reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I, along with six colleagues, wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expressing concerns about the COVID vaccines. The EMA responded, revealing shocking facts. They clarified that the vaccines were only approved for individual immunization, not for controlling or preventing infections. The EMA emphasized the lack of data on contagiousness and even stated that repeated exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection in vaccinated individuals. The government's campaigns promoting vaccination to protect others were unauthorized and based on misinformation. The EMA also highlighted the importance of carefully considering safety information before administering vaccines. The government's failure to report vaccine side effects within the first 14 days was not only fraudulent but also endangered lives. The vaccination campaign should be halted as it does not meet EMA standards. The government and supporting political parties should be held accountable for their lies and deception.

The speaker discusses four ways in which the Canadian healthcare system has been hijacked. Firstly, agile regulations have allowed drugs like mRNA technology to be approved without proving safety. Public health officials were given scripts to promote vaccine benefits, starting with a pre-marketing campaign called "building vaccine confidence." The Canadian Global Media, CBC, joined the Trusted News Initiative in 2019, allowing certain players to control the narrative. Taxpayer money was used to pay off researchers through the Globet R road map, aligning with the World Health Organization's agenda. The head of NAFC received significant research funding during the pandemic, raising concerns about impartiality. The co-chair of NAFLI also received funding to prepare Canadians for vaccine readiness.

They hijacked the Canadian healthcare system through agile regulations, pre-marketing campaigns, media influence, and funding experts. Nassy, responsible for immunization approval, received millions in research funding, potentially compromising their objectivity. The head of Nassy got $2.6 million when the pandemic started, then $10 million later. Another Nassy co-chair received $3.5 million to promote vaccine readiness before their effectiveness was known.

The Canadian government encouraged COVID-19 vaccination but mandated consequences for the unvaccinated, including restrictions on travel, public service employment, and access to certain venues. Critics claim a University of Toronto study, led by David Fisman, was flawed and politically motivated to justify these mandates. This study allegedly misrepresented data from the Omicron surge, which showed higher COVID-19 rates among the vaccinated, to falsely portray the unvaccinated as a risk. Media outlets widely publicized the study, warning against contact with unvaccinated individuals. The Public Health Agency of Canada reportedly admitted that scientific evidence did not support mandatory vaccination for air travelers. Despite this, the government cited studies indicating that the unvaccinated disproportionately risk the safety of vaccinated individuals. Critics argue that the mandates led to the demonization of unvaccinated Canadians. A parliamentary secretary accused those questioning the science behind the mandates of being far-right anti-vaxxers. The government maintained that while vaccination was a choice, there would be consequences for remaining unvaccinated without a legitimate medical reason.

No successful coronavirus vaccine has been made. Gene-based vaccines were tested on animals, leading to sickness and death. Despite concerns about safety and lack of long-term data, Canada continued vaccine rollout. A doctor raised safety concerns, was reprimanded for causing vaccine hesitancy, and saw neurological issues in patients post-vaccination. Questions to health authorities went unanswered, leading to a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The debate aims to prevent a repeat of the divisive ArriveScam in 2021, demonizing unvaccinated Canadians. The government funded a flawed study by David Fisman to support this policy, sparking questions about wasted money. The parliamentary secretary dismisses critics as far-right deniers, emphasizing the importance of protecting Canadians' health.

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: It was January 2022 when a colleague of mine in the unit came to me saying, something's up. We've had a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year. And that's what got my curiosity piqued. Speaker 1: Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2: I have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 3: Doctors made extra money to push vaccines and they were given a billing code to do it. I have pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 2: They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved. They've distributed it to the province so the second it's approved, we can start jabbing ourselves with it. We can start jabbing pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4: Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, And then you don't. Speaker 0: I was suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials. Possible. They pushed on with this narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2: They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1: Our Canadian babies died, and the police are trying to cover it up to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it. Speaker 2: The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression. Speaker 4: If you don't want to get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk. Speaker 2: It started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public. Speaker 5: Canada has to shift their understanding of what the CBC is. It is a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 2: This is the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective, and they're still not investigating. Everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, our health agencies, how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.

Matters matter. Doctor David Martin revealed that Canada controlled the mRNA vaccine platform, benefiting from partnerships with Moderna and Pfizer's BioNTech. He understood that the gene therapy marketed as a vaccine was financially advantageous for Canada, giving Trudeau's government a monopoly on mRNA gene therapy adoption worldwide. This indicates that Trudeau is not promoting science but rather prioritizing Canadian economic interests through the illegal promotion of gene therapy as a vaccine. Consequently, he is unlikely to yield to truckers or dissenters, as he is operating an illegal monopoly rather than acting as a concerned leader.

The United States government has been the main source of misinformation during the pandemic, spreading false claims about COVID transmission, vaccine immunity, and mask effectiveness. The Cochrane review, the most authoritative evidence body in medicine, disproves these claims. The government ignored the review, as well as the fact that myocarditis is more common after vaccination than after infection. Pushing boosters for young healthy people without sufficient data led to the resignation of top vaccine experts at the FDA. Vaccine mandates did not increase vaccination rates, but instead created a group of never vaxxers. The CDC also manipulated research, selectively reporting data to support their desired outcomes. This dishonesty and weaponization of medical research is unforgivable.

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.

