reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker asserts that "the state, however you define that, the military, CDC, Tony Fauci, Ralph Barack at the University of North Carolina created a weaponized virus. Correct? Gain of function research. They contracted it out to China, and it caused a pandemic around the world once it was released. The government created a weaponized virus that then got out and caused a global pandemic." They ask, "When are we gonna have accountability for that?" They seek accountability for "the COVID era," and for "the CDC has known since 1999 that vaccines cause autism, and they've covered it up for twenty six years." They ask, "How do we begin to have accountability?" and conclude, "You want to call it something different? Truth Commissions, criminal trials? You're I would love to comparing"

Speaker 0 argues that anyone can file a complaint with a law enforcement authority for murder conspiracy and demand arrests and prosecutions. He points to a 2013 press release claiming that DARPA awarded Moderna Therapeutics up to $25,000,000 to develop messenger RNA therapeutics, noting that DARPA is the Pentagon and claiming the Pentagon bought, paid for, and envisioned these mRNA shots. He contends Fort Detrick was involved in developing COVID-19 at the UNC BSL-3 and asserts the Pentagon is on both sides of the argument, developing the weapon and the alleged vaccines. Speaker 1 asks whether there is any liability shield for deploying a biowarfare weapon and whether the narrative about congressional liability for Pfizer is a SIOP. Speaker 0 agrees that civil liability is separate from criminal liability, stating in his book Resisting Medical Tyranny that executives at companies developing these mRNA shots are guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. He cites a Portugal report claiming that upwards of 300,000 Americans had been murdered by the mRNA Franken shots and invokes the JAB resolution, describing it as a Nuremberg crime against humanity and a violation of the Nuremberg Code. He defines a Nuremberg crime against humanity as murder, extermination, and other inhumane acts committed against civilians. Speaker 1 asks about liability for government officials who approved the vaccines. Speaker 0 says FDA officials who approved the shots could be indicted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder, noting the FDA’s involvement in developing COVID-19 as an offensive biological warfare weapon at UNC BSL-3, including a cited contract listing National Center for Toxicological Research and FDA as contributors. He claims the FDA, which approves the vaccines, was involved in this development. Speaker 1 questions the CDC and media accountability, noting the CDC’s recommendation of the vaccines and media promotion of boosters. Speaker 0 says the CDC, including Director Milensky (appointed by Biden, from Harvard Medical School), is complicit, and claims the CDC has a history dating back to the Reagan administration of handling offensive biological warfare projects, including shipping weaponized agents to Saddam Hussein with implications for U.S. troops after Gulf War I. Speaker 1 asks whether there are lawmakers with intel on gain-of-function biowarfare. Speaker 0 mentions Senator Rand Paul as having a strong understanding, but asserts that some lawmakers were threatened and obstructed after consulting him, recounting an experience with Walter Jones of the House Armed Services Committee who briefly engaged but then did not follow up, implying threats prevented action. Speaker 1 asks how citizens should respond, and Speaker 0 advocates reporting to sheriffs, district attorneys, and state attorneys, noting progress with a Collier County health freedom declaration. They discuss enforcement mechanisms, seizure, and incineration of stockpiles, and trial and sentencing for those responsible. Speaker 0 condemns China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology as a bioweapons lab, alleging it was a Chinese counterpart to Fort Detrick, with the Chinese president seeking his own BSL-4 program and an offensive biowarfare arsenal. Speaker 1 notes U.S. funding and international bioweapons labs, including Ukraine and Taiwan, and ends by referencing Lindsey Graham and a speaker labeled as a professor Boyle.

Four companies—Pfizer, Merck, Blackstone, and Sanofi—produce all 72 vaccines and have a history of criminal behavior. Over the last decade, they collectively paid $35 billion in penalties for falsifying science, defrauding regulators, and causing harm. Merck's Vioxx, marketed as a headache pill, led to the deaths of up to 500,000 Americans due to heart attacks, while the company profited despite paying $7 billion in fines. No one was jailed for these actions. It’s difficult to believe these companies, known for dishonesty in other products, are suddenly trustworthy with vaccines. In the U.S., a law passed in 1986 prevents individuals from suing vaccine manufacturers, regardless of negligence or harm caused.

The speaker discusses the layers of liability protection surrounding COVID-19 vaccines and questions why they are necessary if the vaccines are safe and effective. They mention a case against EcoHealth Alliance for allegedly creating the virus in a Wuhan lab with the help of the DOD and CIA. The speaker presents evidence, including military medical records, suggesting that COVID-19 may have been developed years before its official timeline. They also mention Pfizer documents discussing shedding and a study protocol related to gene therapy. The speaker emphasizes the need for further investigation into the involvement of the DOD and CIA and presents their evidence for consideration.

