reSee.it - 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

The discussion centers on a Dutch civil litigation in which Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, and Marc Rutemp (Marc Rutza) are named as individual defendants in cases linked to “Project COVID” and broad pandemic preparedness efforts years before the 2020 pandemic. Key facts asserted: - The defendants are plaintiffs in civil tort litigation filed in the Netherlands around 2023. Two cases exist: an older 2023 case and a second case involving additional plaintiffs. The Dutch approach allows individuals to be named as defendants in civil tort actions. - Gates and Bourla (and Rutza) have appeared as defendants; Gates attempted to avoid jurisdiction, but the Amsterdam court ruled that Gates and Bourla, as individuals, respond to the case. They have not appeared in court personally, but their lawyers appear on their behalf. - On March 9, an appeal hearing occurred in Amsterdam at the Court of Appeals, with extensive public attendance (about 60 journalists, podcasters, and plaintiffs). The hearing was described as explosive; a single attorney, Peter Stassen, presented a long argument as co-counsel had been imprisoned and disbarred, leaving one attorney on a tight budget. A video of the proceedings and a standout speech went viral. - The plaintiffs allege the defendants conspired to create “Project COVID” and a “pandemic preparedness racket” years prior to 2020. The core claim is that Gates, Bourla, Rutza, along with others, collaborated with private NGOs, the military, NATO, and DOD through a DARPA-linked pandemic program to identify pandemic potential viruses and to develop vaccines and therapeutics within sixty days, with funding from the DOD. - Evidence cited includes a 2017 AstraZeneca tape in which a key AstraZeneca executive states that DARPA approached them in 2017 to join a consortium to identify pandemic viruses and deliver vaccines within sixty days; the response was, “I thought it was science fiction.” The tape is part of an evidence package showing pre-2020 planning. - February 4, 2020 is highlighted as a crucial date: a telephone call from DARPA indicating COVID was declared a national security threat, followed by retroactive emergency declarations around March 2020. A February 4, 2020 conference was scheduled, with widespread communications among government, military, HHS, and CDC; the aim was to secure liability protection for pharmaceutical countermeasures during a declared emergency. - The defense includes the assertion that the public-private partnership extended to many companies (including 300 others) that joined the consortium, with U.S. and European regulatory synchronization through mutual recognition agreements. - The alleged motives are primarily framed as profits and control, with references to a long-standing history of military involvement in vaccine development and public health measures, including the PREP Act in the U.S. and parallel European countermeasures frameworks that waive liability and regulatory requirements during declared emergencies. The PREP Act’s role — especially in the U.S. — is discussed as shielding manufacturers from liability, with European frameworks described as allowing similar protections through contracts and synchronized countermeasures legislation. - Expert testimonies: five experts have provided evidence supporting foreknowledge and intentional deception by government health officials and the named defendants. Sasha Ladopova and Catherine Watt contributed written testimonies; Ladopova references foreknowledge by health regulators, and the broader regulatory harmonization across EMA and FDA. - Francis Boyle, a professor known for work on bioweapons law, testified that the vaccines/metas could be viewed as bioweapons; he died three weeks after agreeing to testify. - Injuries to plaintiffs: in the initial case, seven injured plaintiffs with one death; the second case added three more plaintiffs. Injuries cited include cardiovascular inflammation, autoimmune conditions, and cancer; plaintiffs contend their lives were destroyed by the countermeasures, while regulators and manufacturers allegedly denied injuries and deaths. What happens next: - An October 22 hearing in the lower court in Lewarden (The Netherlands) is planned, with a public in-person event and a press conference. - The appeal on the second case seeks to have expert witnesses heard under oath; the prior lower court denied this, and the higher court’s decision is anticipated (with expectations of denial, according to the interview). - The campaign invites public interest and financial support; the foundation in the Netherlands funds the case, and the English-language YouTube channel is available for updates and evidence. Contact points for following the case include Sasha Ladopova’s Substack and the Dutch foundation’s YouTube channel and materials.

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.

Speaker 0: They argue that because the vaccine is classified as such, they don’t have to worry about being sued. They claim immunity from liability is dependent on there being no fraud, and there clearly was fraud. Speaker 1: They say there is fraud. They note that immunity from liability depends on fraud, and in light of that, it matters. They explain that there was fraud. Speaker 0: Expresses surprise and asks for caveats about fraud. Acknowledges there were caveats. Speaker 1: Confirms there is fraud and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0: Asks how fraud is defined, noting that drugs were sold with multiple studies and only one was good. Speaker 1: Responds with a point about safety testing for the mRNA vaccines. States that the insufficient safety testing was done before release, and that the product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids. There is massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter from simian virus 40. The point is that safety testing for one drug was completed, but people were injected with something different that had other components that were not tested, which is described as fraudulent. Speaker 0: Requests an explanation of the SV40 issue for the audience. Speaker 1: Describes production techniques used to generate the product. Explains that a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, was used to produce the product in vats, with bacteria performing the production, later coated in lipid nanoparticle. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for DNA contamination, with limits that cannot be exceeded. In this case, the problem isn’t only poor quality control but that there was a more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. Consequently, leftover material in vials injected into people contained DNA contamination across the board. Kevin McKernan tested vials, finding DNA contamination in the samples. Speaker 1: Explains that the DNA left over includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is known to be carcinogenic. Since this promoter is left in the vials from injections given to people, it challenges the claim that the mRNA shots could not integrate into the genome. While acknowledging that there are cellular processes such as reverse transcription, the speaker asserts that even the claim of “no DNA” is false because there is DNA in the vials, specifically DNA with the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. The speaker concludes that this appears to be fraud: injecting a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was conducted with a product produced by a different process. Speaker 0: Reiterates the conclusion: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was done with something produced by a different process.

