TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

A member of the pharmacovigilance scientific committee resigned due to disagreement over the accountability method, which excludes certain cases. This aligns with the European Court of Justice's confirmation of the administrative and judicial courts' stance since 2007-2008. The criteria for establishing causality include serious, specific, and consistent indicators, similar to pharmacovigilance's approach. These indicators involve temporal proximity, lack of personal and family history, and published and documented cases.

Speaker 1 states that individuals who want a vaccine should have access to it. However, they should also be informed about the vaccine's safety profile, risk profile, and efficacy. Speaker 0 affirms this position.

A group of European Parliament members wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expressing concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines. The EMA responded, stating that the vaccines were only approved for individual immunization and not for controlling or preventing infections. They also admitted a lack of data on vaccine effectiveness against infections. The government's campaign to vaccinate for the sake of others was based on misinformation. Furthermore, the EMA emphasized the need to carefully consider safety information before administering vaccines. The mass vaccination campaign should be halted as it does not meet the EMA's requirements and puts people's health at risk. The government and supporting political parties should be held accountable for their lies and deception.

I apologize, but I don't know in which life. Personally, I only see people being forced, mostly at least. A health and vaccine pass is required to eat a sandwich or play football. I won't talk about the obligation for healthcare professionals. The only legal criterion to impose a requirement on a population is if the vaccine prevents viral transmission. If it only provides personal protection against severe forms, assuming that protection is proven, it is legally impossible. Regarding children, the European Medicines Agency deferred the requirement to present study results for pediatric use. Yet, it is still authorized. How can a product be authorized when study results are not in the hands of the agency? Thank you, Mr. Mlyle. Madame.

A group of European Parliament members wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expressing concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines. The EMA responded, stating that the vaccines were only approved for individual immunization, not for controlling or preventing infections. They also emphasized the lack of data on preventing infections and even mentioned that exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection, even in vaccinated individuals. The EMA highlighted the importance of carefully considering safety information before administering vaccines. The government's vaccination campaigns were deemed unauthorized and based on misinformation. The EMA's information undermines the vaccination policies of the Dutch government, and they should be held accountable for their actions.

Gardons notre calme et attendons de voir ce qui se passe. Il est crucial d'appliquer nos lois en Europe, surtout lorsque celles-ci risquent d'être contournées. Si nous ne les faisons pas respecter, cela pourrait mener à des interférences. Nous avons déjà agi en Roumanie, et il sera nécessaire de le faire en Allemagne si la situation l'exige. --- Let’s stay calm and wait to see what happens. It is crucial to enforce our laws in Europe, especially when they are at risk of being circumvented. If we do not uphold them, it could lead to interference. We have already acted in Romania, and it will be necessary to do so in Germany if the situation requires it.

On January 11, 2023, a notice was sent to medical professionals regarding the lack of indemnity for COVID-19 vaccine administration. It emphasized the importance of obtaining informed consent and warned against misinformation. The suggestion was made to record conversations with doctors about informed consent and potentially sue if necessary. The goal was to hold doctors accountable and raise awareness about the risks associated with vaccination.

Two people recently died, and it is important to note that we are all responsible for our own health. Informed consent plays a crucial role in any treatment or procedure, and ultimately, individuals are responsible for their own health decisions. The government has provided opportunities for people to consult with their general practitioners and make informed decisions about their health. This is the kind of country we live in, where individuals have the freedom to make choices regarding their own health and bodies. As a result, mandatory vaccination is not enforced for the general population because people have the autonomy to make their own decisions.

As of January 1, 2026, new rules apply to doctors: if a doctor performs fewer than 10 vaccinations in a quarter, they lose 40 percent of their lump-sum remuneration. In other words, the same amount of work yields less money. There is no vaccination mandate. This policy is referred to as “the remuneration control.” Translated, it means: “Injection in, otherwise cash is closed.” The speakers note that we are entering “the year of economic freedom.”

