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.

In this video, John Loughlin, director of FVD International, discusses a letter written by Marcel de Graaf, Joachim Koos, and other members of the European Parliament to the European Medical Agency (EMA). The letter raises concerns about the procedures followed and the alleged harmful nature of COVID vaccines. The speakers highlight issues such as the lack of transparency in vaccine contracts, the differences between approved and administered batches, and the potential dangers of the vaccines. They also discuss the corruption and illegality surrounding the approval process and the suppression of text messages by Ursula von der Leyen. The speakers emphasize the need for accountability and the protection of citizens' safety.

A group of European Parliament members wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expressing concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines. The EMA responded, stating that the vaccines were only approved for individual immunization and not for controlling or preventing infections. They also admitted a lack of data on vaccine effectiveness against infections. The government's campaign to vaccinate for the sake of others was based on misinformation. Furthermore, the EMA emphasized the need to carefully consider safety information before administering vaccines. The mass vaccination campaign should be halted as it does not meet the EMA's requirements and puts people's health at risk. The government and supporting political parties should be held accountable for their lies and deception.

A group of European Parliament members wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expressing concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines. The EMA responded, stating that the vaccines were only approved for individual immunization, not for controlling or preventing infections. They also emphasized the lack of data on preventing infections and even mentioned that exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection, even in vaccinated individuals. The EMA highlighted the importance of carefully considering safety information before administering vaccines. The government's vaccination campaigns were deemed unauthorized and based on misinformation. The EMA's information undermines the vaccination policies of the Dutch government, and they should be held accountable for their actions.

Today, we are here to inform the public and representatives about the serious errors and safety issues related to mRNA injections. The previous speakers discussed the deadly political mistakes made by the EMA and the European Commission, who deliberately deceived the public and used pseudoscience to push people into potentially deadly experiments. The EMA admitted to providing misleading information to the public, and the lack of evidence for transmission control makes the vaccination campaign a fraudulent and illegal marketing campaign. The argument that this is for the benefit of vulnerable and elderly individuals is false, as the entire population has been forced to participate in this potentially deadly experiment. We demand the removal of all mRNA injections from the market and accountability for those responsible.

According to the speaker, vaccination eligibility should only have been granted after a doctor determined it was advisable for an individual case, because—except for a single exception—virtually no one under 60 would have faced a chance of serious complications from coronavirus. The speaker claims that therefore, people under 60 should not have been vaccinated, and that filling sports halls with vaccination sites was completely contrary to the purposes for which the vaccines were authorized by the EMA. The speaker further argues that evaluating vaccine safety required that side effects be properly recorded. They quote the EMA as saying it expects many reports of side effects occurring during or shortly after vaccination, meaning that complaints must be reported in the first period of vaccination. The speaker then says that the government supported a policy in which these complaints were not reported in the first 14 days after vaccination because the vaccine would need 10 to 14 days to become effective. The speaker claims that all complaints in that time were instead attributed to coronavirus, calling this both fraudulent and deliberately endangering human lives. The speaker also refers to an ongoing “gigantic so-called unexplained excess mortality.” In summary, they state that the EMA information is devastating for the vaccination policy of Rutte and De Jonge, claiming the government knew the vaccines would not protect against virus transmission but did not share that information with the public. The speaker says the government pushed the vaccines on citizens with “lies,” concealed side effects, and endangered the health of everyone who took the vaccine. They conclude that the vaccination campaigns should be stopped as soon as possible because they are not safe and do not meet EMA requirements. The speaker ends by saying the government and all political parties that supported this should be held accountable for their “lies and deception,” and then hands the word to Jojim Koers.

Last month, a group of European Parliament members, including myself, wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expressing concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines. The EMA's response revealed shocking facts. They admitted that the vaccines were only approved for individual immunization and not for controlling or preventing infections. Furthermore, there is a lack of data supporting the vaccines' effectiveness in preventing infections. In fact, the EMA stated that repeated exposure to the virus increases the risk of infection even in vaccinated individuals. The government's campaigns promoting vaccination to protect others were unauthorized and based on misinformation. The EMA also emphasized the need to carefully consider safety information before administering vaccines. The mass vaccination efforts were in direct contradiction to the approved use of the vaccines. The government and supporting political parties should be held accountable for their lies and deception. The vaccination campaign needs to be halted as it is not safe and does not meet EMA requirements.

