4919
Comments (725)
sorted by:
589
deleted 589 points ago +591 / -2
266
Ayur 266 points ago +266 / -0

ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!!!! I believe this proves intent to subvert informed consent which is a direct violation of the Nuremberg code.

82
deleted 82 points ago +93 / -11
49
US3RNAM3 49 points ago +51 / -2

Rules? Lmao that’s a rule like 5 days ago

31
BasedMedicalDoctor 31 points ago +34 / -3

Just focus on getting 10% for the big guy.

19
AndrewLB 19 points ago +19 / -0

Actually that 10% was only for that specific deal. Other Hunter emails show that the big guy typically gets 50%.

12
newchina 12 points ago +12 / -0

Why shouldn’t he get 50% you might ask.

-5
TuckersLegalCouncil -5 points ago +6 / -11

Hi-Jacking to ask...in all seriousness...how is this THAT big of a deal when indeed it's public knowledge and has been for a while. The cells are not in the vax everyone is getting injected with. It was in the testing which isn't that uncommon. Infact, I've brought this up to countless normies months ago and they all were aware of it even. I've never been called a 'conspiracy theorist' over this claim either.

IMHO...I think the prior video was better for people's cause. Only because anyone who did wish to file a religious exemption surely knew about this.

Or am I missing something which I acknowledge I most likely am.

26
BemorePcCuntyFagFace 26 points ago +26 / -0

This video made me realize why they exempted congress, these companies, and many more from the mandates…… to prevent whistle blowers

0
M8kMdlErthGr8Again 0 points ago +2 / -2

Congress is not exempted. They are exempt by default as they are NOT employees.

5
NataliesFeet 5 points ago +6 / -1

"congress is not exempted"

"Congress is exempt by default"

1
M8kMdlErthGr8Again 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do you have trouble comprehending? In case I wasn’t clear:

Congress are elected officials, not employees, and as such, they cannot have any actions taken such as this upon them.

They are not specifically “exempted” from it. There is a distinction.

A more appropriate description would be “it does not apply”

2
DaninElkhart 2 points ago +2 / -0

"Come on, Man!"

1
NotAnotherNPC 1 point ago +1 / -0

Rules? They didn't get the most votes ever!

28
deleted 28 points ago +31 / -3
5
deleted 5 points ago +14 / -9
4
thebest2020 4 points ago +9 / -5

Tick tock

25
namechecksouttwice 25 points ago +25 / -0

government for and by the people. look in the mirror, that's who's taking us back to normal. nuremberg code is a tool like any other, learn how to use it as a citizen.

15
RuprechtThaMonkeyBoy 15 points ago +15 / -0

They can choose between a Nuremberg trial or a Mussolini trial. (Hint, there were many street jurors in the Mussolini trial)

13
SaltyArmy 13 points ago +13 / -0

I would prefer they receive a Pinochet trial.

10
AndrewLB 10 points ago +10 / -0

I think a more fitting punishment for everyone involved in this plandemic is something more akin to what Louis XIV received. Especially after seeing this video from 2019 where they are openly planning the Covid pandemic on C-span. https://rumble.com/vndrmn-explosive-video-of-fauci-and-hhs-plotting-for-a-new-outbreak-to-enforce-mrn.html

10
Seatacjoe 10 points ago +10 / -0

not yet dude, they will. These rules dont just vanish, they have their day in the courts of the people.

16
JohnCocktoastin 16 points ago +17 / -1

Informed consent is also a common law duty in spite of the Nuremberg code. I am gonna do a bit of digging, but this borders more along the lines of fraud. I am doubting that the EUA would provide any liability shields if fraud is involved. Do not underestimate what the trial lawyer lobby would like to cash in on. No cucked judge is gonna be able to stop that if its possible. Will report back shortly with findings.

18
JohnCocktoastin 18 points ago +18 / -0

Ok, I got quite the rabbit hole to go down. This will probably go into tomorrow. I have read this statue a few times but not keyed in on what I was just looking at. The gist of it though is the construction of this statute could very easily be challenged and invalidated in court. Fraud allegations certainly help in achieving that outcome. I might need to do some case searching to see if anyone has already filed something attempting to go there. But the gist:

The statute giving this EUA immunity was passed in 2020. It is not stand alone. And it has many references to other sections of the act. The way it is written conflicts with other law, as well as the Constitution. But aside from that, we got quite a gem here out of Veritas for this section. Check this out -

42 USCA § 247d-6d

(c) Definition of willful misconduct

(1) Definition

(A) In general Except as the meaning of such term is further restricted pursuant to paragraph (2), the term “willful misconduct” shall, for purposes of subsection (d), denote an act or omission that is taken--

(i) intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose;

(ii) knowingly without legal or factual justification; and

(iii) in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit.

(d) Exception to immunity of covered persons

(1) In general Subject to subsection (f), the sole exception to the immunity from suit and liability of covered persons set forth in subsection (a) shall be for an exclusive Federal cause of action against a covered person for death or serious physical injury proximately caused by willful misconduct, as defined pursuant to subsection (c), by such covered person. For purposes of section 2679(b)(2)(B) of Title 28, such a cause of action is not an action brought for violation of a statute of the United States under which an action against an individual is otherwise authorized.

(2) Persons who can sue An action under this subsection may be brought for wrongful death or serious physical injury by any person who suffers such injury or by any representative of such a person.

(e) Procedures for suit

(1) Exclusive Federal jurisdiction Any action under subsection (d) shall be filed and maintained only in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

(2) Governing law The substantive law for decision in an action under subsection (d) shall be derived from the law, including choice of law principles, of the State in which the alleged willful misconduct occurred, unless such law is inconsistent with or preempted by Federal law, including provisions of this section.

(3) Pleading with particularity In an action under subsection (d), the complaint shall plead with particularity each element of the plaintiff's claim, including-- (A) each act or omission, by each covered person sued, that is alleged to constitute willful misconduct relating to the covered countermeasure administered to or used by the person on whose behalf the complaint was filed; (B) facts supporting the allegation that such alleged willful misconduct proximately caused the injury claimed; and (C) facts supporting the allegation that the person on whose behalf the complaint was filed suffered death or serious physical injury.

Pretty likely that such an act evinces willful misconduct. I believe that door just got opened. This really is more like fraudulent concealment. Which is a willful act. The proximate cause of someone injured by a jab; because without this willful fraudulent act, this jab woulda been pulled from the market and unable to have injured the person. This could get interesting.

2
educatedandfree 2 points ago +2 / -0

German's words in that email mirror the law: "that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit."

Pfizer thinks the state has their 6. May not anymore.

1
Belleoffreedom 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is the way to do it.

1
War_Hamster 1 point ago +1 / -0

Appreciate the citing of the statutes.

I've been calling for the EUA to be pulled since we found out the Hydroxycholorquine was an effective treatment. The FDA's rules on EUA are pretty damn clear.

3
JohnCocktoastin 3 points ago +3 / -0

This and ivermectin. I don't know the status of these "monoclonal" treatments and if this is an approved or experimental technology. Never looked into it.

But I do believe the plain language of the statute itself gives manufactures liability for acts of willful misconduct. Which Veritas just clearly demonstrated. Would seem to me that a slightly above average lawyer could pierce this EUA immunity on that basis fairly easily with what Veritas has. At least they could get into discovery and elicit more damning emails before getting booted. I don't think they'd get booted...pretty plain reading of the statute.

2
War_Hamster 2 points ago +2 / -0

The fact that this hasn't happened yet scares the hell out of me.

2
JohnCocktoastin 2 points ago +2 / -0

Video only went live yesterday. Give em some time. I bet they start filing. Too much cash to ignore for trial lawyers.

10
Dictator_Bob 10 points ago +10 / -0

It is. It has been. We have put up with it. But... these are children being injected into us.

18
Gnarly_opinions 18 points ago +18 / -0

Satanists laughing all the way to the bank. They inject us with poison using dead baby cells to "protect us" from a virus they created in the first place.

We'll see who laughs last.