We apologize for interrupting. Thank you for your contributions. We, as citizens, would like to address the letter from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) that contradicts the narrative presented by doctors for the past three years. We have a victim, a mother affected by the Pfizer vaccine, and the report from the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety (ANSM) on the vaccine's side effects. We believe it is important to discuss these issues as citizens. We request that Mr. Villani, who has been speaking about citizens and humanity, acknowledge our concerns. Thank you.

Nous défendons le vaccin et la nécessité pour les soignants d'accepter les règles de protection collective. Ceux qui refusent vont à l'encontre de l'éthique de leur profession. En les laissant de côté, nous montrons notre soutien à la majorité qui respecte ces règles. Si nous exemptons les non-vaccinés, cela causera de la colère et de l'incompréhension parmi les professionnels de la santé. Notre objectif est de protéger nos concitoyens et d'anticiper les réponses à l'épidémie. Merci. Translation: We defend the vaccine and the need for healthcare workers to accept collective protection rules. Those who refuse go against the ethics of their profession. By leaving them aside, we show our support to the majority who respect these rules. Exempting the unvaccinated will cause anger and misunderstanding among healthcare professionals. Our goal is to protect our fellow citizens and anticipate responses to the epidemic. Thank you.

Before we start, I want to say something that cannot be said enough. Even now, people are unnecessarily dying because the Dutch authorities do not allow a reliable and effective medicine. This is a serious and major scandal. I have mentioned it several times before, but it cannot be emphasized enough. This is terrible and it reflects the situation we are in.

I am Marcel de Graaf, Member of the European Parliament for Forum for Democracy. I recently sent a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding the approval of medications in the European market, specifically questioning the COVID-19 vaccines. We have received a response that clarifies many issues. This response is highly critical of the vaccination policy in the Netherlands. I will provide more details in a press conference tomorrow at 3 PM via a livestream from Strasbourg. The EMA's response confirms that Forum for Democracy's criticism of the vaccination policy is justified.

We don't want to be like the European Union, we don't care about them. We are French and we stick to French laws.

The speaker discusses the legal requirement to inform patients of the potential risks associated with vaccination, including rare or serious side effects. This information must be communicated before administering the vaccine and is considered permanent. If new adverse effects are identified, authorities must inform those who have already been vaccinated. The speaker emphasizes the importance of discussing this information in individual consultations rather than on television channels like BFM or Cnews.

According to Article L1112-2, before prescribing any medication or treatment, including surgical procedures, the law requires healthcare professionals to communicate the frequent or serious foreseeable risks to the patient. However, the predictability of risks is a concern, especially with vaccines that have been on the market for only a short period of time. European Directive 2001 states that a minimum of ten years is required to establish a well-established medical use of a component in a medication.

The EU General Court ruled against Ursula von der Leyen because, as president of the European Commission, she allegedly negotiated COVID vaccine contracts worth billions of euros with the CEO of Pfizer via text message during the pandemic. The New York Times requested the release of these messages, but the European Commission refused, claiming the messages were lost. The New York Times then took the case to court. The EU General Court ruled that the European Commission broke the law by refusing to release the text messages, stating that citizens have the right to know how such deals are made, even via SMS. The European Commission has two months to appeal the decision. The speaker highlights that this situation demonstrates that the EU is a place where a court can rule against the president of the European Commission.

Sarah Brenner, who has worked deeply within the government at the FDA and through the COVID crisis, explains her roles and perspectives. She notes that she was the chief medical officer for diagnostics and was detailed to support White House operations during the COVID-19 response for the Biden administration, with beginnings during the Trump administration. When asked about her own vaccination status during her time at the FDA, Brenner states that she did not take the COVID-19 vaccine. Her primary reason was that it was unknown at the time what the biodistribution patterns of those products would be, and in particular what the excretion would be in breast milk. She expresses that this exposure was a major concern for her. The interviewer suggests that events since then have confirmed Brenner’s choice, framing her stance as implying that it’s a bad idea for women who are pregnant to take the vaccine, while noting that the FDA still recommends it. Brenner responds by emphasizing the importance of being honest, open, and transparent in providing informed consent to patients about what the known and unknown, as well as probable and less probable, benefits and risks are of any medical intervention. Throughout the discussion, Brenner highlights transparency as a central theme in medical decision-making and patient information. The exchange underscores tensions between evolving scientific understanding, regulatory recommendations, and individual risk considerations for pregnant individuals.

