Fact Check: Dutch Trial Against Gates, Bourla, and Rutte Over COVID Vaccine Claims

Body to body to body hand-to-hand. And for this hand-to-hand, I am very happy to be joined by Senta Depuydt and Caro.

Hello Senta Depuydt. >> Hello. Yes, we are in good shape too. >> Thank you very much for being with us

this morning. You are a Belgian independent journalist. You work notably with Essentiel News. You also

directed, and this is important, the European branch of Children's Health Defense, the organization founded by

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has always been committed to the defense of medical freedom and free vaccine choice

, especially the defense of children, as you well understand. Uh, and now, you have analyses and investigations

that you publish in Senta's newsletter. Where can we find this newsletter? Oh, on Substack.

>> Okay, it's a Substack. And then we are with Caro. Hello Caro. >> Hello.

>> I say Caro because I believe it's your pen name, right? That's what you're called.

>> Okay. Yeah. >> Uh, no, because I don't want people to think I'm a bit...You are a journalist

for BAM. BAM, I think many of our listeners are familiar with it. BAM is really very good at being on the, well,

on the ground, always showing images that others don't necessarily manage to show. And you are also an activist

involved in citizen collectives in Belgium and a French-speaking liaison for the Dutch lawsuit against Bill

Gates and Albert Bourla. So that is exactly what we are talking about today with you. So, I'll just quickly recap

the facts before giving you the floor to try and understand everything that will be at stake starting tomorrow. So,

it's tomorrow, Thursday, October 22nd, all eyes will be turned toward Leeuwarden. It's in the Netherlands. Uh

, it is the District Court of the Northern Netherlands which, in a public hearing broadcast live—so we will all

be able to follow it, right—will examine the merits of a civil case, uh, filed against Bill Gates, the founder

of Microsoft whom you all know, and Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer. Uh, and also Mark Rutte, the former Dutch

Prime Minister, but especially the Secretary General of NATO. So all of them will be in the dock, and

questioned by, notably, seven Dutch citizens who are at the origin of this action. So perhaps, uh, well, if Caro

or Senta, one of the two, could tell us exactly why you decided to go, in what way this is a historical case, and what

we can expect from this trial? Uh, yes, I'd like to. I'll just start by saying that I don't think Bill Gates, Bourla,

and Ruth will personally be in the defendant's dock. Of course, they are being

>> Yes. represented. Yes. >> By their lawyers. And Bill Gates had, by the way, done everything to say that

as an American citizen, he felt he was not involved in the case and therefore did not have to answer to the Dutch

justice system. Uh, but the Dutch courts ruled and, uh, said that no, indeed, uh, we were expecting him. Now

it is obvious that, uh, it is extremely difficult for the magistrates and I think that, uh, well it is

>> they must be under pressure. Yeah. >> Yes yes yes yes yes. There is enormous pressure. So maybe you want to tell the

story a bit. I don't know, we haven't decided yet how to take turns speaking but yeah. Yes, yes, it's a trial that,

uh, actually started, uh, in 2023. The complaint was filed, uh, it's a civil complaint for civil liability that was

filed in 2023 and at the time, let's say the lead lawyer, >> I'll just interrupt to tell people, all

those who say "Ah, they won't go to prison." Indeed, when it's a civil complaint, it's not the King's

prosecutor, criminal prison. Right? So there, these are people >> who have experienced vaccine injuries

and are asking for compensation for the damages suffered. >> Which doesn't rule out that one day

there could also be a criminal trial, right? >> And besides, that is what Peter Stassen

, the lawyer currently in charge of the trial, is asking for. Meaning that he says: "I am bringing you the experts

and the evidence to show you, uh, that a crime was committed," and then he would like the judge himself to file,

well, take up the case and file a criminal complaint. But currently, in fact, the fact that it is a civil

procedure, >> so what we are calling into question is the civil liability of the different

individuals and their, and therefore, liability regarding their own personal funds. means it has a better chance of

succeeding because precisely we bypass the fact that, for example, vaccines have immunity or things like that. So

there, he actually, he really found— he sees us in an extraordinary way—to find all the tricks to get around the,

the, the pitfalls and manage to unpack the whole case and, and get the court to debate the merits, even though from

the start they were trying to avoid getting to the heart of the matter. And yes, when we, I was supposed to speak

to talk about the pressures in... Actually, so at the start the, the lawyer, let's say who was leading the

case, was a relatively well-known lawyer in the Netherlands because he had already defended cases along those

lines. His name is Arnaud Van Cessel. And so he, he started the case with Peter Stasen who was assisting him in

2023. And one fine morning in 2025, in June 2025, he was picked up by the police at the crack of dawn and he was

placed in pre-trial detention in a high-security prison and actually in a wing reserved for terrorists.