2
notCIA 2 points ago +3 / -1

Just like a leftist, begging for foreign interference.

2
NomadicKrow2 2 points ago +2 / -0

The nuremburg code isn't a law and is guidelines for ethics. They're not enforced anywhere.

1
FutureVRPilot 1 point ago +1 / -0

That kind of sounds like the CDC in The who they are not law they are guidances

1
Belleoffreedom 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nomadic is right.

/u/JohnCocktoastin is on to something, by citing 42 USCA § 247d-6d

failure to cite the applicable law makes you look like a fool.

1
JohnCocktoastin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nuremburg code is not really law, but "Standard of Care" in establishing parameters of duty in that context. For that to make sense, you must understand how to make a negligence claim. Current law precludes a negligence claim against the mfg or the actual jabber under the EUA. It is not necessarily very clear in the statute if the jabber themselves is exempt from this duty but it appears so. And while we all feel like this is a giant big pharma study, I think it would be easier said than done to demonstrate this is a giant "study" under the law. I'll use informed consent to illustrate, and the Nuremberg standard of obtaining informed consent absent coercion does hold across the varying types of medical malpractice claims but is not typically cited as such. It would be applicable to all of the studies these fools are conducting though. That code would easily hold up as the standard of care for pharma trials.

You get jabbed. Jabber doesn't tell you that you can get myocarditis. You get myocarditis. This person has a duty to inform you of the reasonably known or reasonably should have known risks of the jab. Failure to do so leads to liability for breach of that duty. Jabber breached his/her duty to you to get your informed consent. To establish a claim for negligence, one needs the following: (1) existence of duty; (2) breach of duty; (3) actual causation; (4) legal causation; and (5) actual harm/injury/damages.

When dealing with the applicable standard of care to establish breach, often that standard is spelled out in a statute/regulation somewhere. When it isn't, courts look to a variety of outside sources in determining the relevant standard of care. The standard of care is the level of care a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would exercise in the same circumstances. Professionals can be held to a "reasonable (insert profession) in the same geographic location" higher standard instead of person. Sometimes expert witnesses in the field testify to establish the standard. Other times, it is derived from case law. This is probably a longer discussion than necessary for these purposes; and it is deeper than this but trying to keep it simple.

So we already know that (1) has been met because we know there is a duty to provide informed consent. State law typically covers this because it is 90% of the time the forum which these claims are brought. But even federal law does too in 21 CFR Part 50 § 50.20. (2) will have some argument as to how much knowledge a reasonable jabber should be expected to have about myocarditis in jabs. (3) myocarditis came from the jab, which will be argued but should be easy in most of the patients this is happening to with zero prior heart issues in medical history. Then (4) is what is called "proximate causation." Lots of ways to measure this; the simplest is the "but for" test: but for the jabber's failure to obtain informed consent, the plaintiff would not have been injured by the jab. And finally, (5) is met with myocarditis diagnosis and associated bills. Gross negligence is not a separate cause of action; it differs only in degree not in kind. I am unaware of any state where acts of gross negligence can be waived via agreement; almost always void for public policy reasons.

Ready for your blood to boil? First read this CFR.

21 CFR Part 50 § 50.20 General requirements for informed consent.

Except as provided in §§ 50.23 and 50.24, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.

Now look at this shit...

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-50/subpart-B/section-50.23

This is too long to post here. But read that and tell me you didn't need to go lie down for 20 minutes and take blood pressure medicine.

20
Ghostof_PatrickHenry 20 points ago +20 / -0

Aye

19
TruthyBrat 19 points ago +19 / -0

#CrimesAgainstHumanity

9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
13
IAbsolutelyDare 13 points ago +13 / -0

Nah, lethal injection.

29
deleted 29 points ago +29 / -0
10
freespecter 10 points ago +10 / -0

Now that would be ironic!

4
AngryMuffin 4 points ago +4 / -0

Like va-ax-ine when you've already coofed?

8
TeeBP 8 points ago +8 / -0

So just give them their own product then.

25
Standingoak 25 points ago +25 / -0

The product they are mixing behind BLACKED OUT WINDOWS ?

Why does this remind me of election counting ?

7
spelunking_librator 7 points ago +7 / -0

meme giveaway: the guy holding the board in front of the election window with a text "the FDA is coming"

5
Standingoak 5 points ago +5 / -0

Active Volcano? Should be enough to pay-per-view several different methods ?

4
spelunking_librator 4 points ago +4 / -0

they want the internet shut down so we can't stream their swift trials

6
US3RNAM3 6 points ago +6 / -0

There’s no other option. We just have to do en masse

406
HumanCentipede 406 points ago +408 / -2

WOW...…And they're denying religions exemptions....This is disgusting.

138
IHeartMyDoggy 138 points ago +139 / -1

I was disgusted with one of the statements they said they had from the Vatican that it was ok if it had aborted fetal cells? Did I hear/see that right?

134
lordvon 134 points ago +134 / -0

not surprising given current pope

105
TwitterIsTrash 105 points ago +106 / -1

Catholic here. Our pope is a satanist

62
LowKeyPede 62 points ago +62 / -0

Non Catholic. I agree. Make Cardinal Vigano Pope. He gets it.

6
BettyBlue76 6 points ago +6 / -0

💯

32
SomeGuyOnTheInternet 32 points ago +32 / -0

Two living popes, tells you everything you need to know.

17
lordvon 17 points ago +20 / -3

double the pedos?

6
UpvoteBot 6 points ago +6 / -0

Top kek.

3
deleted 3 points ago +9 / -6
3
lordvon 3 points ago +3 / -0

i agree, aoc

3
logicallyevil 3 points ago +4 / -1

Bingo

2
TruthSetMeFree 2 points ago +2 / -0
  1. Black white and a gray pope
14
habib_cuckbear 14 points ago +14 / -0

He is a satanist, but stop calling him pope. He is an ANTIPOPE. Calling him pope gives him legitimacy that he does not have or deserve. Benedict invalidly resigned -- likely from grave fear -- in 2013, and the satanists/globalists in the Vatican moved full steam ahead with installing their commie puppet. Read Ann Barnhardt or Non Veni Pacem.

https://nonvenipacem.com/ https://www.barnhardt.biz/the-bergoglian-antipapcy/

14
AlohaSnackbar 14 points ago +19 / -5

Non Catholic here, half your priests and all your bishops and archbishops cover up anal rape of children. Fuck your pope, your whole goddamn organization is filled with something worse than satanists, it's filled with Catholic bishops and archbishops.

1
TwitterIsTrash 1 point ago +1 / -0

You’re not wrong. I usually only call myself a Christian. Just happen to attend Catholic Churches because I’m used to them, and non-denomination ones are even more woke.

9
RachetQueen2020 9 points ago +9 / -0

One that doesn't care about gay orgies in Vatican City. Perverts in the church and I'm higher leadership. Stealing from the coffers. But this is okay!

53
Plunquets 53 points ago +56 / -3

I believe the Vatican approved it based on prior information they had on it, and so they're trying to say because of that prior approval, religious exemptions don't hold water? But who gives a fuck about the Vatican? It's not as if they're the overseers of all pro-life ideals out there. They don't have a monopoly on pro-life. I'm not Catholic, but I'm pro-life, so fuck my beliefs then because the Vatican said something was okay? It's so outrageous!

54
deleted 54 points ago +54 / -0
2
AngelMark 2 points ago +2 / -0

The pope is a kiddie trafficker

24
genoze 24 points ago +24 / -0

But what does Ja Rule think about this? Where is Ja?

4
Donttreadonme16 4 points ago +4 / -0

Did you see the new special yet?

3
Pepelosi 3 points ago +3 / -0

Fuck Ja Rule, I’m scared!

10
Red_Turtle 10 points ago +10 / -0

I didn't save the article, but the Pope made a statement on this before the China Virus event ever happened. It was during the original push of the anti anti-vax propaganda. He claimed that the lives saved from vaccines justified the lives sacrificed to do vaccine research and manufacture them.

