TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In January 2021, Brooke Jackson filed a lawsuit against Pfizer, claiming that she witnessed the company defraud the US government by lacking oversight in the making and distribution of vaccines. She was particularly concerned about the absence of clinical trials and safety protocols. Pfizer countered the lawsuit by stating that the US government was already aware of the lack of clinical trials and safety protocols. They provided evidence in the form of a base agreement, stating that there was no legal obligation to conduct valid clinical trials because the government's payment was for a large-scale manufacturing demonstration, not for clinical trials.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They wanted a clear yes or no answer and requested the data to be shared with the committee. In response, it was stated that no, they did not have knowledge about stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market. They had to act quickly.

Pfizer in the UK breached regulations by promoting unlicensed medicines on social media, leading to a £30,000 fine. This ruling may pave the way for citizens to pursue legal action against Pfizer for vaccine injuries. The UK's compensation system for vaccine injuries could make it easier for affected individuals to seek recourse. The Telegraph highlighted the safety concerns surrounding the injections, potentially fueling lawsuits against Pfizer.

We are taking precautions to protect our team members from COVID-19 to avoid any interruptions or wastage of vaccine doses. To ensure this, we are considering providing an additional batch of vaccines to our collaboration partners and team members. Regarding the vaccine mandate, Pfizer imported our Vaxa vaccine specifically for our employee vaccination program. This was done to ensure that no vaccines were taken from the European contingent.

Pfizer imported its own batch of vaccine for the employee vaccination program, which was not tested by the TGA.

Pfizer produced an ad for COVID boosters without required disclaimers. FDA and CDC were aware but took no action. FDA director Peter Marks made unapproved claims in 41 videos. No exceptions permit regulatory agencies to violate regulations or laws.

The vaccines were developed by the NIH, not Moderna or Pfizer. The patents are 50% owned by the NIH, and they were manufactured by military contractors. Pfizer and Moderna were paid to put their names on the vaccines, but it was a military project from the start.

Pfizer conducted trials using a synthetic PCR process called Process 1, which involved giving 40,000 people a precise mRNA sequence for the shots. However, for mass production, a second process was used, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make the body produce the spike protein. Essentially, the trials were done using a controlled synthetic process, but the majority of the vaccines given to billions of people were made using a less tested method. This can be seen as a bait and switch.

BioNTech's studies lacked clear guidance and evaluation of results from contract laboratories. The reproductive toxicology studies on pregnant animals showed side effects were dismissed as unimportant or already seen in control populations. This lack of seriousness in safety strategy was concerning.

The vaccines were not developed by Moderna or Pfizer, but by the NIH. The patents are owned by the NIH, and the vaccines were manufactured by military contractors. Pfizer and Moderna were paid to put their stamps on the vaccines, but this was originally a military project.

Pfizer conducted trials using a synthetic PCR process called Process 1, which involved giving 40,000 people a deliberately engineered mRNA sequence for the shots. However, for mass production, a second process was used, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make the body produce the spike protein. Essentially, the trials were conducted using a controlled synthetic process, but the majority of the vaccines administered to billions of people used a less tested method. This can be seen as a bait and switch.

Pfizer whistleblower leaked emails revealing separate COVID vaccines for employees, different from public. Documents show distinct shots given to workers. Fact checkers initially denied, but evidence from Australia confirms. Pfizer employees received special batch not tested by TGA. Changes made secretly to vaccine formulation for children. Australian government documents and testimonies support the claim of different vaccines for employees. Video clip shows Pfizer employees testifying about unique batch.

The vaccines were not developed by Moderna and Pfizer, but by the NIH, which owns 50% of the patents. Furthermore, the vaccines were not manufactured by Pfizer or Moderna, but by military contractors. Pfizer and Moderna were allegedly paid to put their stamps on the vaccines as if they came from the pharmaceutical industry, but it was supposedly a military project.

Pfizer's own document, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the TGA all acknowledge that mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy. The speaker questions why the mRNA vaccine wasn't tested for genotoxicity and why the Office of Genetic Therapeutics didn't consider it as gene technology. The response states that the TGA is responsible for approving the vaccine and the question of genotoxicity should be directed to them. It is clarified that the mRNA vaccines were imported into Australia and not manufactured there. The speaker disagrees, citing Pfizer's admission that transfection is part of gene therapy. The response disagrees with the speaker's interpretation.

Pfizer conducted trials using a synthetic PCR process called Process 1, which involved giving 40,000 people a precisely engineered mRNA sequence for the shots. However, for mass production, a second process was used, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make the body produce the spike protein. Essentially, there was a switch from the controlled synthetic process used in trials to a less tested method for the majority of people. This can be seen as a bait and switch.

At the outset, a process was approved by the FDA for emergency use authorization. However, it was later discovered that the approved process was swapped out for one containing contaminants like DNA and a cancer-causing substance. Pfizer redacted 800 pages of the manufacturing process, hiding the fact that a carcinogen was included. This lack of transparency led to no informed consent and potential harm to individuals. The vaccine rollout included a trial with a 2.4 times higher adverse event rate, including the presence of a carcinogen.