>> Wow! And the pretext for which and under which he was, uh, arrested, is that he is suspected, with a group of

people, uh, of having, uh, fomented, uh , uh, some violent actions to, uh, overthrow the, uh, Dutch government. Or

, more specifically, they are suspected of wanting to prepare an attack against the NATO summit that was supposed to

take place in the Netherlands. And actually, I don't know if this interests you, but this case is

incredible: he was in a car, he was coming back from a, from an event, uh, let's say, of the resistance, with

friends in the car; they were, they were having fun, they were talking and he starts to, to speak and, and: "How

would you do it, if you wanted to overthrow the government?" >> H

>> And so they start, I imagine, to discuss it among themselves. Well, in my opinion, the most effective way

would be this, it would be that. And it turns out that, uh, these people were on a watch list, some for being known

as sovereignists. >> Yes. Yes. >> Is that a crime, a crime in

>> that. A reason to be on a list. Yes. So he was being wiretapped, his phone was tapped. So they recorded the

conversation, >> there was no follow-up for three months . Wait, the conversation was recorded

without anyone even knowing. Actually, we agree. No. So they were in the car and wiretapped, talking among

themselves. The conversation was recorded, nothing happened for 2 or 3 months, and after 2 or 3 months, one

fine morning, bam, 8 people are arrested and taken into custody. Uh and so ever since, this lawyer is still

waiting to be notified of his formal charges. Meaning that, in fact, he still hasn't been charged. He spent

more than 7 months in preventive detention, specifically in a high-security wing. Uh, but he's

released now. >> And so yes, after 7 months, he was granted release under house arrest with

an electronic tag. >> So since February, he has been under electronic surveillance, but he is

still waiting for a hearing date and to know what he is actually being accused of, because a conversation isn't enough

to label someone a terrorist and >> yes, and he hasn't had his trial, nothing. So that is very serious,

really. There's no trial because, presumably, what we suspect is that they are having trouble gathering

evidence since it was just a conversation. >> But obviously, their strategy is to,

well, tarnish his image, to damage his reputation externally for people who wouldn't look into the details of the

case, and perhaps also to prevent him —well, certainly—to prevent him from continuing his work.

>> Yes. And he was also suspended from the bar. So he is more or less under house arrest; he cannot leave the Netherlands

. And he also suffered from—he has quite a lot of, shall we say, trauma following his interview. Yeah.

>> His psychological report states that he was subjected to torture. Meaning that every night between 3:30 and 4:00 AM,

they would turn on the light to keep him from sleeping. Now, officially, it was to check that he wasn't trying to

commit suicide. I see. >> Right, not trying to commit suicide, and so for 7 months like that, every

night, they kept him from sleeping. >> And so clearly, it was a treatment that was completely, absolutely unworthy of

a >> so when we were talking about pressure, obviously there is pressure. We also

had Frédéric Baldan on, who spoke about the pressure on the Belgian justice system, in this instance,

because that was where he had turned to , well, to move the case forward against von der Leyen. And likewise,

clearly, there was enormous pressure on him, obviously, but also on the judges at the time, who actually later

rejected the—well, they specified that his request, that his complaint was inadmissible. Well, here the judges

seem to be holding up despite everything for the moment. No. Yeah, I think it's very difficult. Obviously,

we don't know much about it, so they aren't going to tell us, but it's true that it wasn't—there wasn't just

Arnaud Van Kessel, what's more. Right. >> Yes, because he—he's no longer involved, he's out of the loop. So who

is the new one? >> There you go. So now there's Peter Stasen left, who I find to be the

prototype of the modern hero. I think he has faith. But it's yes, it's very intense. So, there are the experts. The

whole goal of the civil proceedings was finally to be able to, in a way, expose the reality of the Covid facts. Meaning

that there was no pandemic, that they cheated with the tests, and that there is above all a biological weapon,

namely in the form of a vaccine. So here, we're not talking about a story of a gain-of-function virus that

supposedly created a serious pandemic. We're saying no, here they created a narrative that they sought to impose on

the population to scare them and force them to take a product that they knew was dangerous, that had killed people,

and also damaged, in any case, sterility and fertility. Uh, that's what Mike Yeadon says, one of the other

experts who, I think the pressure is also enormous on him because he is, after all, the former vice president of

research and development at Pfizer. So here, these are all Pfizer vaccines, right? That's why it's Albert Bourla.