I'm not catholic, so I don't know if it's the SAME pope as the one that's in office right now or some predecessor.

They've been justifying this for some time and it was aimed at the other vaccines already available like the MMR ones. It was meant to weaken the religious exemption option during the same push to smear anti-vaxers in that first push to lay the groundwork to make it so nobody could get an exemption. They've been working toward total control and our current situation for some time.

And of course leftists who let authority figures tell them what to believe won't understand how a pope does not dictate the belief of normal everyday Catholics.

7
krzyzowiec 7 points ago +7 / -0

It’s the same guy. He’s evil.

8
namechecksouttwice 8 points ago +8 / -0

the vatican is still salty americans left europe, trying to regain what they once had

4
notCIA 4 points ago +4 / -0

They are elitists. By definition, that means they see the world as the rabble, and the elite ruling class. To them, Pope is the final say in Christianity, not just Catholicism. I wouldn't follow Pope if he had a gun to my head because I'm a Christian, but they don't care about that.

34
Nalgahyde 34 points ago +34 / -0

The current pope is an abomination and an abject failure to the Catholic religion. I no longer listen to any words he utters and instead follow my heart and the teachings I received as a child from real leaders. Just as with many other things, religions have been infiltrated by charlatans so focused on money and fame as well as an eagerness to destroy the institutions from within.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
22
N7fury 22 points ago +22 / -0

Same. I think the VP was saying they could rely on the Vatican doctrine so they can say "See! the pope says it's okay!" But they decided the risk outweighs the benefit and hide the fact fetal tissue is in the develepmont of the shot. Can't have those pesky little religious exemptions getting in the way!

14
Kamalas_a_Bitch 14 points ago +15 / -1

Breaking News: The Vatican is the most corrupt and evil institution in all of human history.

3
MAGA_mantis 3 points ago +3 / -0

Even more than the usa govt?

1
Kamalas_a_Bitch 1 point ago +2 / -1

Oh yeah. The Vatican is evil HQ

2
MAGA_mantis 2 points ago +2 / -0

Whats the recommended reading on this?

1
Kamalas_a_Bitch 1 point ago +1 / -0

It’s hard to find articles that don’t also contain speculative theories, but here is an ok summary:

https://geopolitics.co/2012/07/20/powerful-bloodlines-behind-the-dark-cabal/

Here’s another one:

https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/satanic-pedophile-cabals-iron-grip-evil/

2
MAGA_mantis 2 points ago +2 / -0

Got it, Thanks pede.

63
ShyRipley 63 points ago +64 / -1

Truly

39
pup1pup 39 points ago +39 / -0

Do we really have religious freedom if it can just be . . . "denied"?

17
BringTheCat789 17 points ago +17 / -0

Yes.

Courts have literally ruled that a mandate must be a "compelling governmental interest" to be able to get around our first amendment guaranteed right to freedom of religion.

Literally just saying that the government need only "really REALLY" want you to do something in order to violate your rights.

And "compelling governmental interest" is the actual verbiage used by these courts. You can search that query on your search engine of choice to learn more.

4
deleted 4 points ago +5 / -1
4
BringTheCat789 4 points ago +4 / -0

The courts are complete jokes, but they still matter.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, they will matter until they no longer have the ability to lock me up against my will and send a literal army after me.

3
StrangerThanFiction 3 points ago +3 / -0

But what is the compelling governmental interest in forcing someone who already had the virus into getting a "vaccine" that is ineffective?

2
BringTheCat789 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, this is an argument that someone will likely make to the courts if/when it comes to it. In those cases that rule the government needs a "compelling state interest" to circumvent the first amendment (which, again, is absolutely ridiculous, but it's what we have to work with), they also specify that the scope of the action must be as narrow as possible.

That is: if the government can successfully claim that protecting society from a virus is a compelling government interest (a pretty easy argument, unfortunately), they'll also have to make the case that the vaccine serves this purpose. This is where arguments against the vaccines effectiveness will come into play. But also they'll have to show that the scope of this action is as narrow as possible to achieve this goal. That is: it must affect as few people as possible and restrict freedoms as little as it can. This is where the argument that the vaccine is useless to someone with natural immunity will come in.

14
IncredibleMrE1 14 points ago +14 / -0

Beyond disgusting. The vermin denying them need to hang.

7
Wholelottarosie1776 7 points ago +7 / -0

Satanic, pure evil. This is why they need planned Parenthood so badly.

6
deleted 6 points ago +7 / -1
298
SkeletorsTeeth 298 points ago +298 / -0

Its funny how bad they are at breaking laws/covering things up....wouldn't it be nice if there were actual consequences?

191
deleted 191 points ago +191 / -0
81
Apersonofinterest 81 points ago +81 / -0

I’m sure 60 minutes is blowing up her phone. They want to get her on the show so they can smear her with some bullshit.

34
Coprolite 34 points ago +34 / -0

More like the CIA blowing her up.

10
DonAlejoGarzaTamez 10 points ago +10 / -0

Literally

15
thereal____ 15 points ago +15 / -0

Dude, why ask for them testify before Congress when you’re a representative and you have Instagram to post big bad words on? That’s way more effective.

4
Donald_Gear_Solid 4 points ago +4 / -0

About to tell you to try standup comedy, might do well.

1
TheWinningNeverStops 1 point ago +1 / -0

What would that actually accomplish? Testifying in front of the actual criminals?

25
PromiseImNotASpook 25 points ago +25 / -0

Not the first time Pfizer has done anything illegal/covered something up and gotten away with it.

11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
2
namechecksouttwice 2 points ago +2 / -0

change your money change the world

5
The88888888 5 points ago +6 / -1

There are lists being generated for these faggots. Just saying...

0
spelunking_librator 0 points ago +1 / -1

there was this one Aussie or UK guy with lots of tattoos and allegedly criminal friends asking for a detailed list... he seemed pretty upset with vaxx chomos

1
Gonzotron5000 1 point ago +1 / -0

Seems like they are really good at breaking laws.

260
NZ_Pede 260 points ago +262 / -2

Love PV. REAL JOURNALISM MOTHERFUCKERS!

58
Big_Sam_Handwich 58 points ago +58 / -0

Yeah they are THE REAL DEAL!!

29
ADAM_SCHITT 29 points ago +29 / -0

The worst thing is that Dr. Gender Studies is a Senior Principal Scientist at Pfizer.

19
GravityBounce1976 19 points ago +19 / -0

The pink hair was a dead giveaway. Crazy person.

9
repoman 9 points ago +9 / -0

And willing to omit factual information about the vaccine.

229
magapotus 229 points ago +231 / -2

Fuck this shit. It’s time to revolt.

113
The_Litehaus_Abides 113 points ago +113 / -0

These are crimes against humanity I never thought we would witness in our lifetimes.

24
frogface 24 points ago +25 / -1

Wait until these poor jabbed bastards start falling over.

1
YouNeedVPN 1 point ago +7 / -6

Just keep waiting. Keep holding the line. We have them cornered!

4
Truthdose 4 points ago +4 / -0

Iraq and Afghanistan???

Hello!

Iraq: A Decade of Hell

71
Gadsden 71 points ago +73 / -2

That's what I'm saying. My job is gone in November, and my wife's in December.

Fuck these motherfuckers.

18
RuprechtThaMonkeyBoy 18 points ago +18 / -0

Get an attorney, schedule an appointment with HR & legal and make them watch the video. Ask them if they really want to do this before the house comes crashing down. Ask them if it would be more prudent to resend the edict "in the light of new information".

20
Gadsden 20 points ago +20 / -0

Seeing as my boss is basically Joe Biden, I don't think they'll give a fuck.

In fact, my boss agrees with me, but got the shot to save his job.

Most people agree with me, but would rather sacrifice their freedoms AND their health for financial security.

9
Algotrader 9 points ago +9 / -0

It will only get worse for their kids, I don’t think they considered that.

5
AerialRush 5 points ago +5 / -0

At which booster # will they finally realize that the hill to die on was long ago? If the boosters don't eradicate them first, that is.

