reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Public health has become militarized, with the military using public health language and laws to carry out a military campaign. The COVID-19 vaccines are referred to as weapons, and clinical trials were not necessary for the Department of Defense (DoD) to pay contractors for producing and distributing them. The World Health Organization declared a public health emergency, triggering the domestic framework and the issuance of executive orders by Congress and Presidents Trump and Biden. This has created a funding stream for military-led bioweapons research. People potentially carrying the disease are classified as national security threats, allowing actions without consent. The framework also shields the government, developers, and regulators from liability and prosecution. This is a joint project involving the DoD, Federal Reserve, World Health Organization, and Bank for International Settlements.

The speaker explains that a series of laws allowed the military to take over vaccine distribution without any clinical trials or safety testing. The safety testing conducted by the pharmaceutical industry was just for show and had no regulatory implications. The FDA, which is responsible for regulating medical products, does not have the authority to regulate these countermeasures. The legal framework being used pretends that these are health products when they are actually in a different legal space.

Public health has become militarized, with the military using public health language and laws to carry out a military campaign. The COVID-19 vaccines are referred to as weapons, and clinical trials were not necessary for the Department of Defense (DoD) to pay contractors for producing and distributing them. The World Health Organization declared a public health emergency, triggering the domestic framework and leading to the funding and reinforcement of the program by Congress and Presidents Trump and Biden. This has created a funding stream for military-led bioweapons research. People potentially carrying the disease are classified as national security threats, allowing actions without consent. The framework also shields the products, people involved, and government funders from liability and prosecution. This is a joint project involving the DoD, Federal Reserve, World Health Organization, and Bank for International Settlements.

In January 2021, Brooke Jackson filed a lawsuit against Pfizer, claiming that she witnessed the company defraud the US government by lacking oversight in the making and distribution of vaccines. She was particularly concerned about the absence of clinical trials and safety protocols. Pfizer countered the lawsuit by stating that the US government was already aware of the lack of clinical trials and safety protocols. They provided evidence in the form of a base agreement, stating that there was no legal obligation to conduct valid clinical trials because the government's payment was for a large-scale manufacturing demonstration, not for clinical trials.

Speaker 0 described a guest whose 18-year-old daughter was injected with Pfizer and developed cancer. He stated that he has sat across numerous people who lost their children to these injections, with some deaths immediate and others gruesome, and that these people must testify to lawmakers and others recounting their stories repeatedly. He framed this as a massive crime that needs to stop. He asserted that the FDA was fully aware that these injections would cause cancer, citing published guidance documents. He claimed that the FDA regulates the industry and, in 2015 and 2013 (and even more recently), wrote extensive guidance documents explaining to manufacturers developing mRNA products that they must study risks, including cancer, death, fertility issues, blindness, strokes, and cardiovascular issues. He said these risks were documented as regulatory knowledge and that manufacturers were told they had to study these risks and exclude them. He also claimed that studying these risks in healthy volunteers was not allowed because it was considered unethical. He contrasted this with 2020, stating that “all of a sudden, all of this is solved,” calling it a joke, and that this period raised his suspicions, prompting him to investigate independently. He concluded by describing the situation as a premeditated crime in which regulators knew, and that the military conducted a “fake exercise” to capture all these pharmaceutical companies and compel them to create these weapons.

A bombshell report reveals that the Department of Defense controlled the COVID-19 program from the beginning, using shady approval authorizations to shield big pharma from liability. The Pentagon used laws like the PrEP Act, Emergency Use Authorization, and Other Transaction Authority to protect pharmaceutical companies. Documents obtained by a former executive show that the vaccines were not compliant with good manufacturing practices, with extreme variability in adverse events. Clinical trials were deceptive, with subjects and investigators kept in the dark. The National Security Council treated COVID as an act of war, while telling the public it was a health event. The Pentagon's influence extends to multiple agencies, with a secret Pandemic Enterprise formed in 2013. The countermeasures used are prototypes, not fully tested vaccines.

