reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

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.

Four companies—Pfizer, Merck, Blackstone, and Sanofi—produce all 72 vaccines and have a history of criminal behavior. Over the last decade, they collectively paid $35 billion in penalties for falsifying science, defrauding regulators, and causing harm. Merck's Vioxx, marketed as a headache pill, led to the deaths of up to 500,000 Americans due to heart attacks, while the company profited despite paying $7 billion in fines. No one was jailed for these actions. It’s difficult to believe these companies, known for dishonesty in other products, are suddenly trustworthy with vaccines. In the U.S., a law passed in 1986 prevents individuals from suing vaccine manufacturers, regardless of negligence or harm caused.

Kansas is filing a civil suit against Pfizer under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act for misleading marketing of its COVID-19 vaccine. This lawsuit, part of a multistate collaboration, highlights several deceptive practices. Pfizer falsely claimed its vaccine was safe for pregnant women, despite data showing adverse events and miscarriages. It denied links between its vaccine and heart conditions like myocarditis, despite evidence to the contrary. Pfizer also misrepresented the vaccine's effectiveness against variants and claimed it prevented transmission without conducting relevant studies. Additionally, Pfizer coordinated with social media to censor criticism of its vaccine. This suit follows Pfizer delivering over 3.3 million vaccine doses in Kansas, accounting for over 60% of the state's total. The case aims to address misleading marketing practices, as vaccine manufacturers have immunity from tort suits for injuries.

Pfizer imported its own batch of vaccines for the employee vaccination program, without testing by the TGA.

Pfizer breached multiple clauses of the 2019 code, including promoting an unlicensed medicine and making misleading claims about adverse reactions. The company's actions were deemed to bring discredit upon the pharmaceutical industry. This is the 6th time Pfizer has been reprimanded for similar offenses. Despite apologies, the regulatory consequences have been minimal. Calls for reform in the industry's oversight have been made.

Pfizer produced an ad for COVID boosters without required disclaimers. FDA and CDC were aware but took no action. FDA director Peter Marks made unapproved claims in 41 videos. No exceptions permit regulatory agencies to violate regulations or laws.

Maddy DeGary, a participant in Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine trial for 12 to 15-year-olds, suffered serious injuries post-vaccination. Pfizer initially downplayed her condition as abdominal pain, misleading the FDA. Despite being wealthy, only after an email to FDA officials did Pfizer admit to DeGary's injuries. FDA's response was lackluster, showing no concern for Pfizer's misconduct. The failure to report all adverse events corrupts the trial process, with no repercussions for Pfizer's actions.

The Dutch paper reveals a 36% higher risk of serious adverse events in the Pfizer vaccine group compared to the placebo. Despite this, the public was misled about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. Adverse reactions like stroke and heart attack were downplayed, making it difficult to link them to the vaccines. The truth is slowly coming to light, exposing the deception by big pharma, governments, and the media. Those responsible may face consequences in the future.

In 1986, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act removed liability from drug companies for vaccine-related injuries. Recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the COVID vaccine is not a true vaccine as it doesn't prevent disease or transmission. This could open up legal challenges against pharmaceutical companies, though the government may protect them. The outcome remains uncertain.

Kansas is filing a civil suit against Pfizer under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act for misleading marketing of its COVID-19 vaccine. This lawsuit, part of a multistate initiative, highlights several deceptive claims made by Pfizer. Key allegations include misrepresenting the vaccine's safety for pregnant women, downplaying the connection to heart conditions like myocarditis, overstating effectiveness against variants, and falsely claiming it prevented transmission. Additionally, Pfizer coordinated with social media to censor criticism of its vaccine. Despite federal immunity from tort suits, Pfizer is still accountable for misleading marketing practices. The suit aims to hold Pfizer accountable for its actions, which contributed to the distribution of over 3.3 million vaccine doses in Kansas.

A Michigan jury awarded a woman $1 million for being fired over vaccine refusal, highlighting a need for accountability in vaccine manufacturing. It's concerning that vaccine makers have blanket immunity from lawsuits, unlike other businesses. This immunity, granted by Congress in 1986, shields pharmaceutical companies from liability, which is unjust. Everyone else faces risks in their professions, yet these companies operate without accountability. Transparency in government and vaccine trials is crucial to restore trust and eliminate corruption. If information is being withheld, it likely indicates wrongdoing.