3
The_Knight_of_sunset 3 points ago +3 / -0

rather sacrifice their freedoms AND their health for financial security.

I wonder if they will change their tune when they are facing +$100k hospital bills and a quickly emptying bank account.

1
Gadsden 1 point ago +1 / -0

Probably not. I think they all know their new health issues are Vax caused, but are scared to admit it.

That or cognitive dissonance.

3
mikejones 3 points ago +3 / -0

My boss was so anti but then one day said he got it to keep their job. Not me. November 24th is the last day to get the jab though.

20
Hanging_Chad 20 points ago +20 / -0

This shit's revolting

16
thisguy883 16 points ago +17 / -1

Its been time to revolt.

7
magapotus 7 points ago +8 / -1

You’re right. Absolutely. Dammit.

8
deleted 8 points ago +9 / -1
221
turdinthepunch 221 points ago +221 / -0

Informed consent is good hill to die on.

122
Batman 122 points ago +123 / -1

Good hill to survive on. Let the other bastards die trying to take it.

4
InterestingThings 4 points ago +4 / -0

On the hill. Not getting off it. One way or another.

3
BigFreedomBoner 3 points ago +3 / -0

Correct. They can die for their cause.

177
Benitosuavee1 177 points ago +178 / -1

Religious Exemption. I was honestly hoping it would be an internal study on adverse events but this probably does more for a persons ability to fight the mandates.

59
13
LockThemUp 13 points ago +13 / -0

Great thank you so much! Hoping to save my job :)

3
Biteyourowntongue 3 points ago +3 / -0

Much thanks :)

34
silentnoobxd 34 points ago +34 / -0

Agree. The blocked windows during inspections. That's a big deal.

11
9Alp_CMa 11 points ago +11 / -0

Sounds familiar.

1
Squeakyguy 1 point ago +1 / -0

IT WAS THE MOST FAIR AND MOST SAFE INSPECTION OF ALL TIME

1
Jefferson 1 point ago +3 / -2

You would think. But she said they were covering up unused cells and paperwork review stations. Sounds like they were covering up areas that didn't require auditing. So, not necessarily nefarious in my opinion.

2
Triple_Jabrony 2 points ago +2 / -0

You sweet summer child

14
SFSilentNoMore 14 points ago +14 / -0

and if they are hiding this

what else are they hiding?

especially given their history

2
RachetQueen2020 2 points ago +2 / -0

What's a 2.3 billion fine when we hit the jackpot here! Shucks!

2
spelunking_librator 2 points ago +2 / -0

cost of doing business

3
RachetQueen2020 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes, and this time they are making it on both ends. Their gene editing therapy and for Eliquis the blood thinner they also market for problems caused by the gene editing therapy.

2
FuckRioters 2 points ago +2 / -0

It should be noted, you don't have to be religious, or have a religious leader sign off to assert a religious exemption.

Also +1 the vivabarneslaw link.

143
SuperHarleyQuinn 143 points ago +143 / -0

This is sickening. Informed consent is paramount when it comes to any medical decision.

MY BODY, MY CHOICE

138
reagan2024 138 points ago +139 / -1

This video contains the basis for your religious exemption.

47
Maxmax 47 points ago +47 / -0

I think that is what she is saying.

21
reagan2024 21 points ago +21 / -0

You're very observant.

11
BostonVoter 11 points ago +11 / -0

This is gold

10
thisguy883 10 points ago +10 / -0

I wonder how we can use this to claim it?

send it to our HR departments?

Speak with our church?

show them?

Like what is the process that needs to be done to get this and have it honored?

10
reagan2024 10 points ago +11 / -1

I don't know, but I think it might involve lawyering up. I think your church would be interested in seeing this.

4
FuckRioters 4 points ago +4 / -0

You do not heed approval from a church. Your religion, or lack thereof, is purely between you and God, or just you. Remember why many people left England, to get away from centralized religion.

An atheist can even submit a religious exemption. It's religious discrimination to oppose a religions exemption, even against an atheist.

https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/upost/1140046/religious-exemption-request-exemplar

132
Owl_Eyes_Alpha 132 points ago +134 / -2

Mark of the beast everyone.

I wish our courts would do something. Have a feeling that won't happen. We need to do something

43
AnEndgamePawn 43 points ago +43 / -0

Start going to the houses of the people in the emails. Democrats told us that's just some good ol' fashioned protesting

16
559throw 16 points ago +16 / -0

"It's just part of the process."

The resident has given his explicit approval of such tactics.

4
ParticleCannon 4 points ago +4 / -0

Dye your hair blue first

14
magnokor 14 points ago +14 / -0

An international crime.

Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, they have been infested with Pfizer and can certainly put out warrants to arrest all those in charge there.

Saudi Arabia? Them too, a slightly different "justice" system there.

8
deleted 8 points ago +9 / -1
3
namechecksouttwice 3 points ago +4 / -1

most courts are masonic infiltrated; they do try to balance good with evil but wtf do. they need to inject evil into their actiions half the time? silly materialists, playing a silly game to try to evolve spiritually while unknowingly worshipping lucifer. anyway... only court that is functional. anymore is a citizen initiated grand jury.

1
Yahyeetw 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lol our courts do something.. judges literally rule on something then a higher court reversed it. Literally what just happened in Texas abortion ban

102
The_Litehaus_Abides 102 points ago +103 / -1

Blacking out rooms. Huh. Kind of like blocking windows when counting votes...

22
IHeartMyDoggy 22 points ago +23 / -1

I see the memes coming! The guy with the big cardboard has entered the Pfizer building.

9
ShyRipley 9 points ago +9 / -0

kek I thought of that pizza box window guy too

6
silentnoobxd 6 points ago +6 / -0

It's sad to see they didn't focus more on this

96
Jon888 96 points ago +96 / -0

We've known the vaccine was tested on aborted fetal tissue though.... If you look far enough back in my history I used that as an example to help someone get a religious exemption a long time ago, although he ended up getting the exemption without specifics needed.

58
panthicc 58 points ago +58 / -0

There's a pretty big gap between formerly knowing something for yourself and now being able to point to a literal email from a VP at Pfizer directing people to hide that info from the press and public.

There are religious people who've committed a grave and deadly sin because of this suppression.

It's good that you're informed. It means you and the individuals in your circles can make sound, fact-based decisions.

But you personally knowing about it a year ago or whatever doesn't change the fact that informed consent has been massively violated, and doesn't help drive legal and legislative action against these evil people to help protect the rest of the country/world.

19
Tip-O-Matic 19 points ago +19 / -0

This just raises more questions with me, primarily "what else are they not telling us?" These videos will more than likely be the basis of my Informed Consent exception, if the need arises, depending on what other videos James releases in the near future.

2
el-y0y0s 2 points ago +2 / -0

It made no difference. This very fact was denounced and rationalized away by the so called Vicar of the Carholic Church last year.

Catholics, ironically, are the denomination leading the race in the most vaccinated.

30
Consumerbot381732 30 points ago +31 / -1

Right, we even saw a snarky response from some medical group, interrogating the applicant, who'd applied for a religious exemption, as to whether or not he'd ever gotten a vaccine or used a medication on a long list of common shots and meds (including aspirin, which is super disingenuous).

I was really hoping for more, although I do appreciate this release...

23
BringTheCat789 23 points ago +23 / -0

That is completely ridiculous on the grounds that your beliefs need only be deeply held and sincere. They do not need to be long-standing, and they do not need to be practiced by you without fault.

Having eaten ham as a child does not mean a converted Muslim should be able to be forced to consume a pork chop.

Having given into temptation and trying bacon on a sandwich once does not mean a Muslim should be able to be forced to consume a ham sandwich.

12
RachetQueen2020 12 points ago +12 / -0

The vaccines I received as a child were not based on my fucking consent would be my response. None since I have been an adult able to exercise my own autonomy.