We should discuss how to promote and possibly require vaccination in the European Union. This is an important topic that needs attention.

I assure you that if I had any doubts, you would ask for a replacement. It is my duty and responsibility to have confidence in this vaccine and get vaccinated. I say this solemnly, otherwise there will be delays in vaccination, and the French people will be less protected, prolonging the health crisis.

What does it mean to be a doctor? In a post-COVID world, trust in medical institutions has eroded, prompting a reevaluation of the role of doctors. Being a doctor encompasses being a trainer, educator, and healer, grounded in truth and ethics. However, the rise of medical practices influenced by ideology, particularly regarding gender identity, raises concerns about informed consent and the responsibilities of medical professionals. Many argue that children cannot fully understand the implications of life-altering medical decisions. The conversation emphasizes the need for accountability in the medical field, advocating for legal protections against harmful practices and ensuring that informed consent is genuinely informed. There is a call to action for legislation to protect vulnerable populations, particularly children, from irreversible medical interventions.

Today, the Digital Services Act (DSA) becomes enforceable for large online platforms and search engines. These platforms play a crucial role in our daily lives, and it's time for Europe to establish its own rules. The DSA aims to protect free speech from arbitrary decisions and safeguard our citizens and democracies against illegal content. My team and I will rigorously ensure that systemic platforms comply with the DSA, investigating and sanctioning them if necessary. Our goal is to create a safer online environment for everyone in Europe. I'll provide updates on our progress.

Speaker describes ongoing experiences challenging corona mandates in Switzerland: leading court proceedings as a Swiss lawyer against unconstitutional mandates, representing individuals seeking compensation for injuries from mRNA injections, and initiating a major criminal court proceeding against Swissmedic, the Swiss medical safety agency. Despite over three years of hard work, results regarding justice remain unseen. From these efforts, the speaker identifies a lesson: in Europe, in all involved courts and health authorities, they protect their governments with deceptive information policies, wrong decision making, and, most of all, with totally illegal authorizations of mRNA products granted in Switzerland by safety agencies. The speaker notes that no justice has been done and no lesson learned in the official European world. The speaker then asks what can be done about this and first seeks input from the MAHA team and Doctor Robert Malone about any hope from the United States, where positive signals have emerged, notably on January 20 with the present president Trump’s declaration to exit the WHO and other steps. From today’s event, the speaker derives hope, but contends that the hope must come from Europe. A plan is articulated: Europe will take its destiny into its own hands. The speaker intends to ensure that people can see the true effects of the WHO and the true effects of the industry after many proceedings have resulted in authorities claiming that the WHO was setting Gold standards. The speaker aims to contribute, together with the MEHA movement, all of their experience and investigations conducted against the WHO, and to work together to make Europe healthy again. The commitment is clear: they will never give up.

No doctor can deny patients medications like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine if there has been a fair discussion. These drugs have been supported by numerous clinical trials and are recommended as first-line therapy in many government guidelines worldwide. Every American, including Texans, has the right to receive these drugs in the hospital after discussing with their doctor. It is unethical, immoral, and illegal for doctors to refuse patients and deny them shared decision-making and personal autonomy. We must not allow this to happen.

French journalists investigate the dangers and insufficient testing of medications on the market. The pharmaceutical lobby works hard in the political arena to quickly bring drugs to market. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are forming closer ties. Shortly after, many parliamentarians from around the world call for vaccination against cervical cancer. The European Medicines Agency provides advice to the European Commission on whether a drug should be allowed in Europe.