Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 2, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:23:37

Interview with Dan Hartman & Attorney - Suing Canadian Government for Death of his Son - Viva Frei

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	There is no video.
	There's no video intro for tonight.
	Let me just bring down my gain.
	There's no video intro for tonight.
	We're just going to read an actual article that CTV actually tweeted with a tweet that was not...
	I don't know if it was intended to be ironic, but it certainly came off as irony for anybody who has lived the last three years as a victim of the CTV news among other Canadian media outlets nonsense.
	The tweet from CTV News, who has about as much introspection and self-reflection as a goldfish.
	Did the pandemic change the way we treat others?
	You notice how they say we and not you.
	We.
	We're all lumped together now.
	I am part of the sins of CTV News.
	That's how they lump me into their sin.
	Did the pandemic change the way we treat each other?
	We want to hear from you.
	Oh, you're going to hear from me, CTV News.
	You're going to hear from me.
	Trudeau's going to hear from me.
	CBC News is going to hear from me.
	As long as I have a breath and a voice.
	And the bigger the microphone, the better.
	You'll hear from me.
	Here's what I said to CTV News.
	You are literally the propagandist arm of evil.
	I don't wish ill on anyone, and there's no but to that.
	Period.
	That said, when you go bankrupt, the world will be a better place.
	And I pulled up just a couple of highlights.
	Let me make sure that we're looking at the right stuff here.
	We are.
	Just a couple of headlines from CTV News.
	Did it change the way we treat each other?
	Quebec's not the first to tax the unvaccinated.
	Here's what other places have done.
	That's January 11, 2022.
	Taxing the unvaccinated.
	Not a media.
	Holding the government's feet to the fire, it's a media acting as the propagandist arm of a tyrannical regime.
	In this case, Francois Legault, Supreme Leader, Sunset Thief.
	Glad I didn't spend $5,000 to buy a billboard to call him the tyrannical overlord during the last provincial elections because I would have wasted $5,000.
	The tyrant actually picked up more seats.
	Leads you to believe that maybe Quebecers actually like this.
	Amazing.
	But that's one headline from CTV News.
	Another headline.
	Remember the question.
	Did COVID change the way we treated each other?
	Tightening rules for the unvaccinated is justified as health system struggles.
	Experts.
	Remember, it's not CTV News being evil.
	They're just quoting experts.
	They're just being the messenger.
	The messenger of evil.
	What was that, January 11th?
	What was the last one?
	January 11th, 2022.
	Oh, these were both January 11th.
	Oh, what a coincidence.
	Let's go earlier, people.
	This is CTV News.
	People are reporting on their neighbors over COVID-19 concerns.
	They're not being biased.
	They're not saying that's terrible.
	They're not saying, hmm.
	That's crazy.
	There was actually, the follow-up to that was, psychologists say why it's empowering for people in a pandemic.
	To rat on their neighbors.
	You know what communists did?
	Ratted on their neighbors.
	You know what Pravda did?
	It encouraged people to rat on their neighbors, rat on their family.
	Oh no, there was one last one.
	I just took five minutes while I'm walking the dog to say, hey CTV News, good question.
	Maybe look in a mirror, you pieces of rubbish.
	Being with unvaccinated people increases COVID-19 risk for those who are vaccinated.
	That's an amazing scientific observation.
	If the vaccine works.
	Alright, we're going to last on YouTube for about five minutes here.
	There was one other thing here.
	Let's go to the article itself.
	Did the pandemic change the way we treat others?
	Yeah, it did.
	And you know why?
	Because you helped, CTV News.
	What's this?
	A cashier hands a bag to a customer.
	What the hell is that?
	Since the onset of COVID-19, Canadians have gone through many challenges.
	End it.
	End it because I'll have nothing to say but a bunch of swear words.
	I had a discussion with one of my brothers who I know loves me.
	All of my brothers love me.
	One of them said, you really think you should be swearing so much on the internet?
	I don't know.
	He's taken my dad's persona.
	You're swearing an awful lot these days, David.
	Yeah, you're damn right I'm swearing.
	I'm done.
	Look, I'll never be anything worse than impolite occasionally, but I'm going to be impolite when it's warranted.
	Did the COVID pandemic change the way we treat it?
	Yeah, you rubbish propagandist tools of an evil government.
	You did it.
	You normalized discrimination.
	You normalized intolerance.
	You normalized neighbors ratting on neighbors.
	You normalized coercion, human experimentation, and you normalized what would otherwise have been crimes against humanity.
	But for the fact that you are subsidized and financed by the very government you are now defending, supporting, and now just asking the questions.
	Did we ever do that?
	Who knows?
	All right.
	I'm not going to hide the fact that I'm angry.
	Fucking angry.
	There's no question.
	I'm just going to make sure before we go on that we're live on Rumble, which we are, that we're live on Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We're lasting all of five minutes on YouTube for this.
	Oh, I just heard myself swear on Locals.
	Last night, during last night, I was talking with Barnes, and I said, Barnes, I've never heard you drop an F-bomb.
	He says, yeah, you know, we've learned.
	You know, the religious South has learned to swear without swearing.
	When they say, God bless you, Or bless your heart.
	It means get effed.
	Now, I have not been brought up in the South.
	In fact, I was brought up not to swear either.
	Life has a way of teaching you lessons.
	What did Thomas Paine say?
	Time makes more converts than reason.
	I will swear, and if that's the worst thing I do in life, well, gosh darn it, I say I'm faring kind of well.
	Tonight we have Dan Hartman.
	You know him because he's been on at least twice.
	Multiple times we've been conversing on other platforms.
	I'll get upset multiple times tonight.
	It's gonna happen.
	Dan Hartman is Sean Hartman's father.
	Sean Hartman died at 17 years of age, 33 years after being coerced into taking the Pfizer jab.
	Totally coincidental.
	I'm sure it has nothing to do with anything.
	The Canadian government said it was unrelated.
	Compels a father, a grieving father, having lost his only son, his only child, to go and have to get independent medical experts to confirm that the death was, if not substantively contributed by, directly caused by, gets the confirmation after being denied the Vaccine Injury Support Program, the VISP.
	Abused, denigrated, besmirched, everything that you can imagine.
	That a government would do to a citizen that would expose the corruption of the government has happened to Dan Hartman.
	Above and beyond a tragedy that is immeasurable, inconsolable, and he's doing, you know, as well as anybody can do under the circumstances.
	Denied vaccine injury support program, ignored...
	Defamed, called an anti-vaxxer.
	I am thoroughly convinced there are Twitter accounts on Twitter that are government-subsidized bot accounts out there to harass him and try to shame him into silence, and he won't go silently into that night.
	He got an expert to confirm what many people already suspected.
	Now he's got a lawyer to sue the godforsaken government that did this, and that's where we're at.
	His lawyer, Omar Sheikh.
	I said I was going to not screw it up.
	It's Omar Sheik.
	I'm looking to see.
	I see him in the backdrop.
	It's Sheik.
	Okay.
	Who we had on for Sheila Annette Lewis.
	Another victim.
	It's not tyranny.
	It is tyranny, but those words have lost all meaning.
	Sheila Annette Lewis.
	You'll remember her.
	Was taken off the organ donor list because she refused to get jibby-jabbed.
	She was silenced in her lawsuits against the doctors.
	Couldn't mention her organ that she needed.
	Couldn't mention the hospital.
