reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Brooke Jackson, a former clinical trial worker, witnessed numerous instances of malfeasance and misfeasance during her time supervising the clinical trials for Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. She observed needles sticking out of bags, private information displayed publicly, patients not being properly monitored, incorrect blood collection methods, and lack of informed consent. The trials were supposed to be randomized and placebo-blinded, but they were neither. The vaccine was not stored at the correct temperature, and baseline data was not collected. Additionally, the data was doctored, certifications were falsified, and fraudulent invoices were submitted to the FDA and the defense department. Jackson reported these issues to the FDA in September 2020.

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.

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.

Speaker 0 argues that because it’s classified as a vaccine, they don’t have to worry about being sued. Speaker 1 counters that there is immunity from liability dependent on there having been no fraud, and asserts that there clearly was fraud, so in light of that... Speaker 0 expresses surprise at known caveats to liability. Speaker 1 confirms the caveats and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0 asks how fraud is defined in this context, noting that drugs were sold with many studies but only one was good. Speaker 1 responds, “Let's try this one,” and discusses safety testing: the insufficient amount of safety testing before release was done with mRNA vaccines produced in a process that did not involve DNA. The product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids, with massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter (simian virus 40). The point is that safety testing was performed on one process, but people were injected with something different that had other components not tested, which Speaker 1 calls fraudulent. Speaker 0 asks for an explanation of the SV40 issue. Speaker 1 explains production methods: techniques to generate product using a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, allowing vats to grow the product before coating in lipid nanoparticle, with bacteria doing the work. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for residual DNA contamination. In this case, not only was quality control poor, but there was a much more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. As a result, vials given to Kevin McKernan, containing material actually injected into people, showed DNA contamination across the board. Speaker 1 states that leftover DNA includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is carcinogenic. This promoter is left over in vials from shots actually injected into people, implying that the claims about the potential for mRNA shots to integrate into the genome were incorrect. Speaker 1 asserts that there is DNA in the vials, not just some old DNA, and that it includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. Therefore, Speaker 1 concludes, this seems to be clear fraud: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing conducted with a product produced by a different process.

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.

The Department of Defense used shady contracting practices and laws to shield pharmaceutical companies from conducting proper clinical trials. They manipulated public perception with the help of mainstream media. The clinical trials were just a theatrical performance and not required by law. Human subjects were deceived, including a 13-year-old girl who experienced adverse events. The Vaccine Safety Council had an ad featuring her, but it was pulled from airing during the Super Bowl. Most clinical trial sites, investigators, and FDA employees were also deceived, as only a few top officials were aware of the scam.

A year ago, the speaker requested data from Emma, including all clinical trials done by medical companies before they requested marketing authorization for the green certificate. Regarding Pfizer, the speaker notes the company submitted a clinical trial that started on January 14, 2020. The speaker questioned a Pfizer representative about how tests for the vaccine began so soon after the December 2019 emergence of COVID-19, but the representative declined to answer. The speaker also asked the CEO of Moderna how they submitted trials since 2017, years before the virus was discovered in the winter of 2019. The speaker states that the CEO of Moderna did not answer how this was possible. The speaker says these are legitimate questions that people are asking, but unfortunately, the companies are declining to answer.

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.

Tonight, we will be filing a complaint against Mrs. Von der Leyen, the European Union, and Pfizer. The complaint is significant because it exposes their complicity in the deception surrounding the Covid vaccine. We have evidence, including a contract signed on November 20th between the EU and Pfizer, where the EU blindly invested €200 million without any knowledge of the product's outcome or nature. This money came from our taxes and was meant to fund Pfizer's research.

A lead regulatory scientist at Johnson & Johnson, Joshua Rees, allegedly admitted that the J&J COVID vaccine was "not safe and effective" and that the company wanted to "just throw the vaccine creation to the wind and see what happens." According to the scientist, the federal government pressured pharmaceutical companies to quickly create the vaccine, prioritizing speed over safety and efficacy. He claimed the typical clinical trial testing process was skipped, and the vaccine was tested on lab models instead. The scientist stated that the government made a deal with pharmaceutical companies to solve the problem. He also discussed weighing the worst potential side effects against the benefits for consumers, suggesting a different standard for cancer patients, who were "gonna die anyway." The CDC has previously announced they're pulling the J&J vaccine from use in The United States. J&J claims this is due to the vaccine's declining use and the company's strategic shift away from the vaccines.

At the outset, a process was approved by the FDA for emergency use authorization. However, it was later discovered that the approved process was swapped out for one containing contaminants like DNA and a cancer-causing substance. Pfizer redacted 800 pages of the manufacturing process, hiding the fact that a carcinogen was included. This lack of transparency led to no informed consent and potential harm to individuals. The vaccine rollout included a trial with a 2.4 times higher adverse event rate, including the presence of a carcinogen.

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.

