TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Omar Sheikh, representing Kayla Pollock and Dan Hartman, is pursuing multimillion-dollar lawsuits against Pfizer and Moderna in Canada. Dan Hartman's case stems from the death of his son, Sean, 33 days post-vaccination. The lawsuit alleges wrongful death and negligence, seeking justice and answers regarding the cause of death. They aim to access Pfizer's clinical trial documents through discovery, which were sealed for 75 years in the US. Kayla Pollock's case involves a severe reaction to the Moderna vaccine, leaving her wheelchair-bound. They are suing Moderna in both the US and Canada, alleging she deserves justice and compensation. This case is further along, with Moderna responding to the claim and discovery set to begin. Sheikh emphasizes that Canadian purchase contracts with vaccine manufacturers do not provide the same legislative immunity as in the US. He is funding Kayla's case and is committed to fighting for justice, despite potential financial challenges. He believes in freedom of choice and informed consent regarding vaccines, highlighting the importance of accountability when injuries occur after being told the vaccines are safe and effective.

Kansas is filing a civil suit against Pfizer under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act for misleading statements in marketing its COVID-19 vaccine, violating previous consent judgments. This is the first of a multistate collaboration. The suit alleges Pfizer marketed its vaccine as safe for pregnant women, despite possessing reports of adverse events and miscarriages in pregnant women who received the vaccine, and a study suggesting links to infertility in rats. Pfizer denied links between its vaccine and myocarditis/pericarditis, even though the US government, military, and foreign governments had found such a connection. Pfizer claimed its vaccine protected against variants, but data showed it was effective less than half the time. Pfizer urged vaccination to protect loved ones, implying it stopped transmission, but later admitted it never studied transmission. Pfizer allegedly coordinated with social media platforms to censor critical speech. Pfizer declined Operation Warp Speed funding to avoid government oversight. By February 2024, Pfizer delivered over 3.3 million vaccine doses in Kansas, accounting for over 60% of all doses given. The suit focuses on deceptive marketing, not injury claims, as vaccine manufacturers have federal immunity for tort suits.

The speakers discuss a contract between Pfizer and Canada regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. They claim that the contract reveals that the government knew the vaccine's safety and efficacy were unknown and that adverse effects were possible. They criticize Trudeau for distancing himself from the contract and accuse the government of lying and covering up the truth. The speakers also mention that the contract lacks anti-bribery and anti-corruption sections and highlight concerns about the vaccine's potential risks and uncertainties. They express their belief that the government's actions are criminal and express a desire to hold them accountable.

The Alberta government's COVID-19 response review calls for an immediate halt to modified RNA vaccines, particularly for children. The report, commissioned by Premier Danielle Smith, highlights significant data gaps regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness, citing alarming statistics from Pfizer's post-authorization trial, including over 1,200 deaths and 42,000 injuries. It criticizes the abandonment of Alberta's pandemic plan and urges a return to localized approaches. Recommendations include halting vaccine use without full risk disclosure, further research, and establishing support for vaccine-injured individuals. The review raises concerns about the lack of long-term safety data and the high risk of adverse events, particularly in young, healthy populations. It emphasizes the need for transparency and informed choice in future vaccination initiatives.

Kansas is filing a civil suit against Pfizer under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act for misleading marketing of its COVID-19 vaccine. This lawsuit, part of a multistate collaboration, highlights several deceptive practices. Pfizer falsely claimed its vaccine was safe for pregnant women, despite data showing adverse events and miscarriages. It denied links between its vaccine and heart conditions like myocarditis, despite evidence to the contrary. Pfizer also misrepresented the vaccine's effectiveness against variants and claimed it prevented transmission without conducting relevant studies. Additionally, Pfizer coordinated with social media to censor criticism of its vaccine. This suit follows Pfizer delivering over 3.3 million vaccine doses in Kansas, accounting for over 60% of the state's total. The case aims to address misleading marketing practices, as vaccine manufacturers have immunity from tort suits for injuries.

The speakers discuss a contract between Pfizer and Canada, highlighting that it shows the government knew the vaccine's safety and efficacy were unknown. They criticize Trudeau for distancing himself from the contract and accuse the government of lying and covering up the truth. The speakers also mention that the contract lacks accountability and mention the issue of serialization. They argue that forcing people to take the vaccine without complete clinical trials is criminal. They express their belief that the government is evil and express their mission to expose and hold them accountable. The speakers also discuss the gender issue, batch differences, and the risks and uncertainties mentioned in the contract. They conclude by mentioning the removal of anti-bribery and anti-corruption sections from the contract.