Willem Engel, a pharmaceutical scientist and human rights activist, discusses the concerns and safety issues surrounding COVID vaccines. He criticizes the spread of misinformation by governments and the lack of accurate registration of vaccine risks. He questions the validity of informed consent when crucial information is not shared with the public. Another speaker highlights the patterns of adverse reactions in different vaccine batches, suggesting that informed consent was impossible due to the unknown risks associated with each batch. The statistician presents data showing three distinct patterns of adverse reactions in different vaccine batches, indicating a concerning safety signal. The speakers call for the withdrawal of vaccine marketing authorizations and accountability for the alleged mishandling of the vaccination campaign.

John Loughlin, director of FVD International, discusses a letter written by Marcel de Graaf, Joachim Koos, and other members of the European Parliament to the European Medical Agency. The letter raises concerns about the procedures followed and changes made in the approval process for COVID vaccines. It also highlights the alleged harmful nature of the vaccines and the confusion between testing batches and those used on people. The speakers argue that the vaccines are not effective and that the approval process has been corrupted. They discuss the dangers of the vaccines, including myocarditis and heart disease, and question the legality and safety of genetically modified organisms used in the vaccines. The speakers also mention allegations of corruption and suppression of text messages by Ursula von der Leyen.

Today, we are here to inform the public and representatives about the serious errors and safety issues related to mRNA injections. The previous speakers discussed the deadly political mistakes made by the EMA and the European Commission, who deliberately deceived the public and used pseudoscience to push people into potentially deadly experiments. The EMA admitted that the information provided to the public was not for informed consent. The lack of evidence for transmission control from the start makes the vaccination campaign a fraudulent and illegal marketing campaign. The argument that it is a disservice to vulnerable and elderly individuals is false, as the entire population has been forced to participate in this potentially deadly experiment. We demand the removal of all mRNA injections from the market and accountability for those responsible.

Last month, Joachim Küs and six other colleagues from the European Parliament wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding concerns about the vaccines. The EMA responded, stating that the vaccines were only authorized for individual immunization and not for infection control, prevention, or reduction. In fact, the EMA highlighted a lack of data on contagion and stated that repeated exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection even in vaccinated individuals. The massive vaccination campaigns aimed at protecting others were not authorized and lacked factual basis. The EMA emphasized that vaccinations were solely for the protection of the vaccinated individual, and safety information should be carefully considered before administering or recommending a vaccine. The government's vaccination policies disregarded this information, putting lives at risk. Vaccination campaigns should be halted immediately, and those responsible for the lies and deception held accountable.

Last month, Joachim Küs and six other colleagues from the European Parliament wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding concerns about the vaccines. The EMA responded, stating that the vaccines were only authorized for individual immunization and not for infection control, prevention, or reduction. In fact, the EMA highlighted a lack of data on the vaccines' ability to prevent infections. The EMA also mentioned that repeated exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection even in vaccinated individuals. The massive vaccination campaigns aimed at protecting others were not authorized and lacked factual basis. The EMA emphasized that vaccinations were solely for the protection of the vaccinated individual, and safety information should be carefully considered before administering vaccines. The government's vaccination policies and failure to report side effects were deemed dangerous and fraudulent. Vaccination campaigns should be halted immediately.

Elected officials are not acting in the people's best interest, serving pharmaceutical companies with the mRNA shot. They all use the same script, talking about safety without considering the risks of the injection. The vaccination campaign will be remembered as the biggest medical scandal and crime against humanity.

There are alarming signals in the Covid situation that are concerning for the health of our citizens. Many people have chosen to get vaccinated based on information from the government and doctors, believing they made an informed decision. However, informed consent is only possible if the information provided by member states and authorities is accurate. Unfortunately, when governments spread misinformation, doctors cannot give proper advice and people cannot make an informed choice. The timeframe for recording adverse effects after vaccination is flawed, as reactions usually occur within the first 14 days. This disregards the risks and side effects that may arise during this crucial period. The government's policies and media campaigns promoting Covid vaccinations fail to consider these risks. It is essential to address these concerns promptly to ensure informed consent and protect public health.

I am Marcel de Graaf, Member of the European Parliament for Forum for Democracy. I recently sent a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding the approval of medications in the European market, specifically questioning the COVID-19 vaccines. We have received a response that clarifies many issues. This response is highly critical of the vaccination policy in the Netherlands. I will provide more details in a press conference tomorrow at 3 PM via a livestream from Strasbourg. The EMA's response confirms that Forum for Democracy's criticism of the vaccination policy is justified.