The transcript presents a critical examination of Bill Gates, portraying him as transforming from a software magnate into a global health power broker whose wealth and influence have reshaped public health, vaccine development, and population policy. It argues that Gates’ philanthropic activities are not purely charitable but are deployed to extend control over health systems, global research agendas, and even the reproductive choices of people worldwide. Key claims and points are detailed across several strands: - Public image and power shift: Bill Gates is described as no longer a “public health expert” yet becoming a central figure in billions of lives, guiding medical actions and vaccine strategies. The program asserts that Gates’ reinvention through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been aided by a sophisticated public relations apparatus and by directing media coverage of global health issues. - Foundation scale and reach: The Gates Foundation is depicted as the world’s largest private foundation, with assets reported as tens of billions of dollars and a broad remit in global health, development, growth, and policy advocacy. Its influence extends to funding media outlets, think tanks, and reporting units across multiple outlets (BBC, NPR, Our World in Data, ABC, among others), creating what the program calls “tentacles” across global health. - Partnerships and funding of global health initiatives: Gates is credited with initiating and funding major global health vehicles, including: - Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, with seed funding and ongoing commitments that have shaped vaccination markets. - The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and other public-private partnerships that coordinate vaccine development and immunization programs. - Support for CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), the World Health Organization’s vaccine initiatives, and other pandemic preparedness efforts. - The World Health Organization’s funding profile, described as heavily dependent on Gates Foundation support, with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted as a non-medical doctor connected to Gates-backed initiatives. - The “Decade of Vaccines” and vaccine policy: Gates is credited with launching a decade-long vaccine initiative, including a pledge of billions of dollars to vaccine development and distribution. This is linked to the creation of a global vaccine action plan and to Gavi’s role in establishing vaccine markets. The narrative asserts that vaccines have been used to steer global health policy and to secure roles for private firms in public health decision-making. - Vaccine development concerns: The program raises concerns about the safety and speed of vaccine development, criticizing the eighteen-month timeline Gates advocates for a universal vaccine, and questioning the use of new technologies (DNA and mRNA platforms) and rapid deployment with limited testing. It highlights potential safety risks, including historical vaccine-associated disease enhancement and concerns about broad immunization in a short period. - Vaccine safety and regulation: It is claimed that vaccine safety at scale is hard to guarantee and that liability protections for vaccine makers and public health officials have been enacted (e.g., a U.S. declaration granting liability immunity for COVID-19 countermeasures), a point framed as enabling risk-bearing without accountability. - Population control framing: A central thread is the assertion that Gates seeks to reduce population growth through health improvements, vaccines, and reproductive health services. The transcript traces Gates’ interest in contraception and population issues to his family background and to Rockefeller-era eugenics historical contexts, arguing that discussions about fertility, contraceptive technologies, and demographic trends have long-term population implications. It cites specific Gates Foundation activities in reproductive health, including funding for innovative birth-control delivery methods, depot injections, implanted devices, and efforts to develop digital identity tied to health services as tools within a broader population-control framework. - Digital identity and biometric ID: The narrative emphasizes Gates’ involvement with biometric identification through Gavi and ID2020, noting partnerships with Microsoft and the Rockefeller Foundation, the Aadhaar system in India, and the World Bank’s ID4D initiative. It argues that vaccination programs, biometric identity, and cashless payments are being integrated into a comprehensive “population control grid,” enabling state and private actors to track, truncate, or deny access to services based on identity and health status. - Data, surveillance, and privacy concerns: The piece contends that the push for digital IDs, digital health records, and biometrics will erode privacy and enable broad government and corporate surveillance, linking health data to financial services, voting, housing, and welfare. It highlights projects involving digital certificates, immunity passports, and real-time health data collection via microneedle patches and barcode-like skin markers, suggesting these innovations could be used to control access to services. - Epstein connections and broader conspiracy context: The program references alleged connections between Gates and Jeffrey Epstein, including flight logs and involvement in philanthropic funding discussions, framing these ties as part of a broader pattern of influence. It also points to prior associations with notable figures (Buffett, Rockefeller, Soros) and critiques of Gates as aligning with a “population control” ideology. - The underlying motive and conclusion: Throughout, the narrative asserts that Gates’ wealth is being used not for charity alone but to build an overarching system of control—over health institutions, research funding, public policy, identification, and financial systems. It contrasts his public image as a generous philanthropist with alleged hidden agendas, suggesting that the real aim is to shape global governance and human behavior through vaccination, identification, and digital infrastructure. - Final framing and call to action: The closing sections urge viewers to recognize Gates’ influence as part of an ideology rather than a single person’s plan. It frames the situation as a broader movement that could continue beyond Gates personally, urging awareness and action to resist what the program deems a population-control regime embedded in global health and digital identity initiatives. In sum, the transcript portrays Bill Gates as a central figure driving a multifaceted, globally interconnected program—through the Gates Foundation, Gavi, CEPI, and related partnerships—that allegedly reconfigures vaccine policy, global health governance, reproductive health, biometric identification, and digital payments into a cohesive system of population control and surveillance, using philanthropy as a veneer for power and control.

