TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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.

The speaker claims to have witnessed a humanitarian catastrophe with millions of deaths worldwide due to vaccines. In their private practice, they've seen almost 1500 patients, previously healthy, now disabled and suffering years later, believing they are addressing the greatest unmet need in the country: care for the vaccine-injured. The speaker believes the government has been fully captured by corporations and industrial complexes. They allege that agencies like the CDC, FDA, NIH, and EPA, along with big food, are polluting air, water, and medicines. They also claim the government is allowing immigrants in, surveilling and censoring citizens, and stripping away rights, with most of the country unaware. The speaker states their goal is to educate people about this and "rescue the republic."

I'm an attorney looking for ways to sue those responsible for damages during the pandemic, but the PrEP Act, the CARE Act, and the 1986 VICA Vaccine Act, provide broad immunity from liability. As a corporate liability officer, my colleague and I agree, that we should go after Pfizer for the fraud they have committed. The challenge is figuring out how to break through their defenses. Pfizer will argue they delivered the fraud that the government ordered. Even if a case gets dismissed based on this argument, the admission itself is valuable. We need to get them to admit in court whether committing mass murder and genocide is explicit US government policy, or if individuals like Kotlik, Marks, and Fauci were rogue actors acting outside their authority.

Secretary Kennedy, the mRNA injections marketed as COVID vaccines are merely emergency use authorized medical countermeasures. This pathway bypasses standard pharmaceutical regulations and informed consent. Misrepresentations about these products' safety and efficacy are legally permissible, making official claims unreliable. These shots are now on the CDC childhood vaccination schedule for infants as young as nine months old. The current PREP Act declaration, extended until 2029, abuses federal law intended for short-term emergencies. This shields pharmaceutical companies from liability for deaths and injuries caused by these unsafe products. The FDA falsely claims full approval for those 12 and older, yet the injured are directed to a compensation program that denies almost all claims. I urge you to terminate the PREP Act emergency declaration and investigate the misuse of federal law in the pandemic response, which has led to a human tragedy and destroyed public trust.

Merck, the maker of the Gardasil vaccine, is the focus of this speech. The speaker claims that what they are about to say would be considered slanderous if untrue. They challenge Merck to sue them, but believe Merck won't because truth is a defense against slander in the United States. The speaker also suggests that if sued, they would request discovery, leading to the emergence of more documents exposing fraud committed by Merck on a global scale.

In 1986, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act removed liability from drug companies for vaccine-related injuries. Recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the COVID vaccine is not a true vaccine as it doesn't prevent disease or transmission. This could open up legal challenges against pharmaceutical companies, though the government may protect them. The outcome remains uncertain.

In the video, the speaker discusses the lack of accountability for vaccine manufacturers. They explain that in the 1980s, there were only three routine childhood vaccines, but now there are 17, with 14 being routine. The speaker highlights that the manufacturers convinced Congress to grant them immunity for any harm caused by their vaccines, leading to the National Childhood Vaccines Act in 1986. This immunity extends to future vaccines added to the childhood schedule. The speaker emphasizes that this level of immunity is not seen in other consumer products, which hold manufacturers accountable for any harm caused. They also mention that emergency youth vaccines, like the COVID-19 vaccine, have separate immunity under the PrEP Act. The speaker argues that this lack of liability disincentivizes safety and affects the conduct of clinical trials and post-market actions by pharmaceutical companies.

The speaker claims Pfizer committed the greatest crime against humanity in recorded history due to the scale and foreknowledge of harm. She states Pfizer knew within a month of the vaccine rollout in November 2020 that it didn't work to stop COVID, referring to internal language describing "vaccine failure" and "failure of efficacy." She claims the 3rd most common side effect in the documents is COVID. According to the speaker, mandates, job losses, family separations, deaths, injuries, and sterilizations were based on a lie. The speaker asserts that society was destroyed, children's education was ruined, depression and suicide levels increased, and businesses were destroyed, all based on a lie, resulting in a massive transfer of wealth.

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 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.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify and restate the speaker’s claimed credentials (or lack thereof). - Capture the core activity described (deposing leading vaccine experts) and the basis for claims (actual evidence). - Note the courtroom principle contrasting titles versus evidence. - Outline the asserted strategic actions (legal action against specific agencies) and purported results. - Preserve the exact claim about the outcome of the lawsuits regarding vaccine safety science. - Present statements verbatim where feasible, and otherwise closely paraphrase to retain meaning. - Avoid adding judgments, external context, or evaluative commentary. Summary: The speaker introduces himself as Mister Siri and immediately clarifies that he is not a medical doctor, and not an immunologist or biologist or any kind of vaccinologist. He adds that despite lacking these titles, he “depose[s] them regularly, including the world’s leading ones with regards to vaccines,” and that he must base his claims on “actual evidence.” In describing his courtroom approach, he asserts that when he goes to court regarding vaccines, “I don’t get to rely on titles.” He then recounts a proposed strategic path he characterizes as a “genius way forward”: “We’re gonna sue the government agencies, HHS, FDA, NIH,” and he states that “we started winning.” The narrative then turns to the alleged outcomes of those legal actions, posing the question, “And what did we prove in those lawsuits?” followed by the claimed conclusion: “That the entire science behind vaccine safety was nothing but a complete fraud.” Throughout, the speaker frames the process as a shift from deference to credentials to a reliance on evidence obtained through deposition and litigation, culminating in purported victories against major federal health agencies. He presents the lawsuits as the mechanism by which the foundational science of vaccine safety was challenged, and he asserts that the result of these proceedings is a definitive statement that the science underpinning vaccine safety is fraudulent, as claimed within the transcript’s courtroom-centered account. The emphasis remains on the contrast between claimed authority and evidence-based legal challenges, as well as on the asserted procedural successes and the sweeping conclusion about vaccine-safety science.