There's no—we're not talking about Moderna and so on, they've targeted Pfizer. And well, obviously, Mike

Yeadon, he worked for 30 years on the design, let's say, up to the finished products of...

>> of the vaccine, of vaccines. >> Of vaccines in general. So, Yeadon, to clarify, is indeed the former president

—he's the former vice president of Pfizer. So, that's still quite something; he's not just anyone who can

—who will be able to intervene in this—in this trial. It's very, very important.

>> President for everything concerning research and development, not for—but still, at a global level. Oh yes, and

what he says at the start is, well, the way these vaccines were designed proves that we chose the only protein; we

could have chosen others instead of the spike, etc. We chose the dangerous protein

>> and everyone made the same choice. That’s not normal. He says, normally, it would already be a mistake to have

done it in one company, but to have done it systematically in every company clearly proves that there is some form

of conspiracy somewhere. So, there you go, and then there are all the peer-reviewed papers, etc., that came

out later. But, but so, for him too, the pressure is very, very high. So he won't be at the trial in person either.

His testimonies exist, but he won't be coming on-site. Catherine Austin Fitts, she has already been—they've already

tried to poison her quite a few times, so she's wary too. Uh, I don't know, she won't be coming either. Who is she?

Sorry? Can you tell us who she is? Uh, because we don't know. >> Catherine. Yeah. Catherine Austin Fitts

is a former—she's an economist who served under the Bush administration as Assistant Secretary of Housing, and

she's actually someone who started asking questions in the United States. OK, where does the money in my

department come from and where does it go? And I get the feeling that, well, it's not clear. And that's when she

started uncovering, I'd say, what's called "the missing money," meaning the fact that today, it's estimated that

about 21 trillion dollars are disappearing from the U.S. government's coffers. So, at the time, that was

already >> a small sum. >> A small sum.

>> She conducted an investigation with the help of a professor who had all his students work on it. I mean, they

really—they really worked on the— and indeed, she sees a link between that and Big Pharma. Yes, especially,

in this specific case, why she is, let's say, an expert in this trial is because she explains research that was

conducted with an economist named John Titus, uh, in, in August, August 22, 2019; so we're about 6 months before

the start of the pandemic. There is a meeting of central bankers in Jackson Hole, which is the annual meeting. All

the central bankers get together to discuss a bit about, you know, the future of the world and so on. And

BlackRock presents a plan called The Going Direct, which we called the " going direct reset," to say "Okay,

there's going to be a crisis in a few months." They are already developing the whole architecture, the way they

are going to modify the financial architecture uh, for the coming crisis. So they know very, very well in fact

that they are preparing a big crisis and we can see it clearly. Whether in the United States or in Europe, we

immediately have the central bank intervening as early as January, where they buy I don't know how much of the

European debt, but it's astronomical. Uh, and then loans for 450 uh Yes, I think she says that in 2020 the central

banks reinjected 6 trillion uh, directly into the economy. Normally, central banks never inject money

directly. In fact, they put it in a reserve and then the banks help themselves and redistribute the credit.

And so here, in fact, that's why it's called the "going direct reset." Hm >> hm.

>> Which is, let's say, the financial version of the Great Reset. Meaning that instead of letting the banks

handle it, it's the central banks that will intervene directly under the pretext of Covid. They will reinject

money directly, and this helps to camouflage a whole, it helps to camouflage the entire project on

digital currency and it's on this... >> Yes. And the fact that normally we had promised, the whole baby boom

generation is reaching retirement age, we had promised them that they would have, well, money for their retirement,

that there would be funding for health, and, in fact, well, the money is no longer there, it has disappeared. It's

part of the "missing money." >> And so, well, to hide all that, uh, we have all these manipulations of

reinjecting money, and then there is also the fact of reducing the population, meaning that if the elderly

die, we don't need to pay their pensions or their health costs. >> So, in fact, it's really...they call it

the trial of the Great Reset. That is to say, it's a trial where the goal is to expose the whole plan of the Great