We're discussing one of the most horrific scandals in history, linked to the great lie of Hitler. It's astonishing how some members of the National Institutes of Health and the media seem to perpetuate this deception. Individuals like Gallo, Fauci, Hazeltine, and Essex are accused of serious wrongdoing, and I believe they are guilty of genocide. I challenge them to take legal action against me. Additionally, I call out Burroughs Wellcome for knowingly distributing a dangerous drug.

The US government's Department of Justice defends pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer in court cases, even when they are accused of withholding clinical trial data. This shows that the pharmaceutical companies are not in charge, but rather controlled by the Department of Defense and the government. While the pharmaceutical companies are also responsible for their actions and should be prosecuted, this collaboration between government and private corporations is a model of fascism. Pfizer has even used this alliance as a legal defense in a case where they are accused of defrauding the government. They argue that they delivered the fraud the government ordered.

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.

The speaker discusses the National Vaccine Injury Act and the PrEP Act, stating that felonies were committed in the process of emergency use authorization for vaccines. They argue that corporate liability shields protect pharmaceutical companies and healthcare organizations, but only if no felonies were committed. The speaker claims that felonies have been committed, including racketeering, lying to Congress, and homicide. They mention the mayor of New York City offering money to children for vaccination. Another speaker testifies that the vaccine is causing deaths, citing CDC data. They mention cases of teenagers dying after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. The speakers criticize the push for vaccination, claiming it is unnecessary and dangerous. They accuse Anthony Fauci, Ralph Barrick, and Peter Daszak of criminal actions. They discuss the dangers of Remdesivir and its connection to deaths. Legal action is being taken against hospitals and individuals involved in the vaccine rollout.

Pfizer is being accused of colluding with the US government and the Department of Defense in what is considered a war crime. However, the speaker believes that putting all the blame on pharmaceutical companies is a deliberate tactic. They argue that the truth will eventually be revealed, leading to repercussions. To divert attention, the speaker suggests that Pfizer will be portrayed as a corrupt capitalist company that bought off politicians and government officials. Pfizer will likely plead guilty to minor crimes through shell companies, paying fines that the government will distribute to themselves. The speaker emphasizes that this strategy protects those involved and shifts focus away from the actual crime committed.

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 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.

The speaker claims the DOD distributed COVID-19 vaccines and required absolute immunity, making it difficult to sue for damages without proving intentionality. They have a potential RICO claim, but litigation costs are prohibitive. They question why liability shields are needed if the vaccines are safe and effective. The speaker alleges EcoHealth Alliance and the CCP created SARS-CoV-2 in a Wuhan lab with the DOD or CIA's knowledge. They cite a study showing a 12 nucleotide sequence in a Moderna patent matching SARS-CoV-2, suggesting the disease was developed in the mid-2010s. The speaker presents military medical records showing a soldier receiving COVID-19 immunizations by Moderna in 2014, raising questions about the true history of COVID-19 and Operation Warp Speed. They claim the DOD and CIA were involved and asks to what extent and for how long. They also state they can show Pfizer documents discussing shedding and a study protocol based on oncolytic gene products for gene therapy shedding.

Four companies, Pfizer, Merck, Blackstone, and Sanofi, are responsible for producing all 72 vaccines. However, these companies have a history of criminal activity, collectively paying $35 billion in fines for falsifying science, defrauding regulators, lying to doctors, and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. For instance, Merck's product, Vioxx, was sold as a headache pill but caused heart attacks and killed around 120,500 Americans. Despite this, they only paid fines and faced no jail time. It is hard to believe that these companies, known for lying and cheating, are honest when it comes to vaccines. The vaccine industry is immune to lawsuits, making it the perfect place for these companies to avoid consequences.

The speaker discusses the layers of liability protection surrounding COVID-19 vaccines and questions why they are necessary if the vaccines are safe and effective. They mention a case against EcoHealth Alliance for allegedly creating the virus in a Wuhan lab with the help of the DOD and CIA. The speaker presents evidence, including military medical records, suggesting that COVID-19 may have been developed years before its official timeline. They also mention Pfizer documents discussing shedding and a study protocol related to gene therapy. The speaker emphasizes the need for further investigation into the involvement of the DOD and CIA and presents their evidence without drawing conclusions.

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.

The speaker discusses the layers of liability protection surrounding COVID-19 vaccines and questions the need for such protection if the vaccines are safe and effective. They mention a case against EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan lab, suggesting that the US government may have been involved in the creation of the virus. The speaker presents evidence, including military medical records, to support their claims. They also mention Pfizer documents discussing shedding and a study protocol related to gene therapy. The speaker emphasizes the importance of asking real questions and investigating the true history of COVID-19.