The Kansas Attorney General is suing Pfizer for violating the Kansas Consumer Protection Act by making misleading claims about its COVID-19 vaccine. The suit alleges Pfizer misrepresented the vaccine's safety, particularly for pregnant women. While vaccine manufacturers have immunity from injury lawsuits, they aren't protected from liability for misrepresentation. The Attorney General claims Pfizer advertised the vaccine as safe for pregnant women despite knowing of risks. He states that Pfizer possessed information as early as February 2021 regarding complications, including miscarriages in over 10% of cases, yet still promoted the vaccine as safe for pregnant women. The lawsuit focuses on Pfizer allegedly misrepresenting their product.

I recently heard stories of people losing their children to Pfizer injections, some experiencing immediate or gruesome deaths. The FDA knew about potential risks like cancer from as far back as 2013, but suddenly in 2020, these concerns were ignored. This seems like a premeditated crime, with regulators aware of the dangers. Military involvement in pushing these products is suspicious.

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.

Kansas is suing Pfizer for deceptive marketing of its COVID-19 vaccine, violating previous agreements. Pfizer misled on safety for pregnant women, heart conditions, variant protection, and transmission. They censored criticism and avoided government oversight. Despite this, Pfizer delivered over 3.3 million doses in Kansas. This lawsuit is the first of a potential multistate effort.

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.

Kansas is filing a civil suit against Pfizer under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act for misleading marketing of its COVID-19 vaccine. This lawsuit, part of a multistate effort, highlights several deceptive claims made by Pfizer. Key issues include claims of vaccine safety for pregnant women, despite evidence of adverse events and miscarriages; denial of a link between the vaccine and heart conditions like myocarditis; overstated effectiveness against COVID-19 variants; and false assertions about preventing virus transmission. Additionally, Pfizer coordinated with social media to censor criticism of its vaccine. Despite federal immunity from tort suits, Pfizer is still obligated to avoid misleading the public in its marketing practices. The suit aims to hold Pfizer accountable for its deceptive statements.

The transcript presents a critical examination of Bill Gates, portraying him as transforming from a software magnate into a global health power broker whose wealth and influence have reshaped public health, vaccine development, and population policy. It argues that Gates’ philanthropic activities are not purely charitable but are deployed to extend control over health systems, global research agendas, and even the reproductive choices of people worldwide. Key claims and points are detailed across several strands: - Public image and power shift: Bill Gates is described as no longer a “public health expert” yet becoming a central figure in billions of lives, guiding medical actions and vaccine strategies. The program asserts that Gates’ reinvention through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been aided by a sophisticated public relations apparatus and by directing media coverage of global health issues. - Foundation scale and reach: The Gates Foundation is depicted as the world’s largest private foundation, with assets reported as tens of billions of dollars and a broad remit in global health, development, growth, and policy advocacy. Its influence extends to funding media outlets, think tanks, and reporting units across multiple outlets (BBC, NPR, Our World in Data, ABC, among others), creating what the program calls “tentacles” across global health. - Partnerships and funding of global health initiatives: Gates is credited with initiating and funding major global health vehicles, including: - Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, with seed funding and ongoing commitments that have shaped vaccination markets. - The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and other public-private partnerships that coordinate vaccine development and immunization programs. - Support for CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), the World Health Organization’s vaccine initiatives, and other pandemic preparedness efforts. - The World Health Organization’s funding profile, described as heavily dependent on Gates Foundation support, with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted as a non-medical doctor connected to Gates-backed initiatives. - The “Decade of Vaccines” and vaccine policy: Gates is credited with launching a decade-long vaccine initiative, including a pledge of billions of dollars to vaccine development and distribution. This is linked to the creation of a global vaccine action plan and to Gavi’s role in establishing vaccine markets. The narrative asserts that vaccines have been used to steer global health policy and to secure roles for private firms in public health decision-making. - Vaccine development concerns: The program raises concerns about the safety and speed of vaccine development, criticizing the eighteen-month timeline Gates advocates for a universal vaccine, and questioning the use of new technologies (DNA and mRNA platforms) and rapid deployment with limited testing. It highlights potential safety risks, including historical vaccine-associated disease enhancement and concerns about broad immunization in a short period. - Vaccine safety and regulation: It is claimed that vaccine safety at scale is hard to guarantee and that liability protections for vaccine makers and public health officials have been enacted (e.g., a U.S. declaration granting liability immunity for COVID-19 countermeasures), a point framed as enabling risk-bearing without accountability. - Population control framing: A central thread is the assertion that Gates seeks to reduce population growth through health improvements, vaccines, and reproductive health services. The transcript traces Gates’ interest in contraception and population issues to his family background and to Rockefeller-era eugenics historical contexts, arguing that discussions about fertility, contraceptive technologies, and demographic trends have long-term population implications. It cites specific Gates Foundation activities in reproductive health, including funding for innovative birth-control delivery methods, depot injections, implanted devices, and efforts to develop digital identity tied to health services as tools within a broader population-control framework. - Digital identity and biometric ID: The narrative emphasizes Gates’ involvement with biometric identification through Gavi and ID2020, noting partnerships with Microsoft and the Rockefeller Foundation, the Aadhaar system in India, and the World Bank’s ID4D initiative. It argues that vaccination programs, biometric identity, and cashless payments are being integrated into a comprehensive “population control grid,” enabling state and private actors to track, truncate, or deny access to services based on identity and health status. - Data, surveillance, and privacy concerns: The piece contends that the push for digital IDs, digital health records, and biometrics will erode privacy and enable broad government and corporate surveillance, linking health data to financial services, voting, housing, and welfare. It highlights projects involving digital certificates, immunity passports, and real-time health data collection via microneedle patches and barcode-like skin markers, suggesting these innovations could be used to control access to services. - Epstein connections and broader conspiracy context: The program references alleged connections between Gates and Jeffrey Epstein, including flight logs and involvement in philanthropic funding discussions, framing these ties as part of a broader pattern of influence. It also points to prior associations with notable figures (Buffett, Rockefeller, Soros) and critiques of Gates as aligning with a “population control” ideology. - The underlying motive and conclusion: Throughout, the narrative asserts that Gates’ wealth is being used not for charity alone but to build an overarching system of control—over health institutions, research funding, public policy, identification, and financial systems. It contrasts his public image as a generous philanthropist with alleged hidden agendas, suggesting that the real aim is to shape global governance and human behavior through vaccination, identification, and digital infrastructure. - Final framing and call to action: The closing sections urge viewers to recognize Gates’ influence as part of an ideology rather than a single person’s plan. It frames the situation as a broader movement that could continue beyond Gates personally, urging awareness and action to resist what the program deems a population-control regime embedded in global health and digital identity initiatives. In sum, the transcript portrays Bill Gates as a central figure driving a multifaceted, globally interconnected program—through the Gates Foundation, Gavi, CEPI, and related partnerships—that allegedly reconfigures vaccine policy, global health governance, reproductive health, biometric identification, and digital payments into a cohesive system of population control and surveillance, using philanthropy as a veneer for power and control.