Reset, right? It's not just the vaccines, of course, for the victims. There is, there is, there is a direct

link with the vaccines, but it's, it's about exposing...Like, Sasha Latypova, she arrives, and says: "Look, it's a

military project." It's about putting all the pieces of the puzzle together to say here: "OK, we are...This is

truly the trial of the conspiracy." Yes , what you're telling us is really huge because it's not just, well, a piece of

the puzzle with the vaccines, but it's also the objective of the vaccines, with, moreover, an expert, well, in

economics and from the American administration, well, a former one. So you were speaking of Catherine Austin

Fitts, the former Pfizer president, well, of research and development, we understood that, but all the same.

Anyway, we are talking about very, very prominent figures who will be participating in this trial to shed

light, as you say, on what is, well, in this case, a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy that took place against the

populations and it will be brought to light, laid out on the table. It's huge , with, on top of that, people of a

very high level. So, I imagine that media-wise everyone must be saying, all the somewhat mainstream media must be

saying that it's, well, or else they aren't talking about it, I don't know. Tell us, by the way, how it's going. As

usual, it doesn't exist. There you go. Even though what's at stake is really very, very important. I also wanted to

ask you a question regarding, in, in, in the stories of, of, of high pressure , and so on. Uh, what do you think

about the death of Francis Boyle? I'm reading this here, so an American international professor, a specialist

in issues related to biological weapons , who died on January 30, 2025, after having agreed to testify within the

framework of efforts aiming to have experts heard. So, well, there you go, we don't know, I don't know more than

that. I'm just asking you how you followed the case. Yes. So Professor Francis Boyle is an extremely

well-known international jurist because he is the one who actually drafted what is called the American Biological

Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act. So it is a law that was released in 1989 >> and was then adapted internationally

through the Biological Weapons Convention which was adopted in 1972. So he is a man, he is truly a top

expert, a specialist in genocides, a specialist in biological weapons, a specialist in everything that is a war

crime. >> Yeah. >> And so, right from the start of Covid,

he tried to sound the alarm. Right. >> And very early on, he spoke of >> Yes, he is American, I should clarify.

Yeah. >> Yes, absolutely, absolutely. Uh Francis Boyle was was American and he tried to

alert the American media by telling them, "Careful, uh, for me, what we are deploying corresponds exactly to the

criteria of a biological weapon." He he developed a whole a whole demonstration explaining that they were offensive

weapons, already that they had been developed by the Pentagon and DARPA, and that they used illegal

gain-of-function, which is prohibited. So, in fact, doing gain-of-function research somewhere is creating a

biological weapon. >> Yeah. >> Uh, and above all, he, uh, because he

was a legal expert, he proved, uh, what he calls premeditated criminal intent. So not only are they saying it was a

biological weapon, uh >> but it was planned, it was organized for that purpose. And how did he prove

that? Do you know or not? Uh yes, meaning that he actually explains that there was, uh, so the vaccines contain

what is called the pathogenic payload. We could say the the spike protein. >> And the delivery technology is also

military-grade, meaning what are called lipid nanoparticles were also developed by the military, and all of these are

dual-use technologies. Modified aerosol technology is also a dual-use military technology, meaning they can carry what

is called a hidden payload, or in any case, they can carry, uh, a military product. Sorry, I'm just taking a a

short break for our listeners who have been following with us here. We had done a show on the Fauci files, which

are now being gradually opened and and read in the American Senate, or rather in Congress. Uh and and we are

discovering, in fact, that Fauci regrets, uh, that we became aware of a study that was done on mRNA and in

particular on the fact that, well, it was linked to the military. Indeed, and in fact, we clearly understand that

there is this double face to laboratory studies, particularly regarding these these vaccinations that are being

carried out. One, now there, I believe it was for Ebola, but I think we can draw a parallel. Meaning there was a

civilian version, a military version, but they worked together supposedly to talk, to operate under the cover of

military and defense. While in fact we, we see that it leaned more towards weapons, how can we put it, offensive

military weapons and not military defense, because it is authorized, for that matter, to conduct studies on, on

defense in the United States, biological defense, but not biological weapons. And so it's this whole game, I

imagine, that must have played out with Covid as well. There, I'll close the parenthesis, but it connects with the

other information we had already mentioned. >> If I can respond in relation to, well,

just to provide, it's a hypothesis I have regarding these Fauci notebooks. I am very wary of them. I find it very

suspicious. I don't trust Fauci's notebooks myself. I, I, I find that there is something wrong. Uh, I think

his responsibility is much greater, but that, uh, especially there are quite a few places where, in fact, he

contradicts himself a bit. That is to say, he knows very well that publicly he says something else, uh, on

different occasions, than what he notes in his notebooks. So for me, it doesn't really make sense, if you will. Uh, I

don't, I don't take notes at my job that say the opposite of what I'm going to say publicly. Uh

