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.

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.

Former vice president of Pfizer, Speaker 1, shares his insights on the events of early 2020. He noticed inconsistencies in statements made by colleagues and realized something was amiss. The simultaneous lockdowns across multiple countries convinced him that this was a coordinated effort beyond the local level. Speaker 1 accuses those in power of lying and implementing ineffective measures. He believes that the vaccines being administered are intentionally harmful, based on his extensive experience in drug design. He is unafraid of legal action and challenges them to sue him, confident that he would win.

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.

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.

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.

Pfizer is quietly going bankrupt to avoid accountability and transfer their assets to shareholders who will invest in other companies like Google, Amazon, and Facebook. This means we probably won't get compensation from Pfizer. It's painful, but we need to rebuild our institutions and prevent this from happening to our children. We must stop injecting toxic substances into them. The first step is to remove mRNA vaccines from the market, recognize the victims of side effects, and provide effective treatments. If citizens, scientists, researchers, doctors, victims, and institutions come together, there's a chance it might work. We'll do everything we can, but there are no guarantees. However, peace and non-violence are unstoppable and bring joy.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 speaker claims Pfizer committed the greatest crime against humanity in recorded history due to the scale and foreknowledge of harm. They state Pfizer knew within three months of rollout that 1,225 people had died. The speaker alleges that by April 2021, Pfizer knew the injections were damaging minors' hearts, citing warnings from the Israeli health ministry and a pediatric group. Instead of informing the public, the speaker claims Pfizer held a "freak out conference" to plan how to lie to the American people, creating a 17-page script. This was allegedly followed by a summer-long propaganda campaign using influencers and TikTok personalities to promote injections among young people and teenagers.

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 discusses the legal implications of the emergency use authorization for COVID-19 vaccines. They claim that if felonies were committed during the authorization process, the liability shields protecting pharmaceutical companies and healthcare organizations would be nullified. They also mention cases of alleged vaccine-related deaths, including two teenage boys who died after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. The speaker criticizes the incentives offered to children to get vaccinated and questions the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. They accuse Anthony Fauci, Ralph Barrick, and Peter Daszak of colluding to weaponize the coronavirus and promote the use of Remdesivir, a drug with a high death rate. The speaker suggests that these actions amount to premeditated murder and calls for accountability.

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 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 claims to be the only person in the U.S. with a viable lawsuit against the PREP Act, which has shut down approximately 100 other lawsuits. The speaker's lawyer, Michael Connet, believes a loophole exists because the lawsuit is based on a contract with specific commitments that were allegedly not met. The court date is set for October 29th. The drug company's defense relies on the PREP Act. The speaker argues that because they were in a vaccine trial, the initial contract should hold the company responsible. The speaker believes this case could set a precedent and is fighting for all Americans who could face similar situations with vaccines or pharmaceuticals. They contend that fundamental constitutional rights, such as free speech and fair jury trial, should not be suspended for public health or pharmaceutical profits.

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.