Speaker 0: I find information like this, you know, inserts for the vaccine. Paper's there, and there's nothing printed on it. I find that very interesting, disheartening, disgusting, and lots of other words, but then it gets better. It just keep wait. There's more. It just keeps happening. The CDC redacts every single word of a 148 page study on a myocarditis after COVID vaccination. So I asked research to print the study for me. 148 pages. The entire thing is redacted. What good does a study do if there's nothing there? Then I wanna know, wait, what might have been there that they needed to redact it? That's even scarier. Speaker 1: We're witnessing an active cover up of a colossal consumer product safety debacle that is is basically affecting the entire world. Mhmm. So in The United States, our CDC, National Institutes of Health, and the FDA are actively involved in a cover up. And the same is occurring in The UK with the MHRA, Europe with European medicine agencies, and Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Something is going on that's very big. Each one of these companies that puts out a product has an obligation to produce ninety days of safety monitoring after their product comes out. It's a regulatory dossier. If somebody has a problem with the new product and they call the company like Pfizer, Pfizer has to report, write down what happened, and they have to collate that in a report and produce it and make it publicly available. When it came to ninety days with Pfizer, the first vaccine that came out, remember Pfizer was approved 12/10/2020. Pfizer didn't produce the report. And then people started asking, well, what's happening with your vaccine? And Pfizer would not disclose what happened. And then it went to court. And the lawyer for the FDA stepped in and said they don't wanna release Pfizer's dossier for fifty five years. Mhmm. Oh. Fifty five years. And the the the plaintiff pushed. And finally, slowly, the Pfizer dossier came out. Pfizer recorded one thousand two hundred and twenty three deaths with their product within ninety days of release. People were calling Pfizer in desperation watching their family members die after taking the vaccine. Pfizer recorded over twelve hundred new adverse events, new problems that doctor Boden has talked to you about that we are grappling with the entire time. But the point is our FDA worked to cover this up. The FDA should be regulating this company. FDA should have been having at least monthly meetings and fully disclosing what was going on with these novel vaccines, which are a genetic transfer technology platform.

A recent study suggests that Pfizer may have excluded known deaths in the vaccine arm of its clinical trial from its data filing with the FDA in 2020. The study also found that trial subjects vaccinated with Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine experienced a significant increase in cardiovascular deaths compared to placebo controls. This information was not disclosed by Pfizer when the FDA was evaluating the vaccine for emergency use. Additionally, researchers identified instances where Pfizer attributed potential vaccine-associated deaths to other causes, undermining vaccine safety data. The data presented to the FDA prior to the authorization of Pfizer's vaccine did not include all the deaths that occurred during the trial. The speaker raises concerns about the prioritization of profit over lives and warns against trusting Big Pharma.

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.

During the COVID pandemic, the Australian government granted Pfizer blanket immunity, allowing them to develop and distribute COVID injections without accountability. However, Pfizer has a history of criminal acts, including bribery and suppressing adverse trial results. The manufacturing process of the injections was also questionable, with evidence of live DNA derived from e coli found in the Pfizer product. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) did not conduct thorough testing on each batch of injections, relying instead on the US FDA's word. The lack of long-term safety testing is concerning, especially considering Pfizer's record-breaking profits. The Australian taxpayers are left with an unknown liability, while those who question the injections are labeled as "anti-vaxxers." The speaker opposes the forced administration of untested experimental injections and calls for accountability.

Maddy DeGary, a participant in Pfizer's 12-15 year old COVID-19 vaccine trial, suffered serious injuries post-vaccination. Pfizer misrepresented her condition as "functional abdominal pain" to the FDA. Despite efforts to bring attention to her true injuries, the FDA showed little concern and failed to hold Pfizer accountable for withholding information. This lack of transparency undermines the integrity of the trial process.

Speaker 0 describes finding vaccine insert materials with no printed content and says this is disheartening and “disgusting,” then adds that it “gets better” and that “more” continues to happen. Speaker 0 claims the CDC redacted every word of a 148-page study on myocarditis after COVID vaccination, and that when they asked to have the study printed, the entire document was redacted. They question what the study could have contained that required redaction and say this is “even scarier.” Speaker 1 says they are witnessing “an active cover up” of a “colossal consumer product safety debacle” affecting the entire world. They claim that in the United States the CDC, National Institutes of Health, and FDA are actively involved, and that similar actions occur in the UK with the MHRA, in Europe with European medicine agencies, and in Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Speaker 1 states that each of these regulators requires product companies to produce ninety days of safety monitoring after a product comes out, describing this as a regulatory dossier. They say that if problems arise and are reported to a company (such as Pfizer), the company must report, compile, and produce a report that is made publicly available. Speaker 1 claims that for Pfizer, whose first vaccine was approved 12/10/2020, Pfizer did not produce a report after the ninety days. They add that when people asked what was happening, Pfizer allegedly did not disclose what occurred, leading to court proceedings. Speaker 1 states that the FDA’s lawyer allegedly said the dossier should not be released for fifty-five years, and that after pressure, the Pfizer dossier was eventually released. They then claim Pfizer recorded 1,223 deaths with their product within ninety days of release and recorded over 1,200 new adverse events. Speaker 1 also says the FDA worked to cover this up, and that FDA should have regulated Pfizer with at least monthly meetings and full disclosure about “novel vaccines,” which they describe as a “genetic transfer technology platform,” the first time human beings had been injected with foreign genetic material in world history. Speaker 1 ends by stating that two thirds of the world’s population took these.