>> yes. No, but him, agreed. You're right, I have the impression that it's some kind of thing to exonerate himself,

that he wrote to kind of... >> uh, to kind of cover himself, you know. Uh, anyway, well, even by covering

himself, the notebooks, they, they reveal quite a few things, even if it was to cover himself, it still goes

very far. >> Uh, but, but, but I hear your theory, it would require taking a little more

time on the subject. So sorry, I'll give the floor back to you, uh, Caro, I've closed the...

>> No, but absolutely. And, uh, if for example the, the testimony of Sasha Latova is entirely complementary to

that of Francis Boyle, who, as a result , he was never able to testify. He had in fact, he accepted to be one of the

witnesses, one of the expert witnesses in this trial, and 3 weeks later he passed away.

>> But how did he die? >> Well, suddenly. >> Okay.

>> Suddenly. Meaning that he... >> But what is it? Was it a heart attack? Did he fall out of a window? He wasn't

sick. He wasn't, well anyway... >> Did he get run over? I mean, what is it ? We don't know, uh.

>> No, he he passed away, yeah. From cardiac arrest. But well. Uh, agreed. Agreed.

>> There you go. He wasn't particularly bright. Unfortunately, unfortunately. Yeah, that's it. We won't really be

able to know. Anyway, is there an investigation into the matter or not? No. About that, I'm not really sure,

not that I know of, I don't think so, because he was still quite old, you know.

>> He was 74. My team clarifies. >> Yes, yes, absolutely. >> But I think his loved ones must have,

as always, you know, when it's when it's like that, suspicious deaths, in general, the loved ones are very afraid

and so it's not the government that would have opened an investigation. >> Yes. Agreed. So it's true that in any

case, well, whether there are natural deaths or not, there is pressure, that's certain. Uh, we have this lawyer

who was himself put in preventive detention for, well, criminal motives. Well, so we're going, it's still going

very, very far. We can clearly see it's under high pressure anyway. Uh, so you, so obviously you're going to follow all

of this, it will also be transcribed live. So that is still a very, very big case. And so what are you, what are you

expecting? What do you want to highlight the most? Well, what are you expecting from all that's going to

happen Thursday? >> But actually, uh, what we find extraordinary is that finally the

experts were authorized to testify, because in fact, uh, following the previous hearings, the judges had

decided that they refused the experts ' testimony. It was quite incredible. It hadn't even been requested by the

defendants, it was really only the judges who suddenly arrived saying "We will not accept the experts' testimony"

without giving any explanation. Put in place a strategy to try to force their hand in a way, and so there was a first

trial, let's say in parallel, a typical procedure that is unique, I think, to the Dutch system, which allows for

evidence to be presented in advance to see if there is grounds for a trial. Afterward, he filed appeals and that's

where we were in Amsterdam in March. It was an ancillary trial that he had brought.

>> Just to be able to have the right to present the facts before the court, to have the experts speak, and that is the

whole point, obviously. Ah, yes, yes. So he is really playing with the jurisdictions and the law to be able to

advance this case as much as possible. >> because actually beyond a conviction, the goal is really to be able to have

the truth presented officially in a legal context and for it to serve as an example to the world, so we can say,

look at these sworn experts. This is what they declared, uh, in public before, before, before a court. And so

it was really an important issue that these, that these experts be able to speak.

>> Finally, he, he, during the summer, he made video recordings, testimonies of the four experts. He recorded a plea

himself. He sent them back there to the court. He explained that it made no sense to refuse the testimony because

he was, uh, he was trying to prove, uh, that there had been, uh, a crime and that, therefore, if he could not...And

above all, he was denouncing a narrative, the narrative that was sold by all the protagonists, because we

indeed talked about figures like Gates, Bourla, but in fact, there are many other people who are, who are put under

, put under...it’s not under indictment, how, uh, do you say it for a trial? There you go, let's say

involved in this trial. There are, there are, there are 14, there are ministers, there are TV doctors, there

are media executives, uh, so there is the State, the Dutch State itself. So there are a lot of people who are, who

are involved. And so the goal was really to manage to bring the truth, to make it public.