3
easyonthefiber 3 points ago +3 / -0

"Deeply held and sincere" doesn't cover "factually accurate and scientifically sound" either. I can have deeply held and sincere beliefs that demons come out at night and possess my body against my will, so I am unable to work outside of daylight hours. There's no rational or scientific basis for that claim, but so long as my employer can reasonably accommodate me without undue hardship to their business, they should accommodate me.

Its just that in America, we've been generally willing to do whatever it takes to survive, to make fistfuls of money, and be exceedingly comfortable. So we'll sacrifice our beliefs (and liberty) bit by bit for the sake of security, comfort, and ease of life, without nary a struggle.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +1 / -0

undue hardship to their business

And this will be the hardest fight of it all. Certain people will argue that allowing unvaccinated workers causes undue hardship to a business by creating too much risk to their employees. I expect that there will be a court case regarding this where this exact point will be argued, with the defense arguing that the vaccine does not protect others who are vaccinated in any significant way and being unvaccinated does not prevent any sizable risk not comparable to risks we're already expected to endure just by existing. They'll likely bring up how the relatively few number of religious exemptions further minimize this risk (i.e. the risk if everyone was unvaccinated versus if one or two people in a giant company are unvaccinated).

Ultimately, there are facts, but assuming both sides agree on the facts, there is still a subjective interpretation to be had. Two people can agree on the risk, but one person can believe that risk is an undue hardship to the company and the other may not. That's what makes the argument. Comparing it to other risks we are expected to take will be effective, though.

1
easyonthefiber 1 point ago +1 / -0

Employees who have been teleworking for the last 18-20 months could/should argue continuing to do so presents no more burden than the business / federal agency has already endured, particularly if any teleworking employee received favorable performance evaluations, or the business had increased revenue / business growth.

The real impact are the jobs that don't support telework or remote operations at all, like logistics (shipping/receiving/trucking/dock work), tradesmiths, blue collar / physical labor, etc.

You're right for sure, we'd have to assume both sides agree on facts, and that won't happen when one or both sides doesn't objectively allow all facts presented. Just looking at news articles where the headlines are spun to support a narrative position held by the outlet.

3
ParticleCannon 3 points ago +3 / -0

Is that just an admission that previous vaccines and medications were tested on aborted fetal tissue?

1
Consumerbot381732 1 point ago +1 / -0

I believe so, yes. They are basically trying to call anybody who’s ever had a vaccine a hypocrite if they refuse this one based on the fetal cell testing, AND admitting to and normalizing the use of fetal cells in drug and vaccine testing context.

18
Forgedmale 18 points ago +18 / -0

IF they will try to hide this info, WHAT ELSE DID THEY HIDE SUCCESSFULLY? The issue is transparency and integrity, regardless of the actual bombshellness of the issue.

7
Donnybiceps 7 points ago +7 / -0

Exactly. If you catch someone lying what else could they be lying about.

4
Bubblegumbro 4 points ago +4 / -0

That the biggest bomb shell for me. We can’t trust them ( pharma) on this

5
Forgedmale 5 points ago +5 / -0

The real bombshell would be if the FDA/CDC knew they were trying to hide this info and let them...

2
FuckRioters 2 points ago +2 / -0

Technically, we've known about this for months, it's just been continuously swept under the rug.

15
leet23 15 points ago +15 / -0

We might of known about it but what about every day Joe's who just watch MSM, suburban mom's etc.

16
ShyRipley 16 points ago +16 / -0

Excellent point. And always why Project Veritas is a way to spread the word.

Also, side note... think about the make up industry. When people found out that mascara or lipstick was being tested on cute little bunnies, there was an uproar. Nobody thought there were bunny bits IN the mascara, just the thought of testing it on rabbits was bad enough. There were boycotts and make up companies quickly switched to marketing "No Animal Testing" for their products.

So Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine isn't tested ON live babies, but it is tested on aborted fetal cells of dead babies. Maybe those baby cells are in the actual vax, maybe not. Pfizer is so careful with it's words, it's hard to tell. But the bottom line is, the testing is most definitely confirmed to use aborted baby cells, and the testing is an integral part of how the Covid Jab is manufactured.

Let Everyday Joe and Everyday Jane think about that for a minute.

5
summerbreeze 5 points ago +5 / -0

Part of the problem is the assumptions people make about aborted fetal cells. They think aborted means already dead and cells are small so it seems insignificant.

But the reality is that in order to use the cells for research, they have to be harvested while the unborn baby is still alive. The entire uterus is taken out of the woman and the unborn child is dissected alive while still in the detached uterus; this keeps the tissues from becoming contaminated. This is where the fetal cell lines come from. A baby was dissected while alive and its tissues were harvested to produce the fetal cell lines.

I came across this information while doing research for my religious exemption statement. I knew fetal cell lines were used in vaccines but I thought it was taken from the already dead bodies of the aborted babies. I was so wrong.

0
NotProgCensored 0 points ago +1 / -1

The bunnies with the mascara and lipstick increased baby bunny production? Who knew. And these were actual furry bunnies not Playboy Bunnies?

2
OperationCatSpeed 2 points ago +2 / -0

This one goes out to all the normies...

2
IcyHue 2 points ago +2 / -0

I guess most normies won't care anyway. They don't care about children mining the lithium for their car batteries or poisoning themselves by recycling copper from electric cords. As long as it's for the "greater good" (like pampering their feeling of moral superiority) they don't give a fuck about children, the less so if those are "just a lump of cells".

3
OperationCatSpeed 3 points ago +3 / -0

Can’t agree more. Even worse these fetal lines were taken from vivisection of live infants. We deserve what we as a nation are going through.

2
Jon888 2 points ago +3 / -1

Probably less so, but the whistleblower's only real revelation is that they big pharma doesn't want people to know they use fetal tissue to test the vaccine... Which, to me at least, is like no shit. PV could have literally drummed up old news articles debunking the claim the vaccine has aborted fetal tissue in the vaccine to show they used those tissues at different stages of development.

9
GrayManNumber333 9 points ago +20 / -11

Yea this isn’t much of a bombshell. Only thing it has that’s new is top officers talking about withholding info. The info itself is already released. Previous vid of their employees saying natural immunity is better, but they have NDAs against saying that was a big deal.

34
Forgedmale 34 points ago +34 / -0

IF they will try to hide this info, WHAT ELSE DID THEY HIDE SUCCESSFULLY? The issue is transparency and integrity, regardless of the actual bombshellness of the issue.

10
ShyRipley 10 points ago +10 / -0

^ THIS

7
_Sully_ 7 points ago +7 / -0

Yes! They are breaking federal law. We know this but this shows that they need to be investigated. But who know if anything will come of it until the mass formation is broken in the general public. End of the year is key because I don’t think they can keep it up. Vax all and cut and run.

10
VirtueVeritas 10 points ago +10 / -0

They were blacking out windows in the factory that were normally left transparent and no one ever got a good reason why. That alone is crazy and very suspicious.

2
2ScoopsMAGA 2 points ago +2 / -0

They were printing more ballots for Joe Biden

8
BringTheCat789 8 points ago +8 / -0

People say this every time a Project Veritas video releases. It's always "we already knew that."

Yes, we already knew that, but hearing it directly from the horse's mouth is still huge.

2
FuckRioters 2 points ago +2 / -0

Precisely. People act like every PV video needs to be equivalent to a massive Wikileaks dump. PV has done a LOT of amazing work, enough so that they can make a big release, and it seems small compared to some of their other releases.

I donate to PV, and they've more than earned what money I've sent them.

1
FuckRioters 1 point ago +1 / -0

Technically, it's not a bombshell, but that's only because people like us are about 12-months ahead of the mainstream media. To the normie that only watches approved-authorities, this is a bombshell.

A lot of people have been gaslight, when they try to make a claim for religious exemption, the employer claims the use of fetal cells is a myth.

Releases like this gets the word out there in a powerful way. Sure, it's not going to change the entire world, but some people seem to have unrealistically high expectations for every PV video. This is the 5th PV video, and each one is different, some more useful than others, but every one of them helpful.

For example #2 was just some drunk moron, with questionable ethics, but it's still an example of the kind of people employed by the FDA.