A bombshell report reveals that the Department of Defense controlled the COVID-19 program from the start, using shady approval authorizations to shield big pharma from liability. The Pentagon employed laws like the PrEP Act, Emergency Use Authorization, and Other Transaction Authority to protect pharmaceutical companies and avoid proper clinical trials. Documents obtained by a former pharmaceutical executive, Sasha Lydipova, confirm that the vaccines were not good manufacturing practice compliant, with extreme variability in adverse events. The Pentagon's involvement stems from treating COVID-19 as an act of war, with the National Security Council setting policy. The deception extends to censoring lab leak theories and coordinating efforts across multiple agencies. The public was misled about the nature of the vaccines, which were actually prototypes and not subject to proper testing.

It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative, preventing doctors from finding solutions. The speaker has conducted clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine studies, and has brought vaccines and other drugs to market. Some drugs never made it to market because they killed people. Clinical trial guidelines ensure safe drugs, but these guidelines were not followed during the pandemic, affecting everyone. COVID should have been a time for doctors to unite, but interference with research occurred. Science evolves through experiments, skepticism, and an open mind. Challenging current knowledge must be allowed to move science forward, but what the speaker witnessed during the pandemic was not science.

The top agencies leading Operation Warp Speed were the NSA and the Pentagon, not public health agencies like HHS, CDC, or NIH. The vaccines were developed by NIH and manufactured by military tractors, with Pfizer and Moderna being paid to put their names on them. The speaker believes that Operation Warp Speed is not new, as it has been happening since 1980 at Fort Detrick, a bioweapons lab. They claim that the government has been involved in unethical practices, such as injecting the military with HIV in the 1990s.

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.

Speaker 0 summarizes a view that public health has been militarized and the military repurposed as a public health front. The term “kill box” is used to describe a geographic or three-dimensional area established for military attacks; the speaker asserts the DOD and WHO aim to render the entire world as their terrain, with the population as all people and the campaign as permanent. Weapons in this campaign are described as informational (propaganda and censorship), psychological (fear and obedience to government), and chemical/biological/radiological/nuclear (referred to as pharmaceuticals, vaccines, but claimed to be toxins and pathogens). The speaker contends this project has centuries-long roots in globalist banking and military interests, intensifying in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act and in the 1930s–40s with public health. By the mid-1960s, they claim, poisons were fraudulently labeled as medicines or vaccines to induce civic duty, citing COVID as an example of coercion (do this or you’ll kill your grandma). The pharmaceutical method is described as enabling plausible deniability and legal impunity, allowing mass harm with less traceable fingerprints. Coercion is described as cascading from the Bank for International Settlements to other federal central banks, then down through state, national, local governments, school districts, hospitals, and beyond. Compliance with masking, testing, isolation, and injections purportedly grants financial access, while noncompliance cuts such access. Legally, the speaker traces a framework beginning in 1969 with a U.S. law to set up chemical and biological warfare programs (50 USC Chapter 32) and the key terms “protective,” “prophylactic,” and “defensive,” used to justify research while arguing that all biologically active products are inherently toxic. The 1983 Public Health Service Act amendment created the Public Health Emergencies Program and a $30 million “slush fund” (still funded under later acts). The 1986 National Vaccine Program and the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act established a liability exemption for manufacturers and a compensation program for injuries, later modeled by the countermeasures injury compensation program post-COVID. Internationally, the World Health Organization is described as a military arm of a one-world government, with International Health Regulations amended in 2005 to 2007 to push national systems toward surveillance, detention, quarantine, and forced treatment during international outbreaks. The real aim is shifting sovereignty from nation-states to WHO and BIS upon a public health emergency of international concern. Key years cited include 1997–1998 (Emergency Use Authorization and rehoming CBRN stockpiles), 2000–2002 (Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act, AUMF), and post-9/11 legislation (Patriot Act, Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness, Homeland Security Act), expanding a permanent state of global conflict. From 2003–2009, executive orders, funding, and agency guidance integrated DHS, DOJ, HHS, and DoD, enabling experimental products like vaccines and gene therapies. The Pfizer matter is cited to claim DoD prototypes bypass standard trials and FDA authorization, with government support for early termination of normal processes. Since 2020, the speaker links the WHO declaration of Public Health Emergency of International Concern with domestic PREP Act declarations and subsequent acts (Defense Production Act, Stafford Act, National Emergencies Act) to build a funding stream for military-led bioweapons research and use, while shielding participants from liability and enabling state sovereignty pushback through Article 10 of the Constitution. The speaker argues that these developments threaten constitutions and state protections, calling for increased state authority, and predicts a tipping point with criminal prosecutions, asserting that the actions constitute war crimes.