Marcel de Graaf, Willem Engel, and others discuss the safety issues and lack of informed consent surrounding COVID vaccines in a press conference. They highlight the existence of different batches of vaccines with varying risks, the failure of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to properly inform the public, and the potential long-term side effects. They also question the classification of the vaccines as vaccines rather than gene therapy and raise concerns about the manipulation of data and the lack of transparency. The speakers call for the withdrawal of market authorizations and accountability for those responsible.

Senator Johnson is asked about a “COVID cover-up” and why legacy media such as CNN is not covering it. The interviewee claims that Peter Marks knew on March 1, 2021 that “their algorithms were hiding safety signals,” and that 26 days later it was discovered they had 25 serious adverse events, including sudden cardiac death, pulmonary infarction, bells and pauses, and different types of strokes. The interviewee says the information was “buried” and “hid,” calling it a major scandal that major media is ignoring for almost six weeks. When asked whether people could sue the U.S. government over the COVID cover-up, the interviewee says legal ramifications are hard to say, noting the government’s ability to protect itself and people carrying out its mission. They frame their role as exposing the issue and mention “radical transparency” from Secretary Kennedy as enabling access to more documents and more people to interview. The interviewee calls it the biggest scandal of their lifetime, saying people were not warned and were mandated to take the shot or were coerced or convinced without the kind of information needed for informed consent. They claim that millions suffered adverse events and that at least tens of thousands died after the March 1 date. In response, a commentator asserts that “conspiracy theorists were right again,” reiterating that 25 serious adverse events with the COVID vaccine were hidden from the public. They describe “masking” as obscuring and then list categories of side effects, focusing on neurological and cardiac effects (including sudden death and cardiac failure) and pulmonary effects associated with stroke, along with other “obscure” items. They conclude that people should have been warned about these side effects before getting the vaccine, rather than being told it was 100% safe and effective.

I am one of the scientists involved in a study on the safety and dependency of vaccine batches. We found three types of side effects: mild, severe, and even death. These adverse effects were present in the initial batches, which may have been changed during production or transportation. Patients were not informed of the risks and some received poor-quality batches. The Vice President of Pfizer admitted to building the plane while flying, and we have shown that one wing has fallen off. There is a safety issue that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and national institutions should have addressed and informed the public about. Our study also suggests a potential link between certain cancers and different vaccine batches. We have observed increased mortality rates in European countries since May 21st. The EMA should have reacted to these findings and halted vaccinations or at least withdrawn the problematic batches. As a concerned citizen and doctor, I expected more action from the EMA. Thank you.

Last month, I, along with six colleagues from the European Parliament, 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 the vaccines' ability to prevent transmission. In fact, repeated exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection even in vaccinated individuals. The government's campaigns promoting vaccination to protect others were unauthorized and based on misinformation. The EMA also stated that vaccinations were solely for the protection of the vaccinated individual, and each case should be carefully evaluated for safety before administering the vaccine. The government's vaccination policy disregarded reporting of side effects within the first two weeks after vaccination, falsely attributing any complaints to the virus. This information exposes the flaws in the vaccination strategy and calls for an immediate halt to the campaign.

I am one of the scientists involved in a study on the safety and dependency of vaccine batches. We found three types of side effects: mild, severe, and even death. These adverse effects were present in the initial batches, which were later changed, possibly due to Pfizer altering the product or during transportation. Patients were not informed of the risks and some received poor-quality batches. The study also reveals a safety issue that both Pfizer and regulatory institutions should have addressed. Pfizer had already informed the European Medicines Agency (EMA) about the safety problem in August 2021. Our data from Sweden indicates that this is a European issue, not just a Danish one. We are concerned about long-term side effects and their potential links to cancer and increased mortality rates. The EMA should have taken action based on the data and informed the public. The vice-president of Pfizer's statement about building the plane while flying is apt, as we have shown that one wing has fallen off.

Last month, Joachim Küs and six other colleagues from the European Parliament wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding concerns about the arrival of vaccines. The EMA responded, stating that the vaccines were only authorized for individual immunization, not for infection control, prevention, or reduction. The EMA also highlighted a lack of data on contagion and stated that repeated exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection even in vaccinated individuals. The government's massive vaccination campaigns, aimed at protecting others, were not authorized and lacked factual basis. The EMA emphasized the importance of carefully considering safety information before administering vaccinations. The government's policy of not reporting complaints within the first 14 days of vaccination was seen as deliberate endangerment of human life. The speaker called for an end to vaccination campaigns and accountability for the government's lies and deception.