>> Yes. And by, by presenting these videos , by, by filing an appeal. Finally, it was completely unexpected. That is,

that is last Thursday, there was new information that arrived from the judge saying that he was going to authorize

adding the video testimony of the experts to the file. So 3 hours and 20 minutes of sworn video testimonies that

will be added to the file and that is completely unexpected. >> Yeah. There, I think that Sachapova and

Joe Sansone, who are also quite courageous, eh, they are coming from the United States, they are on their

own funds. Ah, they have already devoted I don't know how many tens or hundreds of hours to doing the research

, to doing the testimonies, and so on. Well, the pressure is obviously enormous on them too. So they are

really people who, who deserve to be supported, I would say. Uh, and so there, I think they will be able to,

they will be able to be in the courtroom. So somewhere, there is already a small victory

>> that has been won. Maybe we'll even be able to ask them questions. >> Oh yeah, so

>> the court will be able to ask them questions. >> Yes, not us, though.

>> No, obviously not us. Besides, we won't even be able to be in the in the courtroom. Actually, they've moved most

people into into side rooms. >> Yeah. Uh it's going to be very, very guarded, very, very monitored.

>> Yes, it's still being broadcast live, though. That's right, this this hearing . H

>> That's really incredible. >> A a citizen journalist who is going to do the simultaneous translation,

actually, into English. She's going to she's going to listen to because the proceedings will be in Dutch, and she

she will translate into English. >> Okay. No, but because that's that's still that's also very important. You

were saying that the the the judges had changed their minds, well at the last moment, well, changed their minds might

not be the word, but uh accepted that these four experts could testify and that this audience that this hearing be

public, that also changes a lot of things. It's it's much less hidden. It will be much, well I mean, it will

really be out in the open. So, how come they accepted that after all? Well, there's the legal side, obviously,

because they always have the genius to go and invoke the right things. But I think the so-called media strategy,

that is to say, for example, here we have they published a video in which they pre-recorded the testimonies, we

see the witnesses under oath, etc., saying, "I swear, so help me God." Uh so each witness, he asked them the

questions, let's say, in place of the court, and each witness recorded their deposition and made their plea. I mean,

they recorded it, they shared it, they submitted it to the court, which first accepted it and then refused it. Uh and

then they said, "OK, we're going to translate it.""They translated it into English; we just translated it."

Essentiel News uh just published the French translation, and the goal is for it to be translated into as many

languages as possible and for it to be seen all over the world. So I think that after a while, they are realizing

that, okay uh >> it's making noise, it's beyond us. >> That's the goal, meaning all the

documents that are produced, everything is systematically, well, in any case, they make the effort to translate it

into English. Well, it's certain that the American witnesses speak English by default, but the rest of the procedure

is necessarily in Dutch. Uh, but everything they do, you can go see it on the website called The Netherlands

Case. Uh, and there, you can find the documents uh in English. So their goal is to say, here is what we are doing,

we are doing it, so to speak, for everyone, so that eventually others— and that it can inspire uh, you know,

other proceedings elsewhere, whether civil or criminal. Hm. >> Hm.

>> Yeah. >> So, maybe a word as well about the plaintiffs. Because what is special

about these plaintiffs? Why? I mean, there are seven of them, is that right? Seven citizens. Yes,

>> actually, there were seven uh at the start, at the time the complaint was filed. Since then, two have

unfortunately passed away. >> Ah yes, I see. >> So, they are all people directly

affected by the vaccination. >> All people who received the vaccine, or rather the Pfizer injection, and who

either suffered bodily harm, well, more or less serious, let's say. And honestly, I, we, they are relatively

protected, meaning they don't necessarily speak to the press. These are people, I would say, who need to be

protected. These are people who have been extremely courageous >> to, to attempt this procedure, which

>> must probably put a lot of pressure on them as well. One person is very sick and will not be able to attend because

their condition has deteriorated, they can no longer speak, and so on, so >> yeah.

>> She is half-paralyzed, so she is, quote-unquote, following the, the, the trial. But she won't be able to be

there, and it's true that the pressure is strong on them too. But even regarding those who have passed away,

the, the heirs or the, let's say, those carrying on the fight. >> Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yes.