Speaker 0: I find information like this, you know, inserts for the vaccine. Paper's there, and there's nothing printed on it. I find that very interesting, disheartening, disgusting, and lots of other words, but then it gets better. It just keep wait. There's more. It just keeps happening. The CDC redacts every single word of a 148 page study on a myocarditis after COVID vaccination. So I asked research to print the study for me. 148 pages. The entire thing is redacted. What good does a study do if there's nothing there? Then I wanna know, wait, what might have been there that they needed to redact it? That's even scarier. Speaker 1: We're witnessing an active cover up of a colossal consumer product safety debacle that is is basically affecting the entire world. Mhmm. So in The United States, our CDC, National Institutes of Health, and the FDA are actively involved in a cover up. And the same is occurring in The UK with the MHRA, Europe with European medicine agencies, and Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Something is going on that's very big. Each one of these companies that puts out a product has an obligation to produce ninety days of safety monitoring after their product comes out. It's a regulatory dossier. If somebody has a problem with the new product and they call the company like Pfizer, Pfizer has to report, write down what happened, and they have to collate that in a report and produce it and make it publicly available. When it came to ninety days with Pfizer, the first vaccine that came out, remember Pfizer was approved 12/10/2020. Pfizer didn't produce the report. And then people started asking, well, what's happening with your vaccine? And Pfizer would not disclose what happened. And then it went to court. And the lawyer for the FDA stepped in and said they don't wanna release Pfizer's dossier for fifty five years. Mhmm. Oh. Fifty five years. And the the the plaintiff pushed. And finally, slowly, the Pfizer dossier came out. Pfizer recorded one thousand two hundred and twenty three deaths with their product within ninety days of release. People were calling Pfizer in desperation watching their family members die after taking the vaccine. Pfizer recorded over twelve hundred new adverse events, new problems that doctor Boden has talked to you about that we are grappling with the entire time. But the point is our FDA worked to cover this up. The FDA should be regulating this company. FDA should have been having at least monthly meetings and fully disclosing what was going on with these novel vaccines, which are a genetic transfer technology platform.

In April 2022, the OGTR stated their role in assessing the risk of gene technology. In February 2023, Senator Renick asked if they had received any requests for advice on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. The OGTR responded that they had not because mRNA vaccines were not regulated as they did not involve genetic modification. However, in October 2023, Senator Renick quoted information from Pfizer's website, stating that gene therapies involve introducing new genetic material, which the mRNA vaccines do. The American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy also classified mRNA vaccines as gene therapy. The TGA's documents confirmed the use of DNA in the manufacturing process. This contradiction suggests that the mRNA vaccines are gene technology and are being transported and administered without proper licensing, posing a significant problem.

During the COVID pandemic, the Australian government granted Pfizer blanket immunity, allowing them to develop and distribute COVID injections without accountability. However, Pfizer has a history of criminal acts, including bribery and suppressing adverse trial results. The manufacturing process of the injections was also questionable, with evidence of live DNA derived from e coli found in the Pfizer product. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) did not conduct thorough testing on each batch of injections, relying instead on the US FDA's word. The lack of long-term safety testing is concerning, especially considering Pfizer's record-breaking profits. The Australian taxpayers are left with an unknown liability, while those who question the injections are labeled as "anti-vaxxers." The speaker opposes the forced administration of untested experimental injections and calls for accountability.

The Pfizer COVID vaccine was not tested for its ability to stop the transmission of the virus before it entered the market. The speaker acknowledges that they had to work quickly to understand the situation and move at the speed of science.

The pharmaceutical industry is seen as untrustworthy, being compared to a criminal cartel due to the large penalties they have paid for their other products. Vaccines, however, are exempt from liability, meaning companies cannot be sued no matter how negligent or reckless they are. This lack of accountability may lead to a lack of caution in product development.

Pfizer imported their own batch of vaccine specifically for the employee vaccination program, which was not tested by the TGA.

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.

Pfizer has been forced to release previously secret documents, including FDA approval packages, due to court orders and successful FOIA requests. These documents reveal that Pfizer tested different versions of their vaccine during preclinical and clinical trials, which goes against FDA guidance. The different versions included modified RNA, unmodified RNA, self-amplifying RNA, and Spike protein alone. Surprisingly, all these versions were tested under the same investigational new drug number, despite FDA guidance stating that multiple versions should have their own individual numbers. Additionally, the toxicity of the mRNA active ingredient in the COVID-19 vaccines was never studied. This raises concerns about the regulatory process and the lack of safety testing.