	Couldn't mention the doctors because they were afraid the doctors would be the object of ridicule, scorn, and public hatred.
	Which they might very well have been and probably for good reason.
	She entered into a settlement after suing them for malpractice after her constitutional challenges got dismissed.
	She died.
	One of two Canadians who died because they were denied a transpass or taken off the list because they refused to submit to this experimental jab.
	So Omar Sheikh is representing Dan Hartman.
	Dan Hartman has been fighting a battle which I don't know that many people could.
	At some point people just want to, you know, not move on but give up.
	Neither have done either.
	So what we're going to do right now, we're going to go through, we're going to talk to Dan, we're going to talk to Omar, we're going to go through the lawsuit.
	I'm going to bring in...
	I'm going to bring in Dan.
	Dan, you ready?
	Yep.
	Sir, let me do it like this.
	It's an idiotic question.
	How are you doing?
	Not great.
	Last week was the two-year anniversary of his death, and it was very rough.
	And it's just pain that is every day from morning till night.
	I can't stand it.
	I hate it.
	This shouldn't have happened, and I'm full of rage and sadness.
	Every damn day.
	You're working as a truck driver?
	For those who don't know, you're working as a trucker now, still five days a week?
	Yeah.
	Since this happened?
	Yeah, I only took three weeks off when Sean died, and I had to go back to work.
	The government doesn't pay you to stay home.
	They don't pay you to stay at home, but they sure as hell tax you in every respect possible.
	For those who may not know, I mean, give in a nutshell the 30,000-foot overview, who you are for those who may be meeting you for the first time.
	My name is Dan Hartman and my 17-year-old son, Sean, he played hockey his whole life.
	And to continue to play hockey, he had the vaccine.
	He took one Pfizer shot.
	and was found dead on the floor beside his bed 33 days later.
	You're divorced and so there's some family stuff which for anyone who doubts your humanity can go back and watch it.
	You're divorced from your wife.
	You didn't know that Sean had done this.
	You didn't know that within immediate proximity of the Medical intervention.
	He was hospitalized.
	What happened in the days or how shortly after the initial jab was he actually hospitalized for reasons that you only discovered after he had passed?
	It was four days after his shot.
	He was rushed to emergency and he had brown circles around his eyes.
	Vomiting and a rash and extremely sore shoulder.
	The doctor there, in my opinion, failed to do his job.
	He didn't do any blood work whatsoever.
	No D-dimer tests.
	No troponin test, looking for clots and heart damage.
	He just sent Sean home with Advil.
	And let me clarify, they did not do any of those tests?
	No.
	In the medical records, which you subsequently discovered, they did have as a point of query, a point of inquiry that he had been recently jabbed.
	Yes.
	The doctor who saw him in emergency had a chance to comment in the autopsy and he said, query vaccine injury.
	So...
	He himself was asking the question.
	And you sued the doctors or attempted to sue them for malpractice or file a complaint?
	Was it malpractice or was it a complaint?
	It was a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
	And what happened?
	They had a hearing.
	They had a hearing without me.
	I wasn't even invited.
	And they found him not guilty.
	Okay.
	Dan, I know you...
	Fight more with the trolls on the internet than you should.
	It's a difficult thing to just ignore them.
	Some people say, "How could you let your kid do this?" It was beyond your knowledge.
	It was without your knowledge.
	And it was a kid who either believed everything or succumbed to the pressure and said, "I just want to play hockey." This was when they were requiring jab proof in order to enter hockey arenas and to play competitive sports as a teenager.
	Yep.
	I had no idea he took it.
	In fact, I begged him not to take it.
	He was in my car one day, and I distinctly remember begging him, "Please, Sean, don't take this.
	I know you want to play hockey, but please wait." I told him, "Kids your age are dying." And I thought I got through to him, but I guess I didn't.
	He passes.
	You file the vaccine injury.
	What is it?
	Vaccine injury support claim.
	How long after?
	That was within the year?
	Yeah.
	They denied me the first time.
	They said there's no proof that the vaccine killed Sean.
	I said to the woman on the phone, there's no proof it didn't.
	So how do you come up with that decision?
	So I've appealed it now, thanks to Dr. Ryan Cole, who proved that the vaccine did kill Sean.
	And now they refuse to answer my emails.
	I've emailed this lady once a week saying, what the hell's going on with my appeal?
	And she said, oh, we're looking for a pathologist.
	Okay, well, there's a few of them.
	Pick one.
	And now they're not even responding to my emails for my appeal.
	All right.
	And now finally, just to get the overview for everybody, vaccine injury denies the claim.
	You file the appeal.
	They're not answering.
	I mean, you're undoubtedly on.
	Any number of lists, one of which is do not reply to.
	And now you've filed a suit against...
	We'll bring up Omar in like 30 seconds.
	Who'd you file the suit against?
	Against Pfizer and Ontario Healthcare.
	All right.
	And now is the time to cue your attorney.
	Omar, are you ready for this?
	I'm going to bring you in.
	Okay.
	Three, two, one.
	Hold on.
	I don't like this format.
	I'm going to go like this and I'm going to put myself on the bottom here.
	Omar, before we go over to Rumble exclusively...
	Tell us who you are.
	We've met you before, but some of us might be meeting you for the first time.
	Who are you?
	What are you doing now with Dan?
	And where did you file the suit before we get into it after we end on YouTube and go over to Rumble?
	Sure.
	Well, thanks for having me on.
	My name is Omar Sheikh.
	I'm a lawyer with Sheikh Law out here in British Columbia.
	We got connected with Dan Hartman.
	After hearing his story and what happened, we decided to start investigating independently, and we worked with Dr. Peter McCullough out of the States, reviewed Dr. Richard Cole's reports, and upon review, reached conclusions that it was more likely than not, in fact, very likely, that the death occurred as a result of the COVID-19 vaccination, the Pfizer vaccination specifically.
	We then took the extraordinary step of pulling all of the actual clinical data from every Pfizer study and submission to Health Canada.
	And we found some very interesting things which I can go into, but that led us to file two separate lawsuits.
	One is against the Government of Canada, the Minister of Health specifically at the time, and Health Canada as a regulator.
	And then the other lawsuit is against Pfizer.
	Canada, Pfizer, U.S., and Biotech Germany, which is the manufacturer of the product.
	Okay, excellent.
	Now, what we're going to do, just so we can have a free discussion about this and then decide whether or not I put this entire thing to YouTube tomorrow, we're going to end it on YouTube now.
	So, everyone, just get over to Rumble.
	The link is pinned there, and I just shared it one more time.
	Andra Duress says, who's on first?
	Yeah, mildly.
	Okay, we're going to end this on YouTube.
	It doesn't change anything on our end, and we're just going to carry on with these discussions.
	Remove three, two, one.
	Coming over to Rumble, everyone's going to get there anyhow.
	Okay, so let's get into this.
	Omar, so we've met with Sheila Annette Lewis.
	You're taking on quite clearly a number of these cases.
	Are you at liberty to disclose how many?
	Are there other claims that you're working on under similar circumstances or as relates to the COVID issue?
	Yeah, I mean, we are dealing with...
	Aviation groups, healthcare worker groups, public servants with respect to their employment and the COVID vaccine requirement in their employment agreements.
	You know, it's one thing to deal with employment, which is quite significant.
	But when we start looking at cases like Sheila's and like Dan Hartman and his son, Sean Hartman, I don't think there's anything as significant as those that are out there anywhere in Canada.