Pfizer marketed its vaccine as safe for pregnant women, but reports showed adverse events and miscarriages. They denied a link between their vaccine and heart conditions, despite evidence. Pfizer claimed effectiveness against variants, but data showed otherwise. They also misled about transmission and censored criticism on social media. Pfizer avoided government oversight in vaccine development. Despite these issues, Pfizer successfully marketed their vaccine in Kansas. Multiple states are filing suits against Pfizer.

The Oxford AstraZeneca COVID jab is facing claims of being defective and having vastly overstated efficacy. Two test cases have been presented in the high court, one involving a man who suffered a brain injury and blood clot after vaccination, and another involving a woman who died due to a vaccine-related adverse reaction. These cases could lead to numerous damage claims related to vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has reported at least 81 serious adverse reactions in the UK linked to clotting and low platelets. The World Health Organization has stated that the vaccine is safe and effective, but this contradicts the evidence presented in the UK court. This could potentially lead to a wave of claims and raises questions about the WHO's advice.

The vaccine rollout in the UK effectively placed everyone in a Phase IV post-authorization trial, serving as real-world data. The government pre-paid AstraZeneca for vaccine supplies and indemnified pharmaceutical companies like Moderna and Pfizer against certain claims. Public messaging emphasized the necessity of vaccination, linking it to personal freedoms, travel, work, and family visits. Financial incentives were provided to healthcare providers to boost vaccination rates, potentially fostering a mindset that prioritized delivery at all costs. Urgent reform is needed, as the current system has failed to adequately support those injured or bereaved. Despite promises from past and present governments to review the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, no action has been taken four years after the initial vaccinations.

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.

The pharmaceutical industry is seen as untrustworthy, being compared to a criminal cartel due to the large penalties they have paid for their other products. Vaccines, however, are exempt from liability, meaning companies cannot be sued no matter how negligent or reckless they are. This lack of accountability may lead to a lack of caution in product development.

Pfizer is being sued for defrauding the government, but they claim they did not commit fraud. They argue they provided what the government requested, even if it was a faulty product distributed worldwide. This information is crucial and not widely known.