The speaker claims adverse events from the vaccine rollout were covered up and dismissed as rare and coincidental. They state that regulators approved the vaccines based on relative risk data (95%), which they describe as misleading, while the absolute risk reduction was only 0.84%, meaning 120 people had to be vaccinated to prevent one infection. The speaker alleges that Pfizer has 31 convictions, including withholding data, presenting false data, and bribing clinicians and regulators. They claim over 100 doctors have written to various health organizations, including the NHS and MHRA, about the vaccine program, but received only one response. The speaker concludes that science is dead because discussion, analysis, and debate are no longer allowed, and decisions are being made without scientific basis.

COVID-19 genetic injections allegedly cause more harm than good, offering no benefit for the young and healthy, and do not reduce infection. Data purportedly shows vaccinated individuals are more likely to be infected, diseased, or die compared to the unvaccinated. These treatments can damage the heart, brain, reproductive tissue, and lungs, potentially causing permanent immune system damage. Pfizer allegedly did not test the vaccine on stopping transmission before market release. COVID vaccines are described as toxic, lethal, ineffective, and harmful, damaging the brain, heart, liver, and bone marrow. Misinformation from the CDC, FDA, and medical organizations is allegedly causing death and injury, especially in women of reproductive age and pre-born babies. The spike protein produced by the vaccines may never leave the body. Pharmaceutical companies allegedly withheld safety and effectiveness information, with the injections causing the expression of toxic spike protein that distributes widely and has no built-in limit. Clinical trials showed questionable practices, including unblinding and subject removal suggestive of fraud. The vaccines are allegedly killing large numbers of people and fulfill causality criteria for causing death. Illegal advertising of vaccines as safe and effective, without mentioning risks, violates advertising laws. Charges of fraud and mass negligent homicide are suggested due to wrongful advertising, defrauding the country, lack of early treatment, and vaccine-induced deaths.

Behind the scenes communications from the BC Centre for Disease Control revealed that COVID-19 vaccines were 16 times more dangerous than flu shots for children. The data was manipulated before being released to the public, omitting comparisons to flu vaccines and downplaying serious adverse events. This lack of transparency raises concerns about health regulators withholding vital information from the public.

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.

No successful coronavirus vaccine has been made. Gene-based vaccines were tested on animals, leading to sickness and death. Despite concerns about safety and lack of long-term data, Canada continued vaccine rollout. A doctor raised safety concerns, was reprimanded for causing vaccine hesitancy, and saw neurological issues in patients post-vaccination. Questions to health authorities went unanswered, leading to a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Kansas is filing a civil suit against Pfizer under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act for misleading marketing of its COVID-19 vaccine. This lawsuit, part of a multistate initiative, highlights several deceptive claims made by Pfizer. Key allegations include misrepresenting the vaccine's safety for pregnant women, downplaying the connection to heart conditions like myocarditis, overstating effectiveness against variants, and falsely claiming it prevented transmission. Additionally, Pfizer coordinated with social media to censor criticism of its vaccine. Despite federal immunity from tort suits, Pfizer is still accountable for misleading marketing practices. The suit aims to hold Pfizer accountable for its actions, which contributed to the distribution of over 3.3 million vaccine doses in Kansas.

The Kansas Attorney General is suing Pfizer for violating the Kansas Consumer Protection Act by making misleading claims about its COVID-19 vaccine. The suit alleges Pfizer misrepresented the vaccine's safety, particularly for pregnant women. While vaccine manufacturers have immunity from injury lawsuits, they aren't protected from liability for misrepresentation. The Attorney General claims Pfizer advertised the vaccine as safe for pregnant women despite knowing of risks. He states that Pfizer possessed information as early as February 2021 regarding complications, including miscarriages in over 10% of cases, yet still promoted the vaccine as safe for pregnant women. The lawsuit focuses on Pfizer allegedly misrepresenting their product.

