in the future. Hindsight should guide our decisions for future pandemics.

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

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

In the Peckford Charter Challenge cross examinations, government officials and external experts were brought in to testify. The head epidemiologist for the Public Health Agency of Canada admitted that they never recommended vaccinating air travelers. The experts' written advice focused on masking, spacing, and quarantine for sick individuals, but not vaccination. When confronted, the head epidemiologist stated that scientific evidence did not support the effectiveness of vaccination. This disconnect between politicians and experts suggests that the Liberal government has been prioritizing politics over Canadians' charter rights. The cross examinations, which began in mid-May and are set to conclude at the end of June, have been a grueling daily schedule.

I'm in Helsinki to give a witness statement in a case against the Finnish government and a catering company for human rights violations related to the COVID pass. We aim to fight for freedom against medical tyranny. This is a unique case globally where the government is being sued. We are determined to expose corporate crimes and mistakes in history. Though we can't film the court, the transcript will be available. Let's stand up for freedom and justice.

Dan Hartman's lawsuit against the Canadian government was dismissed; the court ruled the government owes no duty of care to its citizens regarding public health decisions, even if those decisions involve coercing citizens into medical procedures. This stems from the death of Hartman's 17-year-old son, Sean, who died 33 days after receiving a Pfizer COVID jab. Sean was hospitalized shortly after the jab, but a doctor allegedly failed to perform necessary tests (d-dimer and troponin) and sent him home. Hartman's attempts to sue the doctor were also dismissed, and his claim to the Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) was denied due to insufficient evidence, though it is under appeal. The lawsuit alleged the government made false claims about vaccine safety and efficacy and failed to properly warn the public about potential adverse effects. The judge stated the government's representations were core policy decisions made during a pandemic to protect the public. The lawsuit against Pfizer can continue. There are concerns about airborne vaccines and the government funding research on transmissible vaccines.

Dan Hartman's 17-year-old son, Sean, died unexpectedly after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to continue playing hockey. Sean received the vaccine on August 25, 2021, and within days experienced concerning symptoms, but was discharged from the hospital with pain medication. On September 27, Sean was found dead; the initial autopsy was inconclusive. Hartman sought answers and connected with Dr. Ryan Cole, who found spike protein in Sean's adrenal glands. Hartman believes the vaccine caused Sean's death and has filed lawsuits against Pfizer and Health Canada. He claims the government offered a settlement of dropping the lawsuit in exchange for not pursuing court costs against him, which he rejected. Hartman's application to the vaccine injury support program was denied initially, but he has appealed with Dr. Cole's findings. He urges parents to research vaccines and shares that he knows other parents whose children allegedly died after vaccination. He thanks supporters and encourages sharing Sean's story.