70
Formerlurker92 70 points ago +70 / -0

I like that the head scientist has pink hair. It confirms several things I had suspicions about

32
ConcernedFrenchFrog 32 points ago +32 / -0

From a yt comment : a pink haired lezbovitz LOL

9
thisguy883 9 points ago +9 / -0

God damn commie alphabet people doing the devils work to curse us all.

7
Wolf_22 7 points ago +7 / -0

...the real pandemic.

3
BostonVoter 3 points ago +3 / -0

Good catch ! Haverhill is all junkie people

2
TheImpossible1 2 points ago +2 / -0

Myocarditis is deliberate.

Surely the last PV drop will expose it. It's all I'm hoping for, a complete vindication of everything I've stood for.

65
Squeaker 65 points ago +65 / -0

Someone clarify this for me. They said the fetal tissue was used in the testing of said vaccine but not in the components of the vaccine?

65
basedBlumpkin 65 points ago +65 / -0

Used to develop it but it's not in the actual vaccine being shot into people (is what they say)

36
thisguy883 36 points ago +36 / -0

But whoopsie, they cant be sued if it turns out they lied.

Sorry folks.

17
IHeartMyDoggy 17 points ago +18 / -1

But the Vatican made a statement that they were ok that fetal cells were used in the testing? Is that correct? Is that what I saw in the email?

40
ADAM_SCHITT 40 points ago +40 / -0

The pope is a leftist faggot.

12
thisguy883 12 points ago +12 / -0

he aint my Pope.

fuck that guy.

2
RyanUpCreek 2 points ago +4 / -2

The first Jesuit Pope. The Jesuits want to disrupt and destroy sovereign society so it stands to reason that the globalists selected this pope for this very moment

16
BringTheCat789 16 points ago +16 / -0

My religion is not based on what the Pope says. It's not even based on what my direct religious leaders say. The courts agree and take it even a step further: my religion does not even need to be based on what God says, as even atheists are afforded first amendment rights.

4
ViduusMAGA 4 points ago +4 / -0

Nail this to the door somewhere!

1
LordKuroTheGreat 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Vatican has been infested with gays, Satanists, communists, perverts, and international organized crime. Probably all of the above for Bergolio the Great and Merciful.

13
Donnybiceps 13 points ago +13 / -0

Think about it, why in gods name is ANY fetal tissue being used in any way to make a vaccine/shot?? If they're using the fetal tissue in experiments then they plan on potentially using it in the final form/rollout. This just gets me pissed off and I'm not even that religious.

1
Patriots_dont_kneel 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fetal cells are used in the creation of so-called humanized mice. Those are mice that have been injected with human stem cells, so they contain human tissue. They have human DNA, cells, even organs in some cases. They're very useful in testing drugs because they respond the same way a human would. Those things have been very useful in getting a better understanding on how serious diseases like Malaria, HIV and Hepatitis work on humans. I bet that's what they mean when they say that fetal cells were used in testing.

Could you develop the vaccine without those? Probably, but you would have to go straight from animal tissue to human testing, which is more risky. Also, I believe there are techniques to get those stem cells from adults, so fetal cells might be phased out in the future.

1
krzyzowiec 1 point ago +1 / -0

Which we have no way of verifying anyway, since the contents are proprietary information.

34
kornesque 34 points ago +35 / -1

Right. Everybody already knows this. Of course the MFR doesn't want a "dead baby narrative", hell yeah the Jansen jab CONTAINS fetal cells.

17
Zskills 17 points ago +17 / -0

Source on JJ vaccine and fetal cells. They're used to make it but not an ingredient.

Not better. Just an important difference

7
2
MeinKaupf 2 points ago +2 / -0

I looked at it but I’m not entirely sure what I’m trying to decipher. There’s 3 columns. Design&Development, Production, and Confirm-atory Lab Tests. Green square means no fetuses used. Red triangle means fetuses were used. Red triangle+green square means some have fetuses some don’t, and question mark means it’s undetermined if fetuses were used or not. I can understand this. But what do the 3 categories actually mean? Is design&development the creation of the vaccine, and fetuses used were put in it? Or they were used to test the design&development? Same with production? The fetuses were put in production? Or they were used to test while in production stages? Confirm-atory Lab Tests is the one that seems self explanatory as to what the fetuses were used for.

6
Forgedmale 6 points ago +6 / -0

Design and development is the pre testing before trials. Production is when they make it at the factory for distribution.

The Janssen uses fetal cell lines at every stage. Moderna and Pfizer used fetal cell lines in developmental tests while creating the vaccines, but not in the production of the vaccines that are injected.

6
BostonVoter 6 points ago +6 / -0

Alex Jones yesterday showed us, vaccines used to be eggs, and now it is fetal tissue . Wake Up!

2
kornesque 2 points ago +2 / -0

https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/

You're right that they're used to make it. They infect what's essentially dead baby cells with whatever they want and take the output of that as the ingredient. That genetic material is going into people.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
4
user365927285937 4 points ago +4 / -0

They all do.

3
LtPatterson 3 points ago +3 / -0

No "vaccine" contains fetal cells. They were either developed from or tested on them for efficacy in humans (not safety).

15
LaPastillaEscarlata 15 points ago +15 / -0

Right, but that certainly doesn't change the fact that they are using murdered babies for testing for their clot shots.

4
LtPatterson 4 points ago +4 / -0

100%

2
ThunderInYourHeart 2 points ago +2 / -0

I’m curious, why aborted fetal cells? The testing won’t work on tissue from a body that died of natural causes? Don’t people donate their bodies to science? Either there’s a real scientific explanation, or it’s a money thing.

2
LtPatterson 2 points ago +2 / -0

We used to get the fetal cells from Sweden I believe. Very expensive. Much cheaper to get them here. These were from the 70s/80s and are replicating forever in large vats in a lab. That's why. Very similar to stem cells. You can't get this type of cell from a dead person or a living human out of the womb. Sick.

1
kornesque 1 point ago +2 / -1

That is an incorrect statement. Fetal cells are used in a lot of jabs, here's just the coof ones: https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/

Full disclosure, the cells are not directly from the baby but are mass produced clones of cells from babies.

1
LtPatterson 1 point ago +1 / -0

They are not used in the vaccine directly injected is what I meant. And yes, this is relatively routine for some vaccines, but not all of them. They are literally made in vats.

1
kornesque 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well ok. The matter in the vaccine is no longer just fetal cells. It is the output of fetal cells infected with the virus mixed with whatever fetal cells that dodged infection.

21
Mothertrumprr 21 points ago +23 / -2

Remember that there are redacted ingredients inside the vaccines. How much you want to bet the fetus cells are part of that?

15
Squeaker 15 points ago +15 / -0

Wtf is a redacted ingredient? If it's in there, it should be listed. Disgusting.

12
Mothertrumprr 12 points ago +12 / -0

They call it their in house compound or some shit like that. They can likely skirt it with that EUA. Fastest sauce I could whip up: https://web.archive.org/web/20210924012933/https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/09/fact-check-the-covid-vaccine-redacted-ingredient-is-not-mysterious-it's-salt-water.html Mind you this article got redacted later on.

6
NorthernConservative 6 points ago +6 / -0

The “secret sauce”

1
DroppsaDuece 1 point ago +1 / -0

The redacted portion was revealed to be water.

Yeah, water.

Sketchy fucking answer, but it is what they responded with to ICAN.

1
Mothertrumprr 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lol yeah water from Flint, Michigan I bet...

13
ShyRipley 13 points ago +13 / -0

Human fetal derived cell lines are not used to produce our investigational vaccine, which consists of synthetic and enzymatically produced components. One or more cell lines with an origin that can be traced back to human fetal tissue has been used in laboratory tests associated with the vaccine program.

We have an approved answer to this question, which she can probably provide. HEK293T cells, used by the IVE assay, are ultimately derived from an aborted fetus. On the other hand, the Vatican doctrinal committee has confirmed that they consider it acceptable for Pro-Life believers to be immunized. Pfizer's official statement couches the answer well and is what should be provided in response to an outside inquiry.