	We have not in our research and our work thus far come across anything similar to the facts of Sean Hartman's death and a lawsuit against Pfizer for the grounds that we're suing on.
	And so it is, in our view, a pretty landmark case in this country if it does proceed to trial and gets a verdict.
	So this is where we're at.
	Dan, please interrupt.
	I say interrupt.
	Intervene whenever there's something that you want to add to it.
	And I'll try to make sure I get all the details from you.
	The lawsuit...
	The lawsuit is against the...
	What's her name?
	The person acting as a public health officer.
	It's not Theresa Tam.
	No, no.
	The lawsuit...
	So let me go into both of them and I'll give you a general overview, right?
	So the lawsuit against the government of Canada, specifically against Health Canada as a regulator, and then the Minister of Health who was responsible for that regulator, Patty Haju at the time.
	Patty Haju, yeah.
	What is filed, and they're both filed in Ontario.
	They're filed in Simcoe region in Ontario.
	But that lawsuit deals with the fact that the regulator approved the product, we say negligently, that the regulator knowingly put out statements regarding the efficacy of the product, saying that it was 95% effective when the data clearly showed that it was not.
	Anywhere close to that.
	In fact, it was about 0.88% effective, with significant side effects, none of which were disclosed to the public, that the regulator and the government spent millions upon millions of dollars of the Canadian taxpayers' money funding campaigns to increase uptake of this vaccination, that they did so recklessly, that they did so with a willful disregard for the outcomes on ordinary citizens who would be taking these products.
	And so we have put in counts of misfeasance against those government officials in tort.
	We've put in a claim for deceit and fraud for the statements that were made and the reasonable reliance that people had on their government and their regulator statements.
	And we've put in claims for negligence and wrongful death against the government of Canada.
	So that's one lawsuit.
	The second lawsuit deals specifically with Pfizer and BioNTech, which is the manufacturer of the product.
	As you know, when you manufacture and sell a product into the commerce stream, that product has a number of implied warranties.
	For example, the product has to be fit for the purpose for which you sell it for.
	When you design a car, it has to be fit to be a car.
	When you design a toothbrush, it has to be fit to brush your teeth.
	What we're dealing with here is a product that, based on their own clinical evaluations and studies, was about 0.88% effective, right?
	Now, they claimed it was 95% effective, and I can get into exactly why in a moment.
	But that product that they designed was not fit for the purpose of vaccination for which they sold it and benefited greatly upon it.
	So we have a product liability claim.
	We have a negligence claim against Pfizer, and that's proceeding separately from the Government of Canada.
	So there are two separate and distinct lawsuits that are filed on behalf of Sean Arden.
	Both?
	They're both in federal jurisdiction?
	No.
	No, they're both in Ontario.
	And the reason for that is that Ontario has the Family Law Act, which allows that family member to bring these claims in death of his son.
	In the federal jurisdiction, there's no common law right to that.
	There's no common law wrongful death tort.
	And so they're filed in Ontario.
	But that's where the harm occurred.
	That's where Sean lived.
	That's where Dan lived.
	So they're completely proper to be filed in Ontario.
	And that's where we've gone for.
	All right.
	And now I'll pull up the Attorney General, not the AG.
	I'll pull up the one against Health Canada and flesh this out because this is where I think we're going to need people who are not familiar with it are going to need clarification.
	And even those who are familiar with it are going to have to understand how you get to the 0.88% effective.
	Let me just see here.
	On October 9th, they approved it.
	Okay.
	On November 18, 2020, this is paragraph 14, Pfizer-BioNTech released and published updated results on their Phase 3 clinical trials for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination, stating that the vaccine is 95% effective at preventing COVID-19.
	If I ask a question that you don't know the answer to, please just let me know.
	We're still going through the Phase 3 clinical trials.
	I think I understood that from Keith Wilson's recent tweet about his deposition that We're still in phase three clinical trials.
	They end sometime in December?
	Yeah, those clinical trials are still ongoing.
	But as part of the approval through the interim order, so this emergency approval of vaccinations into Canada, essentially the process was that you would show your data as a manufacturer and then you would continue to present that data to Health Canada as the regulator.
	As it became available.
	And that at any time, if there was an adverse reaction or somebody died or some significant event occurred, you were required to then go back to Health Canada and come clean about what was happening.
	So we have, in this particular claim, prior to Sean's death...
	We had two different results.
	We had the initial two-month Phase III clinical data results that were submitted for the approval of the health of the vaccine.
	And then we had the six-month results that were submitted to Health Canada later on.
	And the six-month is following the administration of the vaccine?
	Not to Sean, but following the release of the vaccine, yes.
	That's what I meant.
	So you got the two weeks, the two months clinical data, which was pre-release.
	And then they're supposed to follow how it, you know, the real time in Canada, it's the Canadian, what is it?
	It's the CARES in Canada, right?
	It's not the VAERS, the Adverse Event Reporting System.
	Yeah, but through the interim order, there was a special reporting compliance relationship between Health Canada and Pfizer, so they may not even have had to use that channel.
	We're going to find that out, but regardless, they had to report that information to Health Canada.
	And now, if we get to the next paragraph after that, it says, November 18, 2020, Pfizer released and published their updated results faced through clinical trials, stating it was 95% effective.
	Fine.
	The results of study one showed that eight out of 18,198 individuals who received the COVID-19 vaccination developed COVID.
	So eight out of, this is why I got a little confused, but I want to try to understand this.
	Eight out of 18,000 got COVID of the vaccinated group.
	And 162 out of 18,000 who didn't get the shot contracted COVID.
	So in theory, they're going to say, well, look how much more effective it is.
	Only 8 out of 18,000 got COVID with the shot.
	162 got COVID without the shot.
	Therefore, set aside whether or not we were sold on it would prevent transmission or it was 100% effective at preventing transmission.
	Albert Bourla's April 1st, 2021 tweet.
	What does this mean here exactly?
	Well, what they're trying to establish is something called relative risk reduction, which is not the standard in any data review.
	It's called absolute risk reduction, which is what you're supposed to look at.
	So they have 18,198 people getting the COVID-19 vaccination, and of that, eight developed COVID-19.
	And then they have another group with 18,325 people, of which 162 get the vaccine.
	What they then do is they take...
	Sorry, you mean get COVID?
	Sorry, get COVID, yes.
	So what they then do is that they take those numbers and they say, okay, well, that's 0.88%, and thus that is equal to a 95% relative risk reduction.
	It's kind of difficult to explain without a statistician.
	But the reality is it's not 95% of...
	Effective when looked at an absolute measure between the two individual groups.
	Because what you see is that of the 12,100, eight got it.
	Of the 12,300, 162 got it.
	The vast majority in both groups didn't get COVID-19.
	And so that's where that risk reduction between relative and absolute becomes extremely important.
	They're essentially manipulating the data.
	By saying that, well, look, you know, we've now established that this 0.88% risk reduction occurs between the two cohort numbers, and as a result, we're saying this vaccine is 95% effective.
	A more accurate way to put it was that the vaccine confers less than a 1% benefit on any population, regardless, and has significant side effects, right?
	So within that same population, When you look at the 18,198 individuals, 5,770 of those individuals, 26.7% had an adverse reaction to the vaccination.
	So now when we go in our cost-benefit analysis and say, well, my product works essentially 1% or less than 1% of the time on an absolute basis, but 5,600 people could potentially get...
