reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I believe around 500,000 people have died from the vaccine. We are currently representing clients affected by this. One client, Dani Baker, is severely ill; her spinal cord is damaged, her diaphragm isn't functioning properly, and she's struggling to breathe at just 40 years old. She took the vaccine due to her job. Dani, known as "course nurse" on Twitter, is a strong advocate, and we aim to highlight her case.

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.

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

An Australian man has won a landmark claim against his employer after suffering severe health issues from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Daniel Sheppard, a youth worker, was forced to take the vaccine to keep his job and later developed pericarditis, a potentially life-threatening condition. The South Australian Employment Tribunal ruled that Sheppard is entitled to workers' compensation benefits and reimbursement for medical expenses. This case sets an important precedent for holding employers accountable for injuries caused by workplace vaccine mandates. It also highlights the growing number of people seeking legal action against vaccine mandates and the need for informed consent and medical freedom.

Federal public servants and individuals traveling by plane or train in Canada will be required to be fully vaccinated. This measure aims to ensure the safety of Canadians and bring an end to the pandemic crisis. Collaboration with collective bargaining agents, unions, and employers in the public sector will be sought to implement this decision. However, those who choose not to get vaccinated without a valid medical reason will face consequences.

A federal judge approved a class action lawsuit against Nancy Pelosi filed by approximately 500 January 6th defendants. The lawsuit seeks $350 million in damages. The plaintiffs claim Pelosi set a trap that led to their imprisonment. If successful, the lawsuit would allegedly bankrupt Pelosi and prove the events of January 6th were a setup.

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.

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.

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

Vaccines in Canada are safe and effective, meeting high medical standards. While there can be side effects, they are rare. Proof of vaccination will be required for federal employees by the end of this month. All provinces and territories will implement a standardized national proof of vaccination. Mandates help avoid further restrictions. Protesting against COVID measures is illegal and carries severe consequences, such as losing your license, criminal records, and travel restrictions.

At 35, the speaker claims she was paralyzed by the Moderna shot, which doctors confirmed in writing and audio recordings. She has filed a $45,000,000 lawsuit against Moderna, alleging mainstream media won't report such cases due to pharmaceutical company payments. Prior to the shot, she was healthy and working at a school. Now, she reports having no bowel or bladder function, no movement below the waist, and limited arm function, confining her to a wheelchair. She states she experiences pain and was offered medical assistance in dying three times in Canada, which she interprets as the government suggesting death due to lack of treatment. Her son now lives with his father because her house cannot accommodate her wheelchair. She urges viewers to help vaccine-injured people and warns that continued vaccinations without support could worsen the situation. She directs viewers to www.opkayla.ca for more information on her case.

Mandating vaccines, similar to France's approach, is sensible for reopening. The federal government compensates Australians with vaccine injuries, including serious conditions like heart inflammation and autoimmune disorders. Customers want assurance that employees in stores and restaurants are vaccinated. News Corp should mandate vaccines for its employees. Currently, 1,000 individuals are awaiting compensation claims. Most Australians are likely to get vaccinated, and there should be incentives for those who choose not to, such as the No Jab, No Pay policy. It's crucial to expedite the assessment of these claims, as there’s no reason for delays in 2023.

Mandating vaccines, like in France, is seen as a sensible approach to reopen. The Australian government compensates hundreds of citizens for COVID vaccine injuries. It is important for customers to know that store employees are vaccinated. COVID injuries include heart inflammation, damaged capillaries, and autoimmune disorders. News Corp supports mandating vaccines for its employees. Former Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Nick Coatsworth, suggests incentives or penalties for those who choose not to get vaccinated. He also emphasizes the need to assess compensation claims promptly. Currently, 1,000 individuals are awaiting approval for compensation. Mandating vaccines is considered a sensible approach.

Two physicians and a child health safety group filed a lawsuit against the CDC and the vaccine schedule, claiming '72 vaccines for children ages zero to 18 years old that has never been studied.' They say 'while we have studied each individual vaccine, they have never studied giving all of these vaccines together' and that 'the effects, the long term effects, never.' The suit asks to either 'study it' or 'change the category of vaccines.' They note that most vaccines are 'category a' while 'meningitis B and the COVID nineteen vaccine' are 'category b,' and they want all vaccines to be category b so that 'parents, exemptions, and physicians can work together to decide what's best for each child.' The CDC says 'we haven't studied it,' citing lack of nonvaccinating participants and cost. They say 'you get billions in funding' and question feasibility. The speaker invites thoughts and promises updates.

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.

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.

Over 100 million Americans were required to get vaccinated due to job mandates. The government claimed vaccines were safe and effective, but data showed vaccinated people could still carry the virus. Despite promises of freedom, there have been 1 million adverse events reported from COVID-19 vaccines, with only 11 compensated cases. Big Pharma has immunity from liability for vaccine injuries.

Over 100 million Americans were required to get vaccinated for their jobs under federal mandates, which covered two-thirds of American workers. Claims of vaccine effectiveness were exaggerated, leading to a bait-and-switch situation. Despite promises of safety and freedom, over 1 million adverse events from COVID-19 vaccines have been reported, with only 11 compensated cases, while Big Pharma remains immune to liability.

There were anti-vaccine messages in Newmarket, but some unvaccinated people couldn't attend due to health reasons, lack of information, or fear. They feel abandoned and targeted by society. The speaker's message to these Canadians is simple: it's time to get vaccinated.

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.

A mother from Seine-et-Marne plans to sue Pfizer after experiencing health issues following vaccination. Several individuals share their stories of developing various conditions after receiving the Covid-19 vaccine. One person experienced pain and numbness throughout their body, while another suffered from thrombocytopenia, a decrease in platelets. Another woman fell ill after her second dose and tested positive for Covid-19. She now faces serious health problems, including neurological issues and memory loss. These cases highlight concerns surrounding the vaccine's potential side effects.

A federal judge approved a class action lawsuit against Nancy Pelosi filed by approximately 500 January 6th defendants. The defendants are suing Pelosi for $350 million, claiming she set a trap for them, allowed them to enter, and then jailed them. If the defendants win, it would bankrupt Pelosi and prove the events of January 6th were a setup.

We have found more adverse effects than officially reported from the COVID vaccine. Serious harms and deaths are at unprecedented levels. We are committed to compensating those affected, but the financial burden should not fall on taxpayers. Our goal is to fight for justice for vaccinated individuals, expose discrimination against the unvaccinated, and reveal the truth about the COVID pandemic and vaccine safety.

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.