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.

Dr. Joseph Sanson, a Florida psychotherapist and licensed mental health counselor who litigates pro se, contends that the COVID-19 mRNA injections are biological and technological weapons of mass destruction and argues Florida should stop facilitating these injections and related products. He frames his effort as part of a broader effort to stop what he calls a bioweapon program tied to the pandemic. Background and filings - Sanson began in May 2021, working about 18 months to pass a band of jab resolution at the county level declaring mRNA COVID injections to be biological and technological weapons of mass destruction and urging action by the governor and attorney general. He claims that he got these resolutions passed in about 10 Florida counties, in Idaho, and in Arizona, and that they influenced the Florida Surgeon General to call for a halt to injections in early 2024. - He notes that the Florida Department of Health has said these mRNA injections are unsafe for humans and a potential threat to the human genome. - On 04/01/2023, while advancing these resolutions, Sanson says he suffered congestive heart failure and later underwent a triple bypass on 04/10/2023. He says he tried to rely on unvaccinated blood for surgery and consulted Dr. Francis Boyle, who helped endorse his band-and-jab resolution. Boyle is described as the author of the U.S. domestic implementation legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention; Boyle died about two months after Sanson filed his December 2024 case, which Sanson says prejudiced his case. - Sanson’s first mandamus filing claimed the governor and attorney general were violating Florida statute 797.166 (as he asserts). The court found the writ of mandamus improper (ministerial duty limit) and he lost the appeal. Second case and remedies sought - On 12/01/2024 Sanson filed a second case seeking an injunction and declaratory relief, arguing that his April 2023 medical events and exposures were the result of involuntary environmental exposure through shedding of the technology in the injections. - He characterizes his hospital stay, the decision to obtain unvaccinated blood, and Boyle’s involvement as part of this exposure theory. He says the case includes an 80-page complaint with 50–64 pages of affidavits, including nine affidavits up front and two more recently. - One key affidavit is from Francis Boyle, whose affidavit is described as not only expert legal opinion but legislative intent, given Boyle’s role in crafting the U.S. domestic implementation legislation for the biological weapons conventions. - The World Council for Health in Florida endorsed Sanson’s bill, and a 2025 paper titled COVID-19 Harms and Damages (COVID-19 harms and damages, non-exhaustive conclusion) is cited as stating that both the virus and the vaccine violated the Biological Weapons Convention; the paper has 11 coauthors, including doctors Villa, Zivjic, McCullough, and Maverkakis. Evidence and theory of harm - Sanson cites studies and affidavits suggesting shedding of the mRNA technology, transmission to unvaccinated individuals (including women), and possible environmental exposure from intimate contact or proximity. He references an Israeli study showing transmission of mRNA components to unvaccinated women and notes reports of menstrual-cycle interference and other immune effects. - He argues that involuntary environmental exposure through shedding constitutes a dangerous threat warranting injunctive relief under Florida Health Freedom Act and Civil Rights Act, as well as constitutional protections. He contends the Florida Surgeon General’s statements and the 2025 paper support these positions. - He also argues that the vaccines are illegal gain-of-function products, with derivatives of the spike protein present in injections, demonstrating specific intent; he cites Boyle’s arguments on gain-of-function, dual-use technology, and knowingness. He invokes malice of forethought (reckless disregard for human life) and informed consent issues, arguing there was zero informed consent for a bioweapon. Legal strategy and procedural posture - Sanson says his strongest immediate legal avenue is the Health Freedom Act, along with Civil Rights Act and constitutional provisions, rather than relying on the Weapons of Mass Destruction statute alone, which he dropped in an amended complaint. He argues the illness and exposure could violate civil and constitutional rights and that discovery is needed to develop evidence. - He claims the defense has not adequately addressed the merits, focusing on procedural arguments. He asserts there are procedural errors and seeks a new judge and evidentiary development, including testimony from multiple experts (Villa, Zeviets, Mihalchia) and the Surgeon General Ladapo under oath. - He has sought to reassign the case to a different judge due to perceived bias and past rulings; he notes the prior judge’s decision in a related whistleblower case against the Surgeon General. The Netherlands case and cross-border dimension - Sanson is involved as a witness in the Netherlands case against Bill Gates and Albert Borla of Pfizer, coordinated by Sasha Ladopova. The Netherlands appellate court limited live testimony, but Sanson has provided written statements and affidavits. A trial hearing in The Netherlands was set for October 22 in the cited case. Next steps - Sanson is pursuing an oral-argument motion for live, livestreamed proceedings; a decision is pending, potentially in September. He hopes for evidentiary development and more cases to challenge the PREP Act and related immunities. - He emphasizes public engagement and urges others to seek cases in other states or countries to push discovery and accountability. Overall, Sanson presents a narrative linking the mRNA vaccines to environmental shedding and alleged bioweapon characteristics, backed by affidavits, peer papers, and testimonies, and seeks injunctive relief in Florida and collaborative proceedings in Europe to halt the use and distribution of the injections.