>> Yes. And I find that for the courts, seeing that out of seven, two have died —they were complaining of side

effects, or more than side effects, primary or secondary, from this injection. Uh, it's quite telling,

don't you think? 2 out of 7 plus one very sick person, it's really, really telling. And and so there is, for

example, I saw that in the documents brought by Mr. Ston, he says, "Here, such a person received an injection, or

one or several." There is one person who was offered a 9th injection. >> Oh yes.

>> But specifying a certain batch. And then there is also the question of, okay, he shows that different batches

didn't necessarily all have the same number of side effects in what has already been reported, as far as it was

signaled in the vigilance database. But so, there are also really, let's say, more technical questions regarding

vaccine safety, the safety and the difference between batches. Sasha Latypova is an expert in the field of

pharmaceutical product development. That is her primary area of expertise. And so, she comes to show that, both

from a legal standpoint, where they actually completely eliminated— " bypassed," as the Americans say—all

the regulations that one must normally follow when dealing with a, let's say, normal pharmaceutical product. The fact

that it was considered a countermeasure , meaning something, an agent, a military product, actually allowed them

to discard all of that. And what she also shows is that, indeed, we have evidence to say that in terms of the

production of the vaccines themselves, we have recorded differences in batch quality. There have been independent

studies done on certain vials, uh, where people said, or even sometimes admitted by the European Medicines

Agency, that okay, there were vaccines that were contaminated or that didn't have the same dosages, and so on. So

all of that, these are obviously elements, uh, well. >> That will contribute to the

demonstration of the project. All these are elements that, ultimately, one could say are unacceptable for a

medicine, but what Sasha Latypova says is that, in fact, it is not a medicine. >> It is a military countermeasure, and as

such, it escapes all regulations on medicines. So, in fact, when people complain: "Well, you didn't do this,

you didn't do that," in reality, they weren't required to do so because as a countermeasure, there are no

regulations, no standards, and no safety rules, and that is also the whole point. Meaning that if we manage

to classify it in that category >> of a weapon, of a biological weapon, >> at that point, it is no longer a

medicine and we completely change categories. What she says, the clarification she provides, is that she

says it cannot be distinguished, in any case, from a biological weapon. There you go. And when we see it, obviously,

and put all the other elements into that context, we think, "Okay, this contributes to demonstrating, let's say

, an intent to harm." Uh, so there it is. >> It is absolutely fascinating and you

really must follow this trial on Thursday. And especially, the experts, how the judges will also respond, it's

very, very interesting, how the lawyers will act, what the defense will be. So thank you very much for being on-site

and following it for us, and I think we can do a wrap-up show on the trial afterwards with you. I just had one

last question. >> Live on Thursday, by the way, on our channels, on Essentiel News and on BAM,

simultaneously live at the exit at the end of the trial. We are going to try to comment and recount a bit of what

happened, >> uh, give our analysis. >> All right. Perfect. Well listen, don't

hesitate to give us more details if you have any. In any case, we are going to put the link for Essentiel News and BAM

in the chat right now so that they can follow, there it's done. Uh, follow this live broadcast with you, obviously

. Uh, in Toxin, we might be able to get you back afterward to, well, to analyze all of this. Uh, I had another question

for you concerning Robert Kennedy Jr., after all, who is someone you know well , with whom you have worked, and who is

now also seeing the case move forward on the American side. So, what might be the parallels, or rather, are there

things moving forward both in the United States and in Europe, or is it finally advancing more in Europe? Where

do we stand? Are there any exchanges taking place between, let's say, the Americans and the Europeans?

>> Personally, I am still very disappointed, you know, by what is happening over there. I think that he

should have, well, it's my personal opinion, but I think that entering an American administration is entering a

system that has you by the throat. So that is what I feared, that is what appears to me. Of course, there are,

there are a few, one gets the impression of having some progress, but it is always politicized nonetheless.

Well, we are just before the midterms now, so suddenly, I'm not saying that Kennedy was a traitor. That's not it.

But, but we clearly see that we aren't talking about >> he is limited in his actions. That's

what I meant. >> He is very limited in his actions and it is being co-opted, in my opinion.

Meaning today, for example, everything being done around Fauci, but I believe I've said it already, but I'll repeat

it: for me, it's somewhat co-opted in the sense of, "Okay, this will be able to support the narrative of 'Watch out.