	An adverse reaction, well, that risk-benefit changes.
	If I said to the Canadian population or any population in the world, if I said, well, this product works 1% of the time, you can get it if you want, but there's a 26.7% chance you're going to get an adverse reaction, that's one decision.
	If I say it works 95% of the time and it's completely safe and effective, that's a completely different decision.
	And it's all based on data manipulation.
	Now, I might be jumping between study one and study two, but bottom line, they're roughly the same in terms of the point that it's trying to be made.
	Study two showed the 21,000 and change of the vaccination, 5,000 developed related adverse event.
	Do we know what the nature and scope of that related adverse event is?
	Is it a headache, a sore arm, or is it something of special interest?
	It's generally of something of special interest where it's being investigated, right?
	They don't break down exactly what those related events are.
	In fact, there was a young lady, and I know you've heard of this case, who developed severe abdominal bleeding and a severe reaction, and they called it stomach pain as her adverse reaction.
	They can characterize it in any way they want.
	What's important in the term related adverse reaction is it's directly related to the product you just injected into their body.
	So something is occurring that is adverse as a result of your actions.
	And remember, study two was even worse than study one, right?
	So in study two...
	What we did was we took our control group, which was the, let's call it the unvaccinated group.
	We didn't like how these numbers were shaping up if we're Pfizer.
	We didn't like that the product on an absolute basis had a less than 1% efficacy rate.
	So what we said was, well, we're going to unblind the study.
	We're just going to give everybody.
	The COVID vaccine.
	So there is no more clinical trial group.
	There is no more control group that we can utilize and follow for the next 10 years, 12 years, whatever, and see what happens to them versus what happens to people who got the vaccine.
	We're going to unblind it.
	When they did that, the serious side effects went up.
	So it establishes through the stats that side effects keep going up the more people you inoculate with this particular product.
	Or the more people you inject.
	I apologize for saying inoculate because it doesn't actually inoculate from anything.
	But the more people you inject with this product, the more adverse events you get.
	I want to see if I can bring this up here.
	Let me bring this up here.
	We're going to go back to study one just for the sake of the point here.
	Add to screen.
	This is it.
	Are we on?
	Are we looking at the same thing now?
	Oh no, I'm on the wrong lawsuit.
	It said study two talks about, hold on, I have two windows open.
	I'm going to close this one.
	That was the one that I wanted to look at.
	Okay, here we go.
	How is it that, not the COVID infection, but adverse reactions?
	Study one showed that of the 18,000 individuals in the placebo group, 2,600 individuals had an adverse reaction.
	Can you explain to someone who might not understand, how could people in the placebo group, or what would explain the people in the placebo group having an adverse reaction to the placebo?
	Yeah, so I'm going to be speculating to a large degree here, but generally a placebo is some sort of saline or sugar or some sort of innocuous injection that you're getting.
	That's still going into your body.
	So depending on a predisposition to diabetes, a reaction or an infection from the injection site, there could be other adverse reactions that come up.
	They're relatively minor.
	They do claim in one of their studies that of the placebo group, there were also people that died.
	Now, I find that...
	Extremely difficult to understand and believe.
	And we want to get the data out from Pfizer and have those people on the stand testifying as to how that exactly occurred.
	It could have been an aspiration issue.
	It could have been an issue for how the injection was done.
	We don't know exactly.
	We get very generalized stats from Pfizer.
	But they do report adverse events in the control group as well.
	All right.
	And now, so how did you get these stats?
	These are not the result of discovery.
	These are presumably that which is already...
	In the public record, so to speak.
	It's in the public record, right?
	So it's required to be filed with Health Canada.
	Health Canada maintains a decision database.
	For how they issue those decisions.
	Now, in terms of approval and interim approval of the vaccines, these studies were also published in the New England Journal of Medicine some months later.
	So we know that based on the pre-purchase agreement, which is how it all worked, the manufacturer of the vaccine, in this case Pfizer, Had a pre-purchase agreement with the government of Canada prior to concluding any clinical trials or anything like that.
	So essentially it said, we're going to buy 20 million to 76 million doses of your vaccine guaranteed as long as it meets Health Canada approval.
	We know this data, which they later published in the New England Journal of Medicine, we know it's sent over to the government.
	The government uses the headlines from the data.
	So the 95% effective, they literally copy and paste what Pfizer is saying and then use that in their official decision summary from Health Canada as to why they approved it.
	Well, it's 95% effective.
	There is no discussion of significant adverse side effects.
	There is no discussion or warnings to be had.
	With regards to this may happen to you, you may develop certain other conditions as a result of it.
	It's simply, it's effective.
	And then what the government does, which is equally as important here, what they do is then they take millions upon millions of dollars and they pump it into these coordinated campaigns to convince the world it's effective, it's safe, and everyone who's not taking it is a stupid anti-vaxxer, white supremacist, whatever name you want to insert there.
	But that has been the coordinated campaign.
	So when you look at a young child like Sean Hartman, he's getting all of this information from the TV, his government, the internet, everyone that's safe and effective.
	There are millions behind convincing this young man that this is the right way to go.
	And he wants to play hockey and then he decides he's going to get it.
	It's no wonder that he did.
	It's almost impossible to ignore the amount of pressure that was put on.
	The adverse reactions in the vaccinated group of 18,198 were nearly, if it's not, it's twice as much as the adverse reactions in the placebo group.
	Yeah.
	And that's comparing similar adverse reactions.
	So all things being equal, it's two to one adverse reactions.
	And yet, I'll bring this up here, not to build your case, because I actually want to kind of grill you on this so that it'll be stronger when you get to court.
	For the questions that people are going to have.
	The decision summary.
	This is the decision of Health Canada to say...
	This is the decision summary of the test, correct?
	No, you're now looking at the decision summary from Health Canada, from the regulator.
	One limitation of the data at this time is the lack of information on the long-term safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
	The identified limitations are managed through labeling and the risk management plan.
	You'll flesh out what that...
	Well, actually, let's stop there.
	What does that mean?
	Risk management plan is all capitalized?
	What does that mean?
	Yeah, so as part of submitting for approval under the interim order...
	You're required to have a risk management plan with the regulator.
	That could include ongoing monitoring, disclosure requirements, requirements around adverse events.
	All of these things come into the risk management plan of doing an approval of this sort.
	All right.
	That means looking at the adverse event reporting system, does it not?
	It can, yeah, absolutely.
	But it could also mean a private arrangement for the sharing of data.
	It could mean any number of things.
	And for the time being, you're not privy to what that is or might have been between Pfizer and the Government of Canada?
	Not yet, not yet.
	Then it goes in here, "The data provided supports favorably the efficacy of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine as well as the safety." How do they get to that?
	They have now two months of data if this is study one, or maybe six months of data if they're aggregating and publishing the data.
	They've got eight months of data, maybe At best, two years of data, if we're talking about mRNA, which has never been used before.
	I mean, how are they making that statement, Omar?
	So it's a copy and paste from Pfizer.
	That is Pfizer's statement, copy and pasted into your government or the Canadian government's regulators' approval of the vaccine.
	There is no way to substantiate, and this is now based on two months of data, mind you.
	There is no way to substantiate based on two months of data.
	That this is a safe product.
	Right?
	But we're doing it.
	We've got a pre-positioning agreement, a pre-purchase agreement.
	We've done all of that work.
	We want to be out there pushing the vaccine.
