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.

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.

The attorney (Speaker 0) opens by expressing frustration that pandemic-era liability protections—the PREP Act, the CARE Act, and the 1986 VICA Vaccine Act—grant broad immunity to the actors involved, effectively shielding them from liability and allowing what he calls “mass murder.” He asks Sacha whether there are obvious legal avenues to sue Pfizer and obtain redress for what he views as illegal acts, given this shield of immunity. Sacha (Speaker 1) replies that neither he nor his colleagues discourage attempts to sue Pfizer due to the fraud allegations they’ve identified. He notes, however, that nobody knows exactly what will break through the immunity barrier, so they should try different approaches. He outlines the current landscape: the defense Pfizer will likely raise is that they did not defraud the government, but merely delivered fraud that the government ordered. He references a concrete example in Brooke Jackson’s case, where Pfizer filed a motion to dismiss in April, arguing the fraud claim centered on delivering government-ordered fraud rather than perpetrating it independently. Sacha emphasizes that while the case may be dismissed, it has not been yet. If a future dismissal occurs, the admission would be valuable, and the goal is to elicit admissions in court. He suggests that they need to prove, by any admissible method, that there was explicit U.S. government policy to commit mass murder and genocide, or that certain individuals—Robert Kodlek, Peter Marks, Fauci, and others—were rogue actors acting outside their authority. In other words, the objective is to obtain explicit statements or admissions that could substantiate claims of government-directed action or unauthorized conduct by specific individuals, to challenge the immunity and pursue redress.

Kansas is filing a civil suit against Pfizer under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, seeking penalties and damages for misleading marketing of its COVID-19 vaccine. This lawsuit is part of a multistate effort involving five states. The complaint details several misleading claims, including that the vaccine was safe for pregnant women despite evidence of adverse events and miscarriages. Pfizer also denied links between its vaccine and heart conditions like myocarditis, despite known risks. Additionally, Pfizer claimed its vaccine was effective against variants and could stop transmission, but later admitted it had not studied transmission. The suit emphasizes that Pfizer's misleading statements contributed to its vaccine's success in Kansas, where over 3.3 million doses were administered. The case focuses on marketing practices, asserting that Pfizer's actions violated its obligation to provide truthful information.

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.

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.

Kansas is filing a civil suit against Pfizer under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act for misleading statements in marketing its COVID-19 vaccine, violating previous consent judgments. This is the first of a multistate collaboration. The suit alleges Pfizer marketed its vaccine as safe for pregnant women, despite possessing reports of adverse events and miscarriages in vaccinated pregnant women, and a study suggesting links to infertility in rats. Pfizer denied links between its vaccine and myocarditis/pericarditis, even though government sources had found such a connection. The suit claims Pfizer overstated the vaccine's effectiveness against variants and implied it stopped transmission without having studied this. Pfizer allegedly coordinated with social media platforms to censor critical speech. Pfizer declined federal vaccine development funding to avoid government oversight. By February 2024, Pfizer had delivered over 3.3 million vaccine doses in Kansas, accounting for over 60% of all doses given. The suit focuses on deceptive marketing practices, not injury claims, as vaccine manufacturers have federal immunity for those.

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.