'" Uh, there are biological weapons, and here we aren't talking about vaccines; it's not vaccines he's

talking about, but biological weapons. Yes. >> We are talking about gain-of-function

viruses. >> And so there, watch out, we will need to control everything, monitor

everything, etc. In parallel, negotiations are happening at the WHO level regarding the PABS annexes at the

moment. So that is the, it is the annex , in fact. So you know, the pandemic treaty has been, quote-unquote, adopted

. Uh, and the only thing missing for it to be, let's say, put into operation is the negotiation and the signing of the

PABS annexes. The PABS annexes, what are they? Well, it's access Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing. It's how we

are going to go mine, quote-unquote, these new, this new resource, this fabulous new treasure that we find

particularly in countries of the Global South where there are plenty of viruses and bacteria, etc., pathogens. How are

we going to mine pathogens and make money from them by declaring right away , "My God, look, it's dangerous." We

must make vaccines, we must build stocks, we must set in motion the whole machine, let's say, developed by guys

like Bill Gates, with people like Epstein, with JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank, the American military, the WHO, and so

on. And so there, in fact, uh we clearly see whether he speaks, or doesn't speak. Yet Catherine Austin

Fitts, she worked, she was responsible after me, she was president of Children's Health Defense in Europe. So

, we brought her in right away. I, I integrated her immediately into the European board to have her speak. When

Kennedy came, we went to Bern, we went to Milan, and so on to say, "But we must also talk about the global agenda,

about what is happening on a monetary level with, with CBDCs, so the digital currency of control. and"

>> so we clearly see that, well for me, I mean so much the better, it is better that we talk about it than not talk

about it at all. But but >> yes, perhaps he is doing it. No, but I well understand that, especially for

you who know him, you are necessarily disappointed with regard to the person and all the work he has done. When one

reads his book, one sees that it is, it is, it is very important. Perhaps one can consider that he is limited,

certainly, but that he is trying to advance some small points nonetheless, and that it is always disappointing for

someone who expects more, but he is still moving forward a little, no? >> Well, it will be hard to say, we shall

see. Me, me, well there, he made a choice, I can, I can understand it, I wouldn't have made that choice, but uh

that's something I'm going to, I'm going to ask Sasha Latypova as well because she knows him well too and

>> agreed. So we really must meet up afterwards then to >> Yeah or

>> agreed. Uh no no but it's important. >> Can we end on a slightly optimistic note? We must also look at what is

currently happening in Florida. We do have, uh, the Florida Attorney General who is, who is taking action against

Pfizer, an action that had been attempted previously by Texas and it didn't succeed. Uh in fact, they had

been told "Well no, Pfizer benefits from immunity so it's not worth it."" And in fact the procedure had been

completely nipped in the bud. This time in Florida, it is underway. It, it, a priori the court has accepted it. So we

will see where that leads. But uh here, uh, it looks like, it looks like Pfizer is nonetheless in the crosshairs on

both sides of the Atlantic now. >> Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So definitely one to watch, and in any case, as you said,

it's already a good thing, it's already a step forward that experts of this caliber are being heard, not only by

the justice system, but by everyone who wants to tune in to this trial tomorrow and to your respective media outlets,

BAM and Essentiel News, which is really doing a great job. So bravo to you both . Bravo and thank you, Santa de Peut.

So, talk to you very soon to follow the case. Just adding one last thing. We have an appointment tomorrow at 6:00 PM

; we will be live on our channels, and then on Sunday we will also be hosting Maître Joseph and Martine Gardénal

from the National League for Vaccination Freedom, who support, well, who support our little Vé Amsterdam,

no, Amsterdam, Wardon. >> So, who also denounced all of this very early on. So.

>> Of course, of course. No, no, but absolutely, we know them well here, especially Martine Gardénal, who does

a great job. Bravo! In any case, thank you both, and one to watch, which we will follow on your media, we

understood that well, BAM, Essentiel News, and us on Toxin; we will invite you back to follow all of this. Santa

de Peut, I remind you that you are an independent journalist and that you collaborate with Essentiel News, and

that you directed this European branch of Children's Health Defense, which was the organization we were talking about

by Robert Kennedy Jr., so set up by Robert Kennedy Jr. Thank you, Caro, journalist for BAM and an activist

involved in citizens 'collectives in Belgium. So at 6:00 PM, is that right?