The speaker discusses court solutions and criticizes the promotion of certain cases in the media. They highlight Brooke Jackson's case as a significant victory, revealing that Pfizer was forced to release a contract with the Department of Defense (DOD), exposing the operation as a military one. They argue that the government has legalized mass murder through fraudulent means, deploying vaccines that they consider to be poison. The speaker also criticizes the legal approach in most cases, which they claim legitimizes falsehoods about the pandemic. They emphasize the importance of recognizing the structure revealed in previous judgments and prosecuting Pfizer for fraud.

A bombshell report reveals that the Department of Defense controlled the COVID-19 program from the beginning, using shady approval authorizations to shield big pharma from liability. The Pentagon used laws like the PrEP Act, Emergency Use Authorization, and Other Transaction Authority to protect pharmaceutical companies and avoid proper clinical trials. Clinical trial subjects and investigators were deceived, and informed consent was not required. The National Security Council treated COVID-19 as an act of war, while telling the public it was a health event. The Pentagon's influence extended to agencies like the FDA and NIH. A secret Cabal called the Pandemic Enterprise was formed in 2013 to discuss countermeasures with strict confidentiality. The so-called vaccines were actually prototypes ordered by the Department of Defense, and people were not informed of this. Safety testing and animal trials were skipped, violating regulations.

FDA attorney Ashley Chung Arnold acknowledges that doctors have the right to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID treatment. The FDA claims sovereign immunity and cannot be held responsible for misleading statements. The judges question whether the FDA's advice is based on scientific views or personal opinions. The FDA attorney argues that the agency is not required to go through a formal process and that they are accountable to the political process. The court is not responsible for fact-checking the FDA's scientific statements.

Public health has become militarized, with the military using public health language and laws to carry out a military campaign. The COVID-19 vaccines are referred to as weapons, and clinical trials were not necessary for the Department of Defense (DoD) to pay contractors for producing and distributing them. The World Health Organization declared a public health emergency, triggering the domestic framework and leading to the funding and reinforcement of the program by Congress and Presidents Trump and Biden. This has created a funding stream for military-led bioweapons research. People potentially carrying the disease are classified as national security threats, allowing actions without consent. The framework also shields the products, people involved, and government funders from liability and prosecution. This is a joint project involving the DoD, Federal Reserve, World Health Organization, and Bank for International Settlements.

A bombshell report reveals that the Department of Defense controlled the COVID-19 program from the beginning, using shady approval authorizations to shield big pharma from liability. The Pentagon used laws like the PrEP Act, Emergency Use Authorization, and Other Transaction Authority to protect pharmaceutical companies and avoid proper clinical trials. The documents obtained by Sasha Lydipova, a former executive of a pharmaceutical contract resource organization, show that the vaccines were not good manufacturing practice compliant and had extreme variability in adverse events. The Pentagon's involvement was part of treating COVID as an act of war, with the National Security Council setting policy. The deception extended to censoring lab leak theories and keeping the public in the dark.

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.

The speaker attended a lecture on emergency powers and the executive. They asked the panel if they were concerned about the lack of oversight and transparency in the Irish government's experimental vaccine program. They also mentioned the Nuremberg trials and questioned if any of the panelists were afraid of facing similar consequences.

Normally, bringing a product to market involves proposals, clinical trial designs for efficacy and safety, years of trials, and FDA determinations on safety, efficacy, harm versus benefit, warnings, and inspections. All of this is abolished. Now, the HHS secretary only needs to decide, with or without evidence, that a product may be effective. Even if evidence shows ineffectiveness, they can still believe it's effective. This decision-making allows them to legally mandate the product for all Americans, regardless of evidence to the contrary. There are no stopping criteria, and the secretary never has to reconsider their decision because there were no criteria to begin with.

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.

Our government is out of control on this, and they are lawless. They completely disregard bioethics. They completely disregard the federal common rule. They have broken all the rules that I know of, that I've been trained on for years and years and years. These mandates of an experimental vaccine are explicitly illegal. They are explicitly inconsistent with the Nuremberg Code. They're explicitly inconsistent with the Belmont Report. They are flat out illegal, and they don't care. And the only

In 2012, DARPA initiated the ADEPT Protect P3 program for pandemic prevention using gene-encoded vaccines. The military had been working on mRNA vaccines since then, not just in response to COVID-19. The rapid development of vaccines under Operation Warp Speed was part of a long-term military program. The FDA's lack of control over the process is due to its military origins. The military approach to vaccine development leaves no one exempt.