Pfizer filed a motion to dismiss fraud allegations, arguing that the US government contracts did not require valid clinical trials or evidence of safety and efficacy. They claimed that the contracts were more like prototype exercises, and the government accepted the unlawful conduct. The contracts were reviewed and found to be deceitful, with contradictory clauses. While there was language about manufacturing practices and compliance, a specific clause stated that clinical trials and good manufacturing practice compliance were not part of the contract. The judge dismissed the case based on this clause, stating that the government was not supposed to pay for those aspects, so no fraud occurred.

Pfizer's claim of 96% efficacy for their vaccine was questioned. The study and data were not independently verified, and Pfizer wanted to keep the data hidden for 75 years. The true effectiveness of the vaccine, based on absolute risk reduction, is less than 1%. More people died and were harmed in their trials compared to the placebo group. The vaccine's safety was questionable from the start, and it is not effective. Additionally, appropriate studies were not conducted for new variants.

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.

A year ago, the speaker requested data from Emma, including clinical trials from medical companies before they sought marketing authorization for their products. Regarding Pfizer, the speaker notes that the company submitted a clinical trial that started on January 14, 2020. The speaker questioned a Pfizer representative about how Pfizer started testing a vaccine in January 2020, just days after the Chinese government released DNA data about the virus in December 2019, but the representative declined to answer. The speaker also mentions that Moderna submitted trials dating back to 2017. The speaker asked the CEO of Moderna how it was possible to submit vaccine tests years before the virus was discovered in December 2019. The speaker states that these are legitimate questions that people are asking, but unfortunately, the companies are declining to answer.

Pfizer has been forced to release previously secret documents, including FDA approval packages, due to court orders and successful FOIA requests. These documents reveal that Pfizer tested different versions of their vaccine during preclinical and clinical trials, which goes against FDA guidance. The different versions included modified RNA, unmodified RNA, self-amplifying RNA, and Spike protein alone. Surprisingly, all these versions were tested under the same investigational new drug number, despite FDA guidance stating that multiple versions should have their own individual numbers. Additionally, the toxicity of the mRNA active ingredient in the COVID-19 vaccines was never studied. This raises concerns about the regulatory process and the lack of safety testing.

Speaker 0 says they found “information like this,” such as vaccine insert paper, with “nothing printed on it,” which they call disheartening and disgusting. They add that it “just keeps happening” and claim the CDC redacts “every single word” of a 148-page study on a myocarditis after COVID vaccination. Speaker 0 says they asked someone to print the study, and that the entire 148 pages are redacted. They ask what a study does if “there’s nothing there,” and they ask what might have been there that required redaction. Speaker 1 says they are “witnessing an active cover up” involving “a colossal consumer product safety debacle” affecting the entire world. They claim that in the United States, the CDC, National Institutes of Health, and FDA are actively involved in a cover up, and that similar cover ups are occurring in the UK with the MHRA, in Europe with European medicine agencies, and in Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Speaker 1 states that each company that puts out a product has an obligation to produce “ninety days of safety monitoring” after the product comes out, describing it as a regulatory dossier. They claim that if someone has a problem and reports it to a company like Pfizer, Pfizer must report, write down what happened, collate it into a report, and make it publicly available. Speaker 1 says that when the ninety days elapsed for Pfizer’s first vaccine approved on 12/10/2020, Pfizer “didn’t produce a report.” They add that people asked what was happening with the vaccine, and Pfizer allegedly would not disclose what happened, leading to a court case. Speaker 1 says the lawyer for the FDA stepped in to say they did not want to release Pfizer’s dossier for fifty-five years. Speaker 1 then says that after the plaintiff pushed, the Pfizer dossier “slowly” came out. They claim Pfizer recorded one thousand two hundred and twenty-three deaths with their product within ninety days of release, and they say people called Pfizer in desperation watching family members die after taking the vaccine. Speaker 1 also claims Pfizer recorded “over twelve hundred” new adverse events and refers to “doctor Boden” discussing problems they say they have been grappling with. They conclude by claiming the FDA worked to cover this up and should have been regulating the company with at least monthly meetings and full disclosure about novel vaccines, described by Speaker 1 as a genetic transfer technology platform and as the first time human beings were injected with foreign genetic material in world history, after which “they were getting it full on.” Speaker 1 ends by saying “Two thirds of the world’s population took”