	We're spending millions of dollars.
	So this is what we're going to write.
	It's safe and it's effective.
	Now it says here the following sentence.
	The efficacy of the vaccine was established to be approximately 95%.
	Forget that.
	Efficacy is one thing.
	It could be 100% effective, but if it's 50% destructive.
	The vaccine was tolerated by participants and has no important safety concerns.
	Are you familiar with any egregious or what people would say were non-subjective, objective, negative safety results from the trials?
	Do you have any concrete examples of that above and beyond adverse reactions at large?
	Well, the adverse reactions are actually broken down.
	So there is a category of severe adverse reactions and there's a category of death.
	Under the two-month study data, there was severe adverse reactions.
	Those are yet to be defined.
	We don't know.
	What they were, how severe or what happened.
	It was severe to Pfizer.
	They qualified it as severe.
	They qualified it as severe.
	How many?
	Well, I can pull it up here, but it was some percentage.
	It's probably about 10% of the larger number that we're talking about that were severe, according to them.
	But we didn't see any deaths in the first two months of the study, at least not that's reported.
	But here's what's important.
	Health Canada, and this has been litigated before, Health Canada's job or the FDA or whatever country you're in, the job of your regulator is to review these safety submissions, review the clinical data, and then make a decision if this product is approved for use.
	That represents scrutiny.
	That represents a bar that you have to pass.
	That's not occurring here.
	There is a submission from Pfizer.
	There's literally a copy and paste from Pfizer submissions, and then there's not just an approval, but a coordinated campaign to then get this vaccine out there.
	All right, I'm going to bring this back up, just read a couple of things here.
	This is quoting again, and I presume this is also cut and paste.
	Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is therefore recommended for authorization for use under the interim order respecting the importation, sale, advertising, yada, yada, yada, for acute coronavirus.
	Do you know, you don't have access yet to the purchase agreement between the Canadian government and Pfizer?
	No, but I did write it, so it is in my, or it is in Dan Hartman's civil suit.
	It's right in there that we know a purchase agreement existed.
	There was something called a pre-positioning agreement.
	A lot of people talk about these agreements, right?
	And we have anecdotal conversations, and sometimes...
	Anecdote, you know, becomes the enemy of fact over time because people start to believe it.
	But there is this whole notion that there was an immunity agreement in place, that Pfizer is immune somehow based on the purchase agreement.
	Well, we've never seen the purchase agreement.
	I have no idea what indemnifications are in place.
	I do know that they're not immune to a lawsuit from Dan Hartman.
	Even if there is an indemnification in place, that just shifts liability from Pfizer to the Canadian government.
	It doesn't preclude an individual citizen to file a lawsuit for product liability as we have for breaching the implied warranties that Pfizer would have had to have for a product.
	So we haven't seen it.
	We expect discovery of it.
	We want to see what that agreement looked like.
	All we know is that it called for a purchase of 20 million to 76 million doses.
	All right.
	And part of the lawsuit as well is it highlights the coordination between the government and Pfizer.
	and I'll skip to, it was paragraph 44A, where you got the Minister of Health stating, quote, "Vaccines are a very important tool to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.
	Now that more and more Canadians are eligible to get vaccinated, it is important that everyone does their part." This small action makes a big difference for you and those in your community.
	We've gone.
	That stated the Minister of Health.
	Having safe and effective vaccines along with informed, confident, and motivated people getting vaccinated are key to Canada's success for widespread long-term control.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	And it goes on.
	The question is going to be this.
	How do you sue the government?
	What is your burden of proof?
	What is going to be their qualified immunity, sovereign immunity?
	What do you have to prove and what are going to be their defenses to say you don't even have grounds to sue us in the first place?
	That's a good question.
	There are different levels of, first of all, there's no immunity from this type of tort lawsuit against the government.
	Yet you're arguing that the government in bad faith, in reckless disregard, or in willful, blindness committed a tortious act.
	In this case, we're saying deceit, fraud.
	We're saying mispeacence in public office, which is when an official acting within the power of a statute like the Health Canada, like the Minister of Health, somehow has a reckless disregard for the impact of their actions.
	And that results in harm.
	They're not immune from those lawsuits.
	Those lawsuits can continue and can happen.
	We are also arguing negligence.
	Negligence is a much more difficult standard when you're suing a government.
	If you're trying to sue a government for negligence, you have to establish something called a private duty of care.
	That is very difficult.
	To establish.
	That is something that we have in our lawsuit that we'll be making our arguments for.
	However, looking at whether we can get a judgment on deceit and fraud or a judgment on misfeasance will negate our need to even go down the negligence path.
	If you were only suing the government for negligence, I think you would have a very hard time.
	I'm doing that because, you know, they say by statute they owe a duty to all Canadians and not you individually, and there as a result, there's no negligent action that takes place there.
	Well, that argument is going to be twofold, where they're going to say they owed a duty to...
	Those who took the vaccine, but also to those who they're trying to protect from the vaccine.
	And therefore, you know, if certain eggs get broken in making this omelet of getting out of the pandemic, well, they'll say, well, we owed a duty, two conflicting duties.
	One is to the country as a whole.
	And then if, you know, certain people get injured, well, that's just the price they have to pay for Canada getting back into the, you know, getting back to normal after everyone gets the jab.
	Malfeasance.
	I mean, I guess what are going to be the separate elements that you're going to have to prove for each of those specific claims?
	Well, for deceit, we're going to be going into statements or representations, which is why the lawsuit is categorized in separate representation numbers as we go down the facts.
	But we'll be looking at specific representations made by the government, whether those representations were made.
	With reckless disregard or willful blindness to the impact of those representations on the individual, whether it was reasonable for the individual to then rely, and whether it was foreseeable, and in fact the individual did rely on those representations, and finally whether those representations caused damage as a result of that reliance.
	That's generally the elements that we're going to have to prove with respect to deceit and fraud.
	For misfeasance, it just goes a little bit further where it talks about an individual who holds public office or a regulatory body that holds public office that either through willful blindness or reckless disregard.
	They've got their blindness as well.
	Well, they either committed a positive act through use of their office that was somehow offside and impacted you, or they omitted to do something significant that they should have done by virtue of their office.
	Remember, when we look at any of these things, it's not about the greater good, right?
	So you're absolutely right.
	There's a good argument to be made that says, well, we're a government, we're in charge of everybody, and sometimes you're going to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
	Sure.
	But at the end of the day, if you're engaging in that, you have to have a solid foundation.
	The foundation here is, is this product actually safe and effective?
	Does your clinical data actually support what you're doing in putting this out there in the way you're putting this out there?
	If your foundation is crumbling to begin with, and you have a product that's actually in an absolute way 1% or less than 1% effective with adverse side effects, then I don't think you have that foundation to be able to go and rely on the argument that we're just trying to protect the public.
	I always say that there's two types of lies.
	One is knowing what you're saying is false, and the other is not having any reasonable grounds to believe that what you're saying is true.
	And so, just pull this up here.
	I highlighted this on Twitter last week.
	They're basically overlapping, but we'll go through negligence causing wrongful death.
	The plaintiff pleads that the defendant, Canada, through its agency, yada, yada, negligently exercised its operational function authorizing the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination for use in Canada breach the duty of care owed to Sean Hartman.
	The particulars include, and I want to ask you specific questions on all of these, failing to disclose that individuals under 40 had an increased risk of myocarditis after receiving the jab.
	Question number one.