Today in The Netherlands, outside the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam, a landmark case brings senior government officials, major media figures, pharmaceutical leadership, and global policy actors together as defendants in a single COVID response case. Among those ordered to appear are Albert Baller, the CEO of Pfizer, the former Dutch prime minister, senior Dutch health ministers, leading figures from the Dutch media, and Bill Gates. This makes the case extraordinary. On March 9, an important step is happening at the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. This hearing is not the main trial. The main trial is proceeding, and Bill Gates, if not appearing in person, must have representation and offer a defense. Today’s hearing concerns a procedural question: should the court allow an appeal against an earlier decision that blocked a request for preliminary evidence? In simple terms, the claimants ask the court for permission to present and examine expert evidence early before the trial, to have experts testify, documents examined, and key scientific and legal claims tested through cross examination. The lower court refused that request. The Amsterdam Court Of Appeal is being asked to decide whether that refusal should itself be reviewed. This hinges on the right to have evidence examined in public. If the appeal is allowed, expert testimony and scrutiny of the evidence could proceed; if refused, the claimants must continue without that preliminary examination. The reason for this hearing traces to the main lawsuit, begun in July 2023. Seven Dutch citizens filed a civil case in a district court, claiming they were misled about the nature of the COVID threat and about the safety and necessity of COVID vaccines. They argue that government officials, public health authorities, pharmaceutical executives, and major media figures promoted a narrative that induced fear and compliance based on unscientific claims of a novel pathogen called COVID nineteen. They claim these representations caused them to take vaccines and to suffer psychological and physical harm. The claimants describe a tort claim: the defendants breached a duty of care owed to the public by providing false or misleading information that resulted in damage. They seek two things: a declaration that the defendants acted unlawfully and compensation for the harm. Before the trial proceeds, the claimants asked for the evidence behind those claims to be examined in court, hence the provisional evidence request and today’s appeal. Central to the request are expert witnesses from multiple disciplines addressing scientific, legal, psychological, and institutional dimensions. The experts include Catherine Watt (legal researcher in public health law), Sasha Latipova (pharmaceutical regulatory processes), Doctor Joseph Sansone (psychologist studying crisis messaging and behavioral compliance), Catherine Austin Fitz (financial analyst on institutional power structures and global policy networks), and Doctor Mike Yeadon (English pharmacologist, former Pfizer VP). Yeadon has argued that the safety narrative surrounding the vaccines is challenged, claiming inadequate testing and concerns about toxicity. The point of a court is that such claims should be tested under cross examination, not dismissed without scrutiny. Allowing this appeal would enable the evidence to be heard and tested in public, with broader implications beyond the Netherlands, potentially influencing accountability, transparency, and public trust in other jurisdictions. What happens here may influence debates about open scrutiny of evidence in courts elsewhere. The speaker closes with a personal note, recalling six years spent fighting misinformation and supporting the truth be told campaign for COVID jabbed, injured, and bereaved, and underscoring that this case concerns justice in action, public scrutiny, and accountability for powerful institutions.

Kansas is filing a civil suit against Pfizer under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, seeking penalties and damages for misleading marketing of its COVID-19 vaccine. This lawsuit is part of a multistate effort involving five states. The complaint details several misleading claims, including that the vaccine was safe for pregnant women despite evidence of adverse events and miscarriages. Pfizer also denied links between its vaccine and heart conditions like myocarditis, despite known risks. Additionally, Pfizer claimed its vaccine was effective against variants and could stop transmission, but later admitted it had not studied transmission. The suit emphasizes that Pfizer's misleading statements contributed to its vaccine's success in Kansas, where over 3.3 million doses were administered. The case focuses on marketing practices, asserting that Pfizer's actions violated its obligation to provide truthful information.

Kansas is suing Pfizer for deceptive marketing of its COVID-19 vaccine, violating previous agreements. Pfizer misled on safety for pregnant women, heart conditions, variant protection, and transmission. They censored criticism and avoided government oversight. Despite this, Pfizer delivered over 3.3 million doses in Kansas. This lawsuit is the first of a potential multistate effort.