HEK = Human Embryonic Kidney / from experiment 293

1
24601 1 point ago +3 / -2

The problem with this video is that nothing here is really new.

For example, here's ND governmental health website saying the exact same thing as in the video:

https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/COVID%20Vaccine%20Page/COVID-19_Vaccine_Fetal_Cell_Handout.pdf

12
24601 12 points ago +12 / -0

Actually... upon fully reading my linked document...

I'm wrong.

The video directly refutes the claim in the document about Pfizer not using fetal cell lines to develop their COVID-19 injection.

10
NormalCupcake 10 points ago +10 / -0

Yes. I suspect they used them to create humanised mice for animals testing.

61
Mothertrumprr 61 points ago +61 / -0

How unsurprising that the Vatican goes along with it. The pope is a fraud.

36
The_Litehaus_Abides 36 points ago +36 / -0

He is absolutely a fraud. A usurper and a Communist, he is frankly evil.

9
Bubblegumbro 9 points ago +9 / -0

There hasn’t been a decent pope since the 60s. Just ask Malachi martin

4
The_Litehaus_Abides 4 points ago +4 / -0

I've got 9 hours of interviews Father Martin did with Art Bell saved offline. They are priceless.

3
FirstThessalonian 3 points ago +3 / -0

[Rev 13:11 NASB95] 11 Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb and he spoke as a dragon.

2
IMMORTAN_TRUMP 2 points ago +2 / -0

Soon the “trad Caths” will learn that the entire Catholic Church is just like the Pope.

9
IHeartMyDoggy 9 points ago +10 / -1

I was shocked to see that. I am Catholic and I cannot even remotely see how he thinks that is ok. Does anyone have his statement on this?

4
OconusLurex 4 points ago +4 / -0

There is now even a mandate in the Vatican. They'll accept a recent test in lieu of the shot, but this really isn't a reasonable accommodation for employees, or anyone who is there regularly, and several guards just recently quit over it.

The order requires that anyone entering Vatican City or its “extraterritorial properties” will be required to show a Covid “green pass” or other proof of vaccination, issued either by the Vatican or another government or health authority. It takes effect Oct. 1.

The rule applies to all Vatican City citizens, employees, residents and visitors, both to the territory of the city-state and the departments of the Roman curia outside of the Vatican territory.

The Pope has repeatedly urged people to get the jab, referring to a moral duty to protect the most vulnerable (even though it doesn't do that,) and muh common good, etc. The mandate was put into effect in reaction to his order "to adopt every suitable measure to prevent, control and contrast the health emergency public in progress in the Vatican City State." (whatever that means.)

Such a farce.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
3
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
3
Anonymous_leopard 3 points ago +3 / -0

Pope wants a one world religion

1
BigIgloo 1 point ago +2 / -1

The Catholic church fell over a thousand years ago.

58
GrumpyGrumpus 58 points ago +58 / -0

A lot of us have already known this.

This information is for other's who are not following the issue as closely as we are.

The media response will be along the lines of:

"The use of the cell line is normal industry practice during research and development, they don't use them for manufacturing. Besides, a lot of other drugs/vaccines use this process, what's the big deal?"

"Oh, and by the way, we all know you are all Catholic, so you have to listen to the Pope." Who is going to break it to them that not all religions are Catholic?

10
wat_meme 10 points ago +10 / -0

Yeah, I'm Reformed, I don't like that I am lumped in with the papists, haha!

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
5
SFSilentNoMore 5 points ago +5 / -0

I think it goes a bit deeper

the fetal tissue that was used years ago is in replication

what they are using now was something in addition from the way I heard and read.

But I am going to need a true medical mind to unwrap this for me and us

5
GrumpyGrumpus 5 points ago +5 / -0

The use of stem cells derived from aborted fetus is often used as a debate topic within medical schools to discuss medical ethics.

The same arguments can be used when discussing the horrendous medical experiments conducted during the holocaust. Should the knowledge gained from these experiments be used to advance medicine?

1
KMacsBinder 1 point ago +1 / -0

You were aware of and had proof that they were actively suppressing that information? That is the real story here. What other information are they actively trying to suppress?

50
Dictator_Bob 50 points ago +50 / -0

Planned Parenthood has been illegally selling fetal kidney organs. They were caught. Now we know a buyer. They are working to inject us with this...

12
Theannihilatrixx 12 points ago +12 / -0

This

5
BostonVoter 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yes

4
CALI_MAGA_MAMA 4 points ago +4 / -0

Project Veritas uncovered that story too. I kept wondering, WHY?? What are they using them for?? Now we know. God bless PV.

42
PKC_MAN 42 points ago +42 / -0

Using aborted baby cell? Funny how we were considered conspirace theorists for saying this.

8
Donaldsweiner 8 points ago +8 / -0

We’re at the point when they call something a conspiracy theory it’s actually true

41
SuddenlyClintoned 41 points ago +41 / -0

I don't even have religious views.

I still don't want fucking slain human tissue used in something something I'm being injected with.

3
Grond999 3 points ago +3 / -0

This scenario also exposes how deceptive Big Pharma corps can be. They are not concerned with honesty.

2
FuckRioters 2 points ago +2 / -0

A strongly held moral view is a legitimate view for a religious exception, according to Robert Barnes.

1
SuddenlyClintoned 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ye. But I'm Canadian and they don't honour ANY exemptions in my area.

To "avoid human rights violations" they're "working on allowances"

-2
Crush_Commies -2 points ago +8 / -10

I pray that someone helps you establish a connection with God

5
SuddenlyClintoned 5 points ago +5 / -0

I live a good life, with strong personal values that would put me in his good graces.
But I do not wish to partake, sorry mate.

33
Varrick2019 33 points ago +35 / -2

To;dr Pfizer put aborted fetal tissue cells in the vax and they’re not only lying about it they’re blocking any religious exemptions. High level executive emails prove the fraud and they’re blacking out Windows internally in the factory supposedly because of muh FDA inspections

3
silentsupporter 3 points ago +3 / -0

Do we need photos of the inside of the labs before they were being used? I might have some..

30
Supernova 30 points ago +30 / -0

Holy fucking shit.

30
TheChinesePlague 30 points ago +30 / -0

ALEX JONES WAS RIGHT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

9
silentnoobxd 9 points ago +9 / -0

The heaviest object in the universe was formerly known as "the Alex Jones was right jar"

4
Annpi 4 points ago +4 / -0

I thought everyone knew about the fetal tissues....

29
20MagnusKonrad20 29 points ago +29 / -0

Man, I remember when this was being talked about last year and it was considered fringe, unspeakable conspiracy. Well score one more for the conspiracy theorists.

3
RachetQueen2020 3 points ago +3 / -0

How many conspiracy theories have came true in the past two years? Way too many!

25
webthing 25 points ago +25 / -0

Fucking Nazis

24
Pax11B 24 points ago +24 / -0

When she mentioned that she was referred by lawyers and lawmakers; it gave me a glimmer of hope for some reason

16
mikethemarine 16 points ago +16 / -0

lawyers and lawmakers sent her to Veritas cause they didn't want to get near it. those two occupations suck dick, cause they are both trained liars and don't want to get HILLARY'ED

11
Mintap 11 points ago +11 / -0

Yep, but lawyers and lawmakers should be able to do more about it too.

1
FuckRioters 1 point ago +1 / -0

Some, like Robert Barnes are absolutely on the front-lines.

23
GrayManNumber333 23 points ago +23 / -0

Wasn’t the use of fetal cell lines already public?

24
webthing 24 points ago +24 / -0

Yes. Alex Jones has been talking about it for years.

13
leet23 13 points ago +15 / -2

And how many normies listen to Alex Jones?

12
alienjesus 12 points ago +12 / -0

None because Alex is banned from pretty much the entire internet.