	What is your evidence right now?
	What exhibits are you relying on now?
	What are you not yet relying on because you don't have it, but you expect to get it in discovery?
	What are your concrete exhibits for both claims now?
	So remember, a lot of our background work on these claims is working with experts like Dr. Peter McCullough and others and a lot of the publicly available data as to adverse reactions, including using the data Pfizer published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
	What we're going to be seeking and what we're entitled to is discovery of the actual data that Health Canada had and relied upon in reaching these decisions which they say are not negligence or not deceitful.
	And so we'll be going forward to seek that.
	At this time, I can go into all of our different experts that we've worked with, but it's a combination of different sources that creates that list of what we say is negligent misrepresentation.
	All right.
	And so I'll highlight what you don't yet have and what people are going to want from discovery.
	Assuming this ever gets to discovery, we've seen the South African purchase agreement, but we have not seen the Canadian purchase agreement.
	We can assume the provisions are roughly the same.
	There's a provision in there that will probably say long-term safety and efficacy is not yet known.
	We can assume that, but you don't have the Canadian purchase agreement yet.
	Correct.
	But I'm also not worried about long-term safety and efficacy.
	This young man died 33 days.
	Well, now, then that brings us into the second question, which is going to go here.
	Now, I'll understand that the stats that you have on myocarditis are going to come from the experts, and I'm not putting them in quotes, the experts analyzing the publicly available data right now, which is going to include VAERS and CARES, which is the Canadian Adverse Event Reporting System.
	That's what the A is based on, I presume, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Then we got failing to disclose the rates of myocarditis were higher in adolescent males.
	That I presume also is going to be based on public data.
	If I'm anticipating what the criminal's defense is going to be, it's going to be, we didn't know that at the time, but then we're going to see what, because you do not yet either have the immediate clinical trials or the data that Pfizer had from the two-month period.
	Do you have that yet?
	We do.
	We have the two-month trial.
	We don't have the raw data.
	We have the New England Journal of Medicine publication and review of the data.
	Okay.
	Now, once upon a time, the story broke that Pfizer was asking for 75 years to release the data or the FDA.
	I forget who it was.
	Yeah.
	I also read somewhere else that that's not true and don't believe the headlines.
	So what is Pfizer's position on releasing its raw data for public scrutiny?
	I have no idea.
	I mean, here's my position.
	If we're going to trial, you're going to provide it.
	It goes through the central issue that's a tribal issue in this case on whether your product was fit for the purpose of which you sold and made billions off of it for.
	That is what we're suing on.
	We're saying it's not fit for that purpose.
	Therefore, show us your clinical data.
	And I don't see any statute or any legal basis for them to say they're going to withhold it for any reason.
	It has to come out.
	I want to get into the unblinding the placebo group after this.
	Failing to complete post-market surveillance and inform the public of the results.
	I think we all understand this as a matter of fact, but I guess the question is going to be the evidence upon which that's based.
	That's going to mean, presumably, ignoring the various data or ignoring data that was submitted to them much along the lines of Maddie DeGarry, who we were talking about them earlier, where they say, look, we filed this, we gave it to you, and then you still ignored it.
	Do you have any...
	Concrete evidence above and beyond that, which is publicly known to those who are paying attention, of the Government of Canada or Pfizer's unwillingness or neglect to analyze the post-market surveillance?
	Well, none of that post-market surveillance is included in any of the submissions that we've reviewed to the regulator, to Health Canada.
	And so it's just nowhere to be found from a perspective of the manufacturer who's supposed to be doing it.
	So at this point, our assertion is that they failed to do so.
	And we'll go with E. I'll just read through these quickly because I just want to highlight the negligence.
	And it's sort of mutatis mutandis, the same claim against Pfizer, failing to accurately, candidly, promptly, and truthfully disclose the issues with the COVID-19 vaccine.
	The media was running cover for them as well.
	Failing to identify, implement, verify that the procedures to address post-market surveillance risks were in place to address issues, complaints, etc.
	Failing to properly, adequately, and fairly warn Sean Hartman of the magnitude of the risk of developing serious injuries or death.
	And then we got that.
	That's the end of it.
	Okay, so that is against Health Canada.
	This is the question.
	The unblinding of the placebo group.
	Can you flesh that out?
	I mean, I think we all understand it, but I think it's worth repeating.
	What did Pfizer do, and within what time frame, to the best of your knowledge, to unblind the placebo group?
	Yeah, so what they did...
	Okay, so let's just back up.
	So in any clinical study of effectiveness or safety, you've got two groups.
	You've got the people who get the product, the vaccine, and then the people who don't get it.
	And then you follow both for a long period of time to determine adverse impacts and compare and contrast the two groups, okay?
	Within six months of Pfizer's clinical study, they took group two, which was the group who didn't get the vaccine, and they were like, here's a shot of the vaccine.
	And they gave all of them the vaccine.
	This is called unblinding.
	So now we have a situation where there is no real control group.
	We really don't know the difference between Aviva who would have gotten the vaccine and Aviva who wouldn't.
	We don't know the difference between the two.
	We don't have that clinical stuff.
	All right.
	That's mind-blowing.
	So you filed the suit against Health Canada, against Pfizer.
	What's the procedural state of the file right now?
	Has there been an appearance?
	They haven't filed a response yet or anything like that?
	No, we filed on the 27th.
	So we filed on the two-year anniversary of Sean Hartman's death.
	So that was our statute of limitations.
	We're still affecting service.
	We're serving a company in Germany, Biotech.
	We're serving the U.S. Pfizer, serving Canadian Pfizer.
	So it'll be a little bit of time.
	Remember, there are two lawsuits.
	One is just against Pfizer and the manufacturers.
	And then one is against the government of Canada.
	They're kept separate and distinct for a very important reason.
	There are two separate types of claims on a similar factual basis, but separate.
	And then with the Pfizer one, our hope, and again, this is an unknown in Ontario.
	It's up in the air in Ontario at this time.
	But our hope is to affect the jury trial with respect to Pfizer.
	Now, I'll ask you the question that I was wondering.
	I read both lawsuits.
	It's not a critique.
	My reaction was, it's not as hyperbolic as I would have drafted it.
	Now, that might be for the better, it might be for the worse.
	You clearly made a strategic decision to remain not neutral, but statistical fact-oriented.
	Can you explain that decision?
	I presume that there was a part of you that wanted to go hard on the emotions, go hard on the guilt, go hard on the rage, and you chose not to.
	Yeah, no, that's very true.
	You know, I'm a human being and I care about Dan and care about what happened to his son.
	And so there'd be nothing more than I would love to be out there and be more emphatic.
	When you're drafting these, the number one drafting mistake that we're seeing from, let's call it our entire movement, is that hyperbole making its way into pleading.
	Once it gets into the pleadings, there's a lot of pleadings that get struck out or dismissed because they have our argument, because they have too much hyperbole, because they're bordering on defamatory.
	There's a lot of issues there.
	And so, you know, we tried to be as professional and as neutral as possible.
	Data to speak for itself, the statements by Health Canada and Pfizer's to speak for themselves, and then to try and make out our case step by step.
	As you know, one of the things we're facing with the courts is already an uphill battle.
	We're facing an ideological battle, an uphill battle, where the courts are routinely coming into these cases and trying to find ways to dismiss it.
	We're trying to protect ourselves as best as possible, our client as best as possible, and do this in a very straightforward, facts-driven way.