Kansas is filing a civil suit against Pfizer under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act for misleading marketing of its COVID-19 vaccine. This lawsuit, part of a multistate effort, highlights several deceptive claims made by Pfizer. Key issues include claims of vaccine safety for pregnant women, despite evidence of adverse events and miscarriages; denial of a link between the vaccine and heart conditions like myocarditis; overstated effectiveness against COVID-19 variants; and false assertions about preventing virus transmission. Additionally, Pfizer coordinated with social media to censor criticism of its vaccine. Despite federal immunity from tort suits, Pfizer is still obligated to avoid misleading the public in its marketing practices. The suit aims to hold Pfizer accountable for its deceptive statements.

A class action lawsuit is being launched in Federal Court on behalf of 700 unvaccinated Canadians. The lawsuit has three different classes of plaintiffs. The employment subclass is for those who lost their jobs due to vaccine mandates. The travel subclass is for people who couldn't travel for work or personal reasons. The dual impact class is for those who fall into both categories. The case could involve a significant amount of money depending on the number of people who join. Those interested in joining the lawsuit can contact the law firm directly through their website at gwslp.ca.

I recently met someone whose 18-year-old daughter developed cancer after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. I've heard from many parents who lost children to these injections, some experiencing immediate and horrific deaths. They repeatedly share their stories with lawmakers, highlighting a significant crime that must end. The FDA was aware of the potential cancer risks associated with these vaccines, as outlined in guidance documents from 2013 and 2015. These documents instructed manufacturers to study risks like cancer, fertility issues, and cardiovascular problems, and deemed it unethical to test on healthy volunteers. Yet, by 2020, these concerns were seemingly overlooked. This raises serious suspicions about the intentions behind the vaccine rollout, suggesting a premeditated crime where regulators and the military may have colluded with pharmaceutical companies.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

The Alberta government approved COVID vaccines for children despite no evidence of threat. Unexplained deaths in children are up 350%. One parent shared their daughter's health issues post-vaccination, including mouth and scalp burning, tachycardia, and chronic fatigue. Another parent's son died after receiving the vaccine, experiencing symptoms like vomiting and a rash. Seven months after a child's death, the family still awaits the official cause from the government due to a backlog in investigations.

Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, and AstraZeneca are accused of withholding safety information and causing deaths. The vaccines distribute toxic spike proteins throughout the body, contrary to what was claimed. Clinical trials were flawed, with unblinded studies and data manipulation. Companies misled about safety and efficacy, offering little virus protection.

Kansas is filing a civil suit against Pfizer under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act for misleading statements in marketing its COVID-19 vaccine, violating previous consent judgments. This is the first of a multistate collaboration. The suit alleges Pfizer marketed its vaccine as safe for pregnant women, despite possessing reports of adverse events and miscarriages in vaccinated pregnant women, and a study suggesting links to infertility in rats. Pfizer denied links between its vaccine and myocarditis/pericarditis, even though government sources had found such a connection. The suit claims Pfizer overstated the vaccine's effectiveness against variants and implied it stopped transmission without having studied this. Pfizer allegedly coordinated with social media platforms to censor critical speech. Pfizer declined federal vaccine development funding to avoid government oversight. By February 2024, Pfizer had delivered over 3.3 million vaccine doses in Kansas, accounting for over 60% of all doses given. The suit focuses on deceptive marketing practices, not injury claims, as vaccine manufacturers have federal immunity for those.

Dan Hartman's lawsuit against the Canadian government was dismissed; the court ruled the government owes no duty of care to its citizens regarding public health decisions, even if those decisions involve coercing citizens into medical procedures. This stems from the death of Hartman's 17-year-old son, Sean, who died 33 days after receiving a Pfizer COVID jab. Sean was hospitalized shortly after the jab, but a doctor allegedly failed to perform necessary tests (d-dimer and troponin) and sent him home. Hartman's attempts to sue the doctor were also dismissed, and his claim to the Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) was denied due to insufficient evidence, though it is under appeal. The lawsuit alleged the government made false claims about vaccine safety and efficacy and failed to properly warn the public about potential adverse effects. The judge stated the government's representations were core policy decisions made during a pandemic to protect the public. The lawsuit against Pfizer can continue. There are concerns about airborne vaccines and the government funding research on transmissible vaccines.

100 Canadian children have died after receiving Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, but this information is being covered up. Many kids were mandated vaccines to play sports. No one is taking responsibility for these deaths, with Health Canada, public health officials, and medical organizations all denying any deaths from the vaccines. The speaker has reported on these deaths on social media, leading to attempts to shut down their accounts.