Public health has been militarized, with the military using public health language and laws to carry out a military campaign. The COVID-19 vaccines are referred to as weapons, and clinical trials were not necessary for the Department of Defense (DoD) to pay contractors for producing and distributing them. The World Health Organization declared a public health emergency, triggering the domestic framework and leading to the funding and reinforcement of the program by Congress and Presidents Trump and Biden. This has created a funding stream for military-led bioweapons research. People potentially carrying the disease are classified as national security threats, allowing actions without consent. The framework also shields the products, people involved, and government funders from liability and prosecution. This is a joint project involving the DoD, Federal Reserve, World Health Organization, and Bank for International Settlements.

Doctors at the Federal Communicable Disease Center acknowledge that the flu vaccine and its recommended dosage are ineffective; in a larger dose, it can be harmful. Nevertheless, the flu vaccine is still recommended for older people and the chronically ill. A senate subcommittee headed by Abraham Rebikoff charged that the federal government wasn’t doing a good enough job of informing the public about ineffective vaccines. Scientists at the Division of Biologic Standards test vaccines for potency and safety before licensing them for public use. However, the division does not determine the effectiveness of the vaccine. That is left to the manufacturers. A case in point is the influenza vaccine. Four scientists in charge of work on the flu vaccine during the 1960s found it to be ineffective, and they refused to give it to their own families. Two were transferred to other work, a third left the division, and over the entire ten-year period, not one word of their unfavorable findings was allowed to be published. But a more serious case involving the relationship between the leaders of the division and their scientists involves the adenovirus vaccine, a vaccine given to thousands of American soldiers to prevent certain cold-like symptoms. When it was shown that the vaccine contained a contaminant which caused cancer in laboratory animals, it was taken off the market. But that was three years after the division’s own scientists had pointed out the danger. Doctor Murray justifies the use of the vaccine by saying it took three years to examine the evidence against it. "It is more important to use the vaccines than to take them off the market and remove the agent." "It is more important to use the vaccines" "than to take them off the market" "and to remove the agent." Thus, for three years, American troops were injected with a cold-preventing vaccine, which was causing cancer in laboratory animals. And some of the division’s scientists who charged they were prevented from publishing results of experiments which show some of the vaccines to be ineffective. "It's the control officer in 1960 who has grave doubts about the potency of influenza vaccine. These doubts were made known to the director of the division and through the proper channels."

Speaker 0 discusses the origin and framing of pandemic prevention and vaccine development as a military-led initiative. He cites a 2012 DARPA program called the Adept Protect p three program, described as a pandemic prevention platform. The proposal outlined the use of gene-encoded vaccines based on RNA or DNA with the goal of stopping a pandemic within sixty days. He suggests that, by the time President Trump referenced “Operation Warp Speed” to develop vaccines, there should have been preparation and acknowledgement that this work dated back to 2012, making it not rapid innovation but a decade-long effort. He argues that the public narrative of rapid development and stunning innovation surrounding vaccines is deceptive and that contractors like Moderna had already secured multi-million-dollar contracts in 2013. He notes that the military operates programs addressing biological threats and also works on answers such as monoclonal antibodies and vaccines. The claim is made that the military originated the idea of messenger RNA vaccines, not Pfizer or Moderna, and not in response to the outbreak from Wuhan. According to the speaker, this is a military program in origin and administration. The speaker asserts that Health and Human Services, under Alex Azar, together with the Department of Defense, ushered the public into a vaccine era, framing Emergency Use Authorization as a mechanism to rapidly deploy new technology into the military rather than the public. He contends that this mechanism’s broad public application began with the COVID-19 pandemic, which is presented as evidence that the FDA lacks ownership or control over the process because the program is characterized as military in origin and execution. The overall claim is that the program operates like a military operation with universal reach and without exemptions, implying a deeply embedded military approach to vaccine development and deployment. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes the continuity from a 2012 program proposal through to the public health landscape observed during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, asserting that the military’s involvement, timeline, and governance underlie the current vaccine paradigm and its regulatory pathways.