12
OconusLurex 12 points ago +12 / -0

It was, but you'd get shouted down and called a conspiracy theorist for it, even if you were directly quoting and referencing the precise fetal lines used. I've seen more than one of the talking heads on the news laugh about it, like it's the most ridiculous thing ever - they also strawman it as "people think there's baby tissue in the vax," as though that was the claim being made. So normies really do think it's facebook meme medical misinformation. This will reach a much broader audience, and will force the issue out into the open.

This is the heads of the company directly acknowledging it (as well as demonstrating that they're trying to conceal and/or obfuscate the fact, and deny people informed consent.) This is direct evidence that can be used to bolster religious exemptions.

8
Annpi 8 points ago +8 / -0

I thought everyone knew this....

3
The_Expert 3 points ago +3 / -0

Its one thing to know it, its another to hear it out of the horses mouth.

3
FuckRioters 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes, but people have been trying to gaslight or "fact check" that claim. Mostly saying it's not contained "in" the vaccine, which is probably true (though we don't know all the ingredients). The fetuses were used in the development process though.

The important point is getting the word out there.

22
nozonozo 22 points ago +23 / -1

Pfizer needs a Pfist up their ass!

11
BlitheringIdiot 11 points ago +11 / -0

They're actually into that from what I've heard.

4
Boobzrule 4 points ago +4 / -0

I heard they were so into it that they were the ones that pushed anal swabbing for covid .. but then totally stopped talking about it when no one else was onboard

2
ViduusMAGA 2 points ago +2 / -0

I went underground. Check your DMs for Barack-Obama2’s address…

19
leet23 19 points ago +19 / -0

Well ACB let's see how much of a Catholic you really are.

18
namaste_trump 18 points ago +18 / -0

she is my new hero for putting this out there!! Hope religious groups sue every last penny off these assholes.

18
deleted 18 points ago +18 / -0
18
Forgedmale 18 points ago +19 / -1

IF they will try to hide this info, WHAT ELSE DID THEY HIDE SUCCESSFULLY? The issue is transparency and integrity, regardless of the actual bombshellness of the issue.

3
russianbot4673 3 points ago +4 / -1

they didn't actually do a very good job of hiding it since it was widely reported over a year ago: https://www.science.org/content/article/abortion-opponents-protest-covid-19-vaccines-use-fetal-cells

btw it's not just the covid vaccine, check out that article.

4
Forgedmale 4 points ago +4 / -0

This article makes it worse. The Pfizer vaccine is not named in this story (from June 2020) as containing fetal cells. Why? because as Veritas has exposed, they were actively trying to conceal that fact up until at least February 2021 (date on those Pfizer emails).

3
russianbot4673 3 points ago +4 / -1

i don't think it's correct to say the vaccines 'contain' fetal cells. the fetal cells are used in their development. we don't know what the vaccine contains but as far as i saw, nothing in this veritas video, nor the article i linked, actually says the vaccines contain fetal cells. for many, just the fact that the cells were used in the development is enough, and i'm not saying it shouldn't be a concern. but i don't think it helps to make false claims to hype this thing up. chances are you've already gotten several vaccines that used the fetal cells in the research, just like this one, since that article says it's been done since the 60s. and i'm not trying to say that's ok, but if you go around saying the vaccines contain fetal cells, libs will shoot you down since there's no proof of THAT, and they'll point out that many vaccines used them in development. this is nothing new, and the fact is that this video really didn't expose anything. except for the fact that it will expose an already widely reported fact to lots of people who didn't already know. which is good. but i think people are being a bit mislead here and are going to look like idiots if they don't do their damn research or a 5 second internet search once in a while.

1
Forgedmale 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah I should have said were developed instead of contained. The point stands though, they covered that shit up hard as fuck.

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
2
RachetQueen2020 2 points ago +2 / -0

From reading the Nature article, there are other options to pursue without these cells. Why haven't they? Laziness? Greed? Agent's of Satan? They can do better and won't.

1
Forgedmale 1 point ago +1 / -0

The point is not WHAT they tried to cover up. The point is that they TRIED TO COVER SOMETHING UP AT ALL. You cannot have informed consent when the manufacturer purposefully hides information that they know many people would find relevant. The specifically acknowledge that having this information public would cause some amount of people to reject the vaccine. WHAT OTHER INFORMATION DID THEY HIDE THAT WOULD CAUSE PEOPLE TO REJECT THE VACCINE? The whole point is that they CANNOT BE TRUSTED, and this proves they will go to great lengths to hide, deflect, and obfuscate anything THEY DECIDE you don't need to know. THEY DON'T get to decide what I NEED TO KNOW. I DO and YOU DO.

16
MythArcana 16 points ago +16 / -0

Global homicide, brought to you by the party of hate.

16
CaptainSmirk 16 points ago +16 / -0

PV revealed it, I'm gonna use it against my employer. They're gonna pay, I'm gonna retire. Sucks to be them.

15
minoritytrump 15 points ago +15 / -0

Hey Project Veritas...can you pay a little extra to have a version with Spanish subtitles? I got some Latinx people who need to know this. They're a very Catholic culture...center of almost every town in Central America and Caribbean is a church

7
HeavenlyMystery 7 points ago +7 / -0

fuck off with latinx term

15
leet23 15 points ago +15 / -0

Pure evil and may God strike them all down.

3
Anonymous_leopard 3 points ago +3 / -0

Imagine 5 seconds after they die when they are permanently damned to hell

14
joebama-smells 14 points ago +14 / -0

The Left: Trust the science, bigot!

Also the left: buries empirical evidence

12
Throwingway22 12 points ago +12 / -0

Crimes against humanity.

11
Nalgahyde 11 points ago +11 / -0

I'm sure this whistleblower will get as much attention as that ugly broad earlier this week. Pfizer whistleblower in front of Congress in 3...2...1...

11
Gwoz8881 11 points ago +11 / -0

Aborted human fetal cells used in the vaccine is a big one

9
JBlaze056 9 points ago +9 / -0

Satanists are in charge of society and we are suffering the consequences. We can destroy them all Deus Vult.

9
Destroy_WithLove 9 points ago +9 / -0

While I personally have no issue with medicine derived from fetal tissue cell lines, I understand that a lot of people DO have ethical problems with it. And they've been lied to.

That's unconscionable.

9
Cdope45 9 points ago +9 / -0

Are there going to be more videos. We really need showing adverse reactions and Pfizer lying about it.

4
dahdahdah_dahditdah 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yes. Hoping Pfizer whistleblowers step forward.

9
behemoth887 9 points ago +11 / -2

why don't they want everybody to know they are injecting you with dead babies

i thought libs were chillin' about brutally murdering and harvesting babies cuz they aren't really alive. so why do they feel like they should hide the fact they are using the harvested dead baby body parts?

9
mikethemarine 9 points ago +9 / -0

We Want to Avoid Having the Information on the Fetal Cells Floating Out There’

8
Tacticalsmoke420 8 points ago +9 / -1

Dead baby tissue is in the vax

2
Crush_Commies 2 points ago +3 / -1

I believe used to test the vax but no clarity on is it actually in the vax, either way it is fucked

8
deleted 8 points ago +9 / -1
8
POTUS_DonnieJ 8 points ago +8 / -0

Fetal cells is one thing and abhorrent, but something we already knew that. I was looking just the other day at what fetal tissue cells are used in the various covid vaxxes. What I want to see the exec discussions regarding heart issues, fertility issues, and other serious medic side effects.

2
Bubblegumbro 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh I’m sure I’ll tell the truth about heart issues and things, they won’t try to cover up anything like that. Wink wink

2
user365927285937 2 points ago +3 / -1

Or discussing the results of the self aware nano fibers, parasite larvae, metal shards and graphene oxide.

1
SFSilentNoMore 1 point ago +1 / -0

my guess is... it is coming if it exists - we are going to find out

1
POTUS_DonnieJ 1 point ago +1 / -0

I certainly hope so.

7
Totally_Not_FBI 7 points ago +7 / -0

The commie pope says its okay, though.

7
Greenhills 7 points ago +7 / -0

Oh, now I get why they picked the exceptions to mandates they did….to prevent whistleblowers.