TruthArchive.ai - 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.

It is absurd for elected officials to decide medical treatments. Countries with high vaccination rates have high mortality rates, while those with low rates have lower mortality. Romania's low vaccination rate is due to distrust in the government. Opposition in the Romanian Parliament and public pressure prevented a vaccination mandate. Fellow EU parliament members criticized their stance, but some are now acknowledging their concerns about adverse effects. They encourage colleagues to speak out about their experiences. Access to private healthcare in the European Parliament differs from the general population's access.

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.

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.

The White House blames a few bad actors for spreading online misinformation that is causing harm. It is important to get vaccinated not only for personal protection but also to safeguard society. A member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands recently had a viral exchange with a Pfizer executive regarding whether the vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before being released. The executive clarified that the vaccines were extensively tested in clinical trials, but their specific effectiveness in stopping transmission was not known prior to market entry.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Today's press conference featured Marcel De Graff, a European Parliament member, along with Joachim Kus, Evi Becquehmanish, and Max Schmeling. They discussed the shocking response from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding the authorization of COVID-19 vaccines. The EMA explicitly stated that the vaccines were only authorized for individual immunization and not for infection control or prevention. This contradicts the government's messaging and raises concerns about the safety of the vaccines. The speakers also highlighted the lack of proper reporting of side effects and the potential risks associated with different vaccine batches. They called for an immediate halt to vaccination campaigns and accountability for the government's misleading information.

The pandemic and COVID-19 have been misrepresented, according to an investigation by the prosecutor's office in Bergamo. Internal documents from the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) reveal that the effectiveness of vaccines on vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly and sick, was not studied before their vaccination. This contradicts the claims made by authorities about the vaccines' high efficacy. The campaign to vaccinate the vulnerable started without any evidence to support its effectiveness. These exclusive documents expose the lack of research on the vaccine's impact on vulnerable populations.

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.