	Now, Dan, I'm going to bring this back to you for a bit and have some questions here.
	Two-year anniversary was September 27th, 2023.
	Your son passed on 2021.
	At first, the government says...
	It was basically just filling out a form online, telling them what happened, what dates happened.
	And giving them whatever evidence I had.
	But back then I didn't have anything.
	I was basically going with my son died.
	There's no other explanation.
	You guys killed him.
	You guys are assholes.
	So let's get going here.
	And then they said, no, there's no evidence of that.
	I said to the lady, well, you can't prove it didn't kill him, can you?
	So then they said I could only appeal.
	With new medical evidence, which I have now, and now they ignore me.
	They will not answer me about my appeal.
	When you filed the first claim, you had the death of a 17-year-old, if it's 33 days and that was the only thing that happened, would have been...
	Approximately enough to raise questions, but you also submitted because you had discovered after he passed that he had been admitted to the hospital.
	You submitted all of that.
	The hospitalization within four days, the death within 33 days, and they still said you can't prove it.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So disgusting.
	And then after that, you go get, it's Dr. Cole, right?
	Yeah, Dr. Ryan Cole from America.
	Dr. Ryan Cole, who's the...
	In as much as expert is no longer an insult, in the good sense is an expert in the spike protein in the bodies and assessing it.
	Not to get too technical because I don't understand how they test or determine spike proteins.
	Cole is doing tests off of tissue samples from Sean?
	Yes.
	You have to stain the slides.
	And determine if there's spike protein in the body where it shouldn't be because they promised it would stay in the shoulder and it didn't.
	It travels through your whole body.
	And he found a large amount in Sean's adrenal glands.
	And it wasn't spike protein caused by COVID because Sean never had COVID.
	It was caused by the vaccine.
	And that's what those specialized tests are for to determine spike caused by the vaccine.
	And he found a whole bunch of it in Sean's adrenal glands.
	Your adrenal glands control your blood pressure.
	Likely Sean's blood pressure crashed and he died.
	And the report from Dr. Cole came to the conclusion that it was the jab which either significantly contributed to or was the cause of Sean's death.
	Yes, absolutely.
	And now you filed the appeal to that.
	Is that, Omar, is that...
	Is Dr. Cole's expertise report going to be part of the lawsuit, or is it currently part of the lawsuit?
	It will.
	Yeah, Dr. Cole and what Dr. McCullough is taking the lead on behalf of all of our experts, and he's been extremely gracious and helpful.
	But Dr. Cole is a pathologist who does that type of testing.
	And remember, what we're talking about here is specific tissue staining of the heart muscle.
	To find markers that would have caused the type of inflammation necessary for sudden death in this particular case.
	And that's certainly what they found, that those spike proteins were there.
	Now, remember, those spike proteins, again, it's all based on government representations and Pfizer's.
	The spike proteins are supposed to be localized.
	You put them in your arm, they stay in your arm.
	They don't travel to the rest of your body.
	All of that representation was out there.
	That's not what we've seen.
	We've seen it travel to the other parts of the body.
	We've seen it cause damage.
	And in this case, you know, we say it caused the death of this young man.
	The question that I just had, McCullough.
	Well, let's see.
	Is there a risk?
	Do you think that McCullough is notorious enough now by reputation for institutions that he'll be disregarded just because of the baggage that comes with his name?
	Is that a concern in the suit?
	No, not to me.
	I mean, look, Dr. McCullough is one of the most published doctors anywhere in the world.
	He's got impeccable stats.
	He's still a clinician.
	He's still practicing medicine to this day.
	Most of what he is doing is volunteering.
	He does not make any personal money off of these expert appearances.
	He has a foundation that he has set up called the McCullough Foundation to help Okay, the other question that I had, people were saying to turn up my mic.
	I hope it hasn't been low the entire time.
	Dan, so Cole comes with his new expertise.
	This is going to be part of the lawsuit.
	And you've heard nothing from the government other than ignoring your calls.
	Yep.
	The only email they answered was, we're trying to find a pathologist.
	Has anyone...
	I typed back to the woman.
	I said, well, since he's one of only three pathologists in the world who know how to do these tests, you're not going to find one in Canada.
	They don't even do these tests in Canada.
	So what pathologist are you going to find that you need to find for my appeal?
	You have to go to the people who know how to do it.
	Was there also, Dan, in the autopsy, a question of slight observation of inflammation of the heart or myocarditis with Sean?
	They said there was no myocarditis, but his heart was slightly enlarged.
	But they said it wasn't really worth talking about because it's completely normal for an athlete.
	All right.
	And now, okay.
	I don't believe that for one second because...
	He had to have a year away from hockey.
	So he wasn't an athlete.
	He was laying on his bed playing video games.
	I mean, I don't even know what that means for an athlete.
	Does that mean like an Olympic athlete?
	Does that mean a casual athlete?
	Yeah, I know.
	Does that mean anybody who exercises regularly?
	So no idea what that means.
	Yeah.
	Who knows?
	And so has anyone from, I think I asked you this question the last time, I suspect the answer is going to be the same.
	Anybody from CBC, Global News, CTV, any Canadian mainstream outlet?
	Contact you, ask you for your story yet?
	Not one word from any of them.
	I tagged a whole bunch of them the other day.
	I said, hey, CTV, Toronto Star, have you heard about the lawsuit yet?
	You ready to talk to me?
	They never answer, ever.
	Not one word.
	They pretend Sean didn't exist, or they know and they're too scared to talk about it.
	I don't know.
	Omar, has anybody gotten to you?
	A, has anyone from the media gotten to you?
	And B, have you received any ethics complaints out of the blue because of who you're representing now?
	Yeah, well, knock on wood, no ethics complaints yet.
	And I'm deeply honored.
	My firm's deeply honored.
	Myself and Angela Wood, who has worked on this case extensively, are honored to do this work.
	No media has contacted us.
	And we're not surprised that they haven't.
	I mean, the media is not interested in the truth coming out because you're complicit, right?
	It's one of those things you go around the room and you say, well, who was involved in perpetuating the lie?
	Who was involved in calling out Canadians that were unvaxxed as somehow stupid or dirty or dumb or whatever names you call them?
	Well, that was the media.
	They were an arm, a speaking arm of the government.
	And it's no wonder the government had millions and millions and millions of dollars.
	Funding all of these initiatives.
	And that's where we ended up.
	Has anyone contacted you to potentially join their claims to that of Dan and Sean?
	I mean, I presume, Dan, Omar, you'll tell me, in Canada, have other people gone through similar loss and contacted you to say, join me to your claim?
	I don't know of anybody that's gone through Dan Hartman's loss.
	I don't know of one.
	There was one case in Japan of a young girl dying very quickly post-vaccination.
	That case is ongoing.
	It's another landmark case out in Japan against Pfizer.
	But there was nothing here, and no one has, nor would we necessarily do that.
	This is not a class action.
	This is a very specific wrongful death claim brought by a father on behalf of his son.
	So no one from the media.
	It's shocking.
	And no what we call appearance yet.
	So the government has yet to say, okay, we formally appear, we're going to defend in this file.
	We're not at that stage yet?
	We're not there yet.
	We're about 45 days away from that.
	And you filed on the...
	Prior to prescription, the statute of limitations, two years.
	So you're clean on that end.
	Whether or not they say we never received service, you're protected on the date of filing.
	Yeah, service doesn't matter.