We all understand the frustration with restrictions and mandates. The government has been following the best science and public health advice, which has proven effective. Canada has seen lower death rates and quicker economic recovery due to Canadians getting vaccinated. While mandates may be frustrating, they are necessary to avoid further restrictions. By getting vaccinated, Canadians have been able to navigate through the challenges. The government remains committed to this approach.

The United States government has been the main source of misinformation during the pandemic, spreading false claims about COVID transmission, vaccine immunity, and mask effectiveness. The Cochrane review, the most authoritative evidence body in medicine, disproves these claims. Myocarditis is actually more common after vaccination, not infection. Despite lacking data, the FDA pushed for boosters in young healthy individuals, leading to the resignation of top vaccine experts. Vaccine mandates did not increase vaccination rates and instead created a group of never vaxxers. The CDC manipulated medical research by selectively reporting data that supported their desired outcomes. Public health officials were dishonest and lied to the American people.

We encourage vaccination without making it mandatory. Those unvaccinated may face restrictions like not being able to travel, work in public service, or access non-essential services. A controversial study by David Fisman claimed unvaccinated individuals increase the risk for vaccinated people, but critics argue it was based on flawed data. The government used this study to justify mandates, sparking debate. The opposition questions the lack of scientific evidence behind certain policies. Ultimately, individuals have a choice to get vaccinated, but there may be consequences for opting out without a valid medical reason.

The speaker cross-examined Dr. Lourenco about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine. They compared it to previous vaccines like pneumonia and shingles, asking if the same rigorous testing process was followed. Dr. Lourenco confirmed that animal trials and two phases of human trials were conducted for those vaccines before approval. However, she admitted that the final phase of human trials, which has been completed for all other vaccines in Canada, was not done for the COVID-19 vaccines. She tried to justify this by mentioning a new process.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

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.

There was a lack of transparency about vaccine side effects, leading to underreporting. Mandating vaccines was a mistake; personal choice should have been allowed since they don't prevent infection and have side effects. Translation: Lack of transparency and underreporting of side effects, along with mandating vaccines, were mistakes. Personal choice should have been allowed due to the vaccines not preventing infection and having side effects.

The Canadian health care system was hijacked in four ways. First, agile regulations allowed drugs like mRNA technology to be approved without proving safety. Public health officials were given scripts to promote vaccine benefits through a pre and post-marketing campaign. The Canadian global media, CBC, joined the Trusted News Initiative, allowing outside influence on their reporting. Taxpayer-funded research was influenced by the World Health Organization, with experts paid off. The head of NASI, responsible for immunization approval, received $2.6 million in research funding during the pandemic and later received $10 million as a principal investigator. The co-chair of NASI received $3.5 million to promote vaccine readiness before knowing their benefits.

The United States government has been the main source of misinformation during the pandemic, spreading false claims about COVID transmission, vaccine immunity, and mask effectiveness. The Cochrane review, the most authoritative evidence body in medicine, disproves these claims. Myocarditis is actually more common after vaccination, and young people don't benefit from boosters. Top vaccine experts resigned from the FDA in protest. Vaccine mandates didn't increase vaccination rates, but instead created a group of never vaxxers. Medical research has been weaponized, with the CDC releasing flawed studies to support their desired outcomes. Public health officials have been dishonest and lied to the American people.

Confidentiality agreements were required for Canadian government employees accessing these documents. The reason for extensive redactions is that these agreements were signed during the early stages of the pandemic when there was a rush to produce and test vaccines. Companies took on higher liability by fast-tracking the testing process, which normally takes years. Due to global competition for vaccines, countries had less negotiating power. The government prioritized signing as many vaccine contracts as possible to meet the urgent need for vaccinations. Ultimately, Canada successfully obtained vaccines and became one of the fastest countries to vaccinate its population.

The Canadian health care system was hijacked in four ways. Firstly, they used agile regulations to approve drugs without proving their safety. Secondly, public health officials were given scripts to promote the benefits of vaccines, starting with a pre-marketing campaign. Thirdly, the Canadian global media, including CBC, joined the Trusted News Initiative, allowing outside influence on their reporting. Lastly, taxpayer money was used to pay off experts and researchers who followed the World Health Organization's agenda. For example, the head of NACI received millions in research funding and gave the blessing for immunization. These actions were taken before knowing the vaccines' effectiveness.

I, along with six colleagues, wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expressing concerns about the COVID vaccines. The EMA's response revealed shocking facts. They admitted that the vaccines were only approved for individual immunization, not for controlling or preventing infections. The EMA emphasized the lack of data on contagiousness and stated that repeated exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection, even for the unvaccinated. The government's campaigns promoting vaccination to protect others were unauthorized and based on false information. The EMA also highlighted the importance of carefully considering safety information before administering vaccines. The mass vaccination efforts were in direct contradiction to the approved use of the vaccines. The EMA expected reports of side effects, but the government failed to report them, endangering lives. The vaccination campaign should be halted immediately.

Vaccine mandates work because some people have vague concerns about vaccination and need a practical reason to get vaccinated. The Prime Minister spoke to a man who got vaccinated because mandates were in place and he needed to be vaccinated to go to a restaurant. Mandates will push Canada to a high enough degree of vaccination that the economy can continue to be open and kids can continue to go to school.