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.

In the video, the speaker discusses the lack of accountability for vaccine manufacturers. They explain that in the 1980s, there were only three routine childhood vaccines, but now there are 17, with 14 being routine. The speaker highlights that the manufacturers convinced Congress to grant them immunity for any harm caused by their vaccines, leading to the National Childhood Vaccines Act in 1986. This immunity extends to future vaccines added to the childhood schedule. The speaker emphasizes that this level of immunity is not seen in other consumer products, which holds manufacturers accountable for any harm caused. They also mention that emergency youth vaccines, like the COVID-19 vaccine, have separate immunity under the PrEP Act. The speaker argues that this lack of liability disincentivizes safety and affects the conduct of clinical trials and post-market actions by pharmaceutical companies.

A Michigan judge ruled that a drug manufacturer and hospital are not protected by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act in a case where a man experienced strokes and a leg amputation after receiving contaminated Remdesivir. This is the first time a judge has ruled against the protection provided by the PREP Act. The lawsuit alleges breach of warranty, negligence, and gross negligence. The patient received 5 doses of Remdesivir, 2 of which were from contaminated lots. He experienced strokes and was later diagnosed with bruises and swelling. The drug manufacturer, Gilead, issued a voluntary recall of the contaminated lots after receiving customer complaints. The patient and his family were not notified until 4 months later. This case highlights the devastating consequences of negligence and greed in the pharmaceutical industry.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they personally administered any COVID-19 vaccinations and informs them they may be personally liable and prosecuted under the Nuremberg Code. Speaker 0 claims COVID was a hoax and the shots are for depopulation, having killed or permanently disabled millions. Speaker 1 states the company is liable, not them, because they made sure beforehand that the company would take responsibility and support them administering the shots.

The speaker states that many people have been injured by the COVID vaccine, some fatally or permanently disabled, and that these people are not receiving sufficient care or attention. The speaker says that the 1986 Vaccine Act is a major impediment to change. According to the speaker, Congress recognized that vaccines were "unavoidably unsafe" when it granted vaccine companies immunity, so it created a federal program with a trust fund to compensate those injured. The program is funded by a 75% surcharge on every vaccine. The speaker says the vaccine court is supposed to be generous and fast, but the speaker believes the lawyers defaulted to protecting the trust fund instead of taking care of people. The speaker says the program has paid out over $5 billion to about 12,000 people. The speaker says they are looking at ways to enlarge the program so that COVID vaccine-injured people can be compensated, including enlarging the statute of limitations.

A Michigan jury awarded a woman $1 million after she was fired for not taking the vaccine, highlighting the need for accountability in the vaccine industry. There's a call to strip vaccine makers of their blanket immunity, arguing that it's unfair they cannot be sued while others face liability in business. The speaker expresses frustration over the lack of transparency in government and vaccine trials, insisting that if the government is hiding information, it likely indicates wrongdoing. They advocate for restoring honesty through transparency, emphasizing that the public deserves to know how their money is being used.

The speaker states they searched for years for a pre-licensing safety trial of the 72 vaccine doses effectively mandated for American children. They claim that every other medication requires a safety trial comparing health outcomes in a placebo group versus a vaccine group before FDA licensing. The speaker assumed this was also done for vaccines. They state they found out that vaccines were exempt from this requirement.

The speaker acknowledges the risks of their actions but believes that exposing the truth is worth it. They are prepared to face imprisonment and are confident that the world will support them. The IT worker accused of accessing sensitive health data and spreading misinformation about vaccine-related deaths appears in court. The health agency is working to recover the data and reassure the public about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine. The speaker lists several cases of individuals who allegedly died after receiving the vaccine. They express their willingness to be targeted and emphasize that their goal is to stop the situation.

A lawsuit is in jury trial regarding hospital protocols where a young woman with Down syndrome was allegedly euthanized. According to the speaker, the hospital gave her a DNR order, even though she didn't have one. The speaker claims this is because the hospital needed the bed and believed she was going to die anyway. The patient was in the hospital for COVID. The speaker alleges that hospitals gave patients morphine and insulin to kill them. In this specific case, the hospital gave the patient a DNR, meaning if she appeared to be dying, no action would be taken. The family is suing for battery to circumvent the PREP Act, which protects doctors and hospitals from wrongdoing during COVID. The trial started in Wisconsin.

I'm in Helsinki to give a witness statement in a case against the Finnish government and a catering company for human rights violations related to the COVID pass. We aim to fight for freedom against medical tyranny. This is a unique case globally where the government is being sued. We are determined to expose corporate crimes and mistakes in history. Though we can't film the court, the transcript will be available. Let's stand up for freedom and justice.

A lawsuit is in jury trial regarding hospital protocols where a young woman with Down syndrome was allegedly euthanized. According to the speaker, the hospital gave her a DNR order, even though she didn't have one. The speaker claims this is because "they need the bed" and "they're gonna die anyway." The patient was in the hospital for COVID. The speaker alleges that hospitals gave patients morphine and insulin to kill them. In this case, the hospital allegedly gave the patient a DNR (do not resuscitate) order. The family is suing for battery to get around the PREP Act, which protects doctors and hospitals from wrongdoing during COVID. The trial started in Wisconsin.

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.

The speaker questions the profits made by the company from government subsidies and opioids. They accuse the company of lying about the addictive nature of opioids and causing the opioid crisis. The speaker highlights the company's billion-dollar settlements and expresses outrage at their attempts to limit liability. They emphasize the importance of private rights of action and the need to hold big corporations accountable. The speaker mentions a significant jury verdict and the fear it instills in companies. They call for more Americans to have recourse in court and changes to the bankruptcy code to prevent companies from avoiding accountability.