The speaker discusses the layers of liability protection surrounding COVID-19 vaccines and questions why they are necessary if the vaccines are safe and effective. They mention a case against EcoHealth Alliance for allegedly creating the virus in a Wuhan lab with the help of the DOD and CIA. The speaker presents evidence, including military medical records, suggesting that COVID-19 may have been developed years before its official timeline. They also mention Pfizer documents discussing shedding and a study protocol related to gene therapy. The speaker emphasizes the need for further investigation into the involvement of the DOD and CIA and presents their evidence without drawing conclusions.

The speakers discuss a broad denial about vaccine injuries and the idea that, despite evidence, the medical establishment and political figures push the narrative that vaccines are safe and effective. They claim that many people who are vaccinated want to move on and avoid acknowledging serious side effects, including turbo cancers, undetected myocarditis, and neurological issues, and that autoimmune disease is being attributed to other causes. They argue that the medical establishment, federal health agencies, and some members of Congress who produce supportive content, such as segments like Steve Colbert’s, advocate for taking the shot. They question how many people were killed or died from the shot, asserting that Bayer’s data shows “close[ly]” to thirty-nine thousand worldwide, and that if only ten percent are reported, the true number would be in the hundreds of thousands. They claim there are millions of adverse events, but that this is denied and covered up. The speakers contend that the shot was not a real vaccine. They describe it as gene therapy rather than a traditional vaccine. They explain a sequence in which a vaccine is typically an attenuated or killed virus that requires adjuvants like aluminum or mercury to stimulate the immune system, because the attenuated or killed virus may not work well on its own. In contrast, they say this shot is mRNA, which is modified so it does not degrade. They describe how it is put into a lipid nanoparticle designed to permeate barriers like the blood-brain barrier, and they assert it would never stay in the arm, distributing all over the body. They claim the lipid nanoparticle allows the mRNA to enter cells, hijack cellular structures, and cause the cells to express spike protein, which the body then attacks as foreign. When asked who is responsible, they reference a “doctor Frankenstein” figure and name Francis Collins, head of the NIH, and Anthony Fauci as possible figures in question. The response indicates that while they consider all of them criminally liable, they would say it is primarily Fauci, with acknowledgment that people like Collins are implicated as well.

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.

I'm asking if you will agree not to sue drug companies. I'm not agreeing to that. As secretary of HHS, you could influence lawsuits in many ways, such as promoting anti-vaccine views, appointing like-minded individuals, or changing vaccine schedules and compensation rules. You could even share FDA data with law firms for their benefit. I'm asking you to commit not to financially benefit from these lawsuits while serving as secretary. I will comply with ethical guidelines. You're trying to undermine vaccines. As secretary, you could harm vaccine access while profiting from it. I support vaccines and the childhood schedule; I just want good science. Then say you won't profit from your role as secretary.

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.

"Is if you type in died suddenly into Google, you'll find all the people who continuously keep dropping since 2020, since they've rolled out all these toxins and injections." "And guess what? All of the politicians, all of the puppets, all of the Muppets are playing us like violins." "They're just doing different things to try to make it seem like they're fixing things, but in reality, are dropping left and right every day." "And not a single lawsuit has gone against all of these pharmaceutical companies who continue to keep doing the same exact thing." "Why? 1986 Reagan Act." "You ever hear of that one? 1986 Reagan decided to pass a bill to protect all the vaccine companies from lawsuits."

The speaker discusses the layers of liability protection surrounding COVID-19 vaccines and questions why they are necessary if the vaccines are safe and effective. They mention a case against EcoHealth Alliance for allegedly creating the virus in a Wuhan lab with the help of the DOD and CIA. The speaker presents evidence, including military medical records, suggesting that COVID-19 may have been developed years before its official timeline. They also mention Pfizer documents discussing shedding and a study protocol related to gene therapy. The speaker emphasizes the need for further investigation into the involvement of the DOD and CIA in the creation of COVID-19.

The speaker discusses the layers of liability protection surrounding COVID-19 vaccines and questions why they are necessary if the vaccines are safe and effective. They mention a case against EcoHealth Alliance for allegedly creating the virus in a Wuhan lab with the help of the DOD and CIA. The speaker presents evidence, including military medical records, suggesting that COVID-19 may have been developed years before its official timeline. They also mention Pfizer documents discussing shedding and a study protocol related to gene therapy. The speaker emphasizes the need for further investigation into the involvement of the DOD and CIA and presents their evidence for consideration.