Nederlandse samenvatting: Afgelopen maand schreef ik met Joachim Koez en zes EU-parlementscollega’s een brief aan de EMA over de Covid-vaccins en vroeg om opheldering en mogelijk intrekking van de markttoelating. De EMA antwoordde met schokkende feiten: "de corona vaccins alleen en uitsluitend op de markt heeft toegelaten voor individuele immunisatie En absoluut niet voor beheersing van besmetting en absoluut niet voor het voorkomen of verminderen van besmettingen." "EMA's beoordelingsrapporten over de toelating van vaccins benadrukken het gebrek aan gegevens over besmettelijkheid." "De vaccins waren niet bedoeld voor het voorkomen van besmettingen en er zijn al helemaal geen gegevens die onderbouwen dat de vaccins helpen tegen besmettingen." "Sterker nog, de EMA verklaart herhaalde blootstelling aan het virus verhoogt de kans op infecties, zelfs in gevaccineerden." "Vaccinaties zijn uitsluitend voor de bescherming van het gevaccineerde individu." "alle veiligheidsinformatie zorgvuldig worden overwogen alvorens een vaccinatie toe te dienen of aan te bevelen." Verder: "de eerste 14 dagen na vaccinatie juist niet werden gemeld omdat het vaccin 10 tot 14 dagen nodig zou hebben om effectief te worden. Alle klachten in die periode werden juist aan het coronavirus toegeschreven." De regering wist dat de vaccins niet zouden beschermen tegen de verspreiding van het virus maar deelde deze informatie niet met de burgers. "De vaccinatiecampagnes dienen zo snel mogelijk stopgezet te worden. Het is gewoonweg niet veilig en ze voldoen niet aan de eisen die de EMA stelt." De regering en alle politieke partijen die dit steunden behoren op hun leugens en bedrog afgerekend te worden. English translation: Last month I, together with Joachim Koez and six colleagues from the European Parliament, wrote a letter to the EMA about the Covid vaccines and asked for clarification and possibly withdrawal of market authorization. The EMA replied with shocking facts: "the corona vaccines were only and exclusively authorised on the market for individual immunization And absolutely not for controlling infection or for preventing or reducing infections." "EMA's assessment reports on the authorisation of vaccines emphasise the lack of data on transmissibility." "The vaccines were not intended for the prevention of infections and there are absolutely no data to support that the vaccines help against infections." "Moreover, the EMA states that repeated exposure to the virus increases the risk of infections, even in vaccinated individuals." "Vaccinations are solely for the protection of the vaccinated individual." "all safety information should be carefully considered before administering or recommending a vaccination." Furthermore: "the first 14 days after vaccination were not reported because the vaccine would take 10 to 14 days to become effective. All complaints in that period were indeed attributed to the coronavirus." The government knew that the vaccines would not protect against the spread of the virus but did not share this information with the citizens. "The vaccination campaigns should be stopped as soon as possible. It is simply not safe and they do not meet the requirements set by the EMA." And the government and all political parties that supported this should be held accountable for their lies and deception.

In this video, John Loughlin interviews Marcel de Graaf, Joachim Koos, and Willem Engel about their letter to the European Medical Agency (EMA) regarding the withdrawal of COVID vaccines. They discuss various arguments against the vaccines, including procedural violations, alleged confusion between test batches and actual batches, and the harmful nature of the vaccines. They highlight the dangers of the vaccines, such as myocarditis and pericarditis, and the potential corruption and illegality surrounding their approval. They also mention the suppression of text messages by Ursula von der Leyen and the erosion of sovereignty by the European Union. The speakers express their concerns and call for action against the vaccines.

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.

Willem Engel, a human rights activist, and other speakers discuss the safety issues and lack of informed consent surrounding COVID vaccines. They highlight the problem of adverse events not being properly registered within the first 14 days after vaccination, leading to a false sense of security. They also raise concerns about the classification of mRNA injections as vaccines and the potential long-term side effects. The speakers present data showing different patterns of adverse reactions in different vaccine batches, indicating a lack of consistency and informed consent. They criticize the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for not taking appropriate action and call for the withdrawal of market authorizations.