	It's the date of filing.
	And if it gets dismissed on a procedural basis, would you then, in theory, be precluded from refiling because the statute of limitations will have expired?
	Yeah, hence the two different lawsuits.
	You're starting to see a bit of our strategy here.
	We've got two lawsuits.
	We've got the government and we've got Pfizer.
	The government always, invariably, makes a motion to dismiss on any one of these claims filed.
	We've defended a few of them already.
	We don't expect that this will be dismissed.
	It only gets dismissed if the government can make out that it's plain and obvious that you don't have any case that could succeed.
	We feel we meet the test that we've got an arguable case in both cases.
	We expect a lot of fight.
	Poor entities.
	Government of Canada has unlimited money.
	Pfizer's got even more money.
	And so we expect these people to fight tooth and nail, file every procedural objection, every technical exploit they can do.
	We are prepared and ready to what will be a massive fight against these organizations.
	And like I said, in Japan is the only other case like this that that's proceeding.
	Someone had asked, well, I had asked if the media had contacted you.
	Have any other politicians reached out to you?
	I don't want to name any, but I will.
	Has Pierre Poilievre has, this is in Ontario.
	I don't think Doug Ford's going to reach out to you.
	Has any politician reached out to you?
	No.
	Have you reached out to any politician to say, hey, why are you not paying attention to this?
	No.
	Dan, have you been tagging Pierre Poilievre?
	Well, Pierre Poilievre is federal.
	This is going to be provincial.
	I don't know who the hell the opposition is.
	It's federal.
	It's a federal case just filed in provincial court.
	So Pierre Poiliev, not to name the name, but I'm going to name the name, has not reached out to either of you at any point in the last two years.
	Nope.
	Not one word.
	He's been tagged hundreds of times.
	When are you going to talk about Sean Hartman?
	When are you going to discuss vaccine injuries?
	Nothing.
	He'll do it when it becomes popular enough to do, and then if it becomes unpopular enough to do, he'll pretend it was about, you know, it was about inflation, not about vaccine injuries.
	But wouldn't you think some politician would jump all over this?
	It would help them out.
	I mean, I could think of maybe, oh, geez, I had him on the channel.
	He was provincial parliament, just joined the conservatives.
	Baber, I mean, I would think Roman Baber might still also be interested one way or the other in...
	Talking about this and raising awareness, because I know of not countless, but many stories of people who've come forward.
	Diane, now I'll also ask you this.
	Pfizer, did I ask this during this stream?
	Pfizer has not responded to you whatsoever.
	You've reached out to Pfizer?
	Yes, I reported his death, and it's been over a year.
	And the lady on the phone said, we take this very serious, sir.
	Someone will be back to you in the next couple days.
	Not one word.
	Nobody.
	Forget Albert Bourla.
	I don't know who their national executive would be.
	Nobody from Pfizer has gotten back to you or even addressed this.
	Nothing.
	When you go to McDonald's and you get a bad burger, they make it right.
	Pfizer doesn't give a shit.
	They don't even talk.
	They don't talk to me.
	They ignore me.
	They ignore Sean like he didn't even exist.
	They did the same thing with Matty DeGarry.
	It's just the MO.
	If you recognize it's happened once...
	You necessarily have to recognize this happened more than once.
	Omar, have I forgotten to ask anything that I should have asked you about the lawsuit?
	I don't think so.
	I just want to thank you for all of your time that you've given us and the ability to explain it.
	It's more than anyone else has done, and we are humbled and appreciated.
	Gone off the deep end in terms of anger a little bit these days.
	And it would have been to my fault.
	I would have been more hyperbolic with the suit.
	Not necessarily dropping Nuremberg 2.0 in a lawsuit, though I'd be thinking it all along.
	But I appreciate the...
	You don't allege that which you can't prove and don't allege that which you'll have difficulty proving, and that's typically intentions and accusations.
	And so you stick with stats, you stick with the facts, and then you get to discovery and you find out what exactly the government was relying on when they were telling everybody it was safe and effective, but then secretly, at least according to the South African contract, saying, we acknowledge it was not safer or effective.
	Can you amend at this point, or do you have to wait for an appearance before you can amend?
	No, I can amend any time.
	In fact, generally we will amend after discovery just because you're right.
	That's when we get the documentation in and then we amend our lawsuit to reflect a lot more of what those intentions were.
	I want to try to find Anthony Housefather talking about how the government was browbeaten, coerced into signing these contracts, which were very favorable for the pharma companies because they didn't want to sell a product unless they were immunized.
	I mean, that I would imagine gets in there at some point, but maybe it doesn't need to be alleged because it's, what do we say, connaissance d 'office?
	What's it?
	Judicial notice.
	Would the courts take as judicial notice statements politicians have made in Parliament?
	I don't think so.
	I think, I mean, look, judicial notice has been a big, today was a big story or two days ago with the Ontario Court of Appeal as well.
	Judicial notice is a problem when it comes to trusting the regulator.
	But when you're suing the regulator, I think it's pretty difficult to take judicial notice of the entire lawsuit basis and dismiss it.
	So, you know, so we will see, but it is not a promising development around judicial notice that's taking place in the family law cases.
	What I was flabbergasted at was that during a number of these lawsuits, the courts were taking as judicial notice, and for those of you who don't know what it is, it's knowledge that need not be proven in court to say it was judicial notice that they were safe and effective and that they prevented transmission.
	They were saying things which were judicial notice back two years ago, which have now been proven to be false.
	But Omar, not to give you any ideas, but let me give you an idea here.
	Hold on one second.
	I think this one is it.
	Anthony Housefather?
	Not now?
	Oh, this is it.
	Is it going to upset you guys if you have to listen to this potty mouth spew lies?
	Listen to this.
	These agreements require employees of the government of candidates that access these documents to sign contracts.
	Confidentiality agreements.
	They're going to say that we're not going to get to see the contracts because they signed confidentiality agreements, but I'm sure you've seen this.
	Why is that?
	Why is there much more reductions, as my colleague said, in these documents than in other documents?
	It's because these documents were signed at the beginning of a pandemic when everybody was desperate for vaccines, when companies were being told to rush.
	Rush vaccine production.
	in a way they normally don't do it.
	Not testing it.
	So these companies were exposed to way higher liability, putting their products on the market that they normally would because they didn't do the type of testing that normally takes these drugs years to come to market.
	They did it all in less than a year.
	I listen to this and I say he's making the case for you guys.
	They would not put it to market because of their increased liability, because of their absence, failure to do proper testing in the way they always did it, and so they wanted immunity.
	I mean, he's making the claimant's argument here.
	It makes me angry.
	if i'm going to deliver you this product that i haven't tested in my normal way yeah just like that i i want to have different conditions and with companies all countries around the world competing with each other to get these the countries had less leverage than they normally do for example if we were entering into flu vaccine contracts or monkeypox contracts or other things Monkeypox?
	It's mind-blowing.
	In other words, the government got exploited by Big Pharma who didn't want to bring it to market because of increased liability because they weren't doing proper testing and safety.
	It makes total sense.
	This is a member of our Canadian government for the Liberal Party.
	He's like procurements, the Minister of Procurements or something now.
	in the end it worked out we got oh it worked out we got something one of the countries that got to vaccinate everybody the fastest oh that's great that's great uh i'll send you that link it's it's it's it's mind-blowing oh man um oh so i mean so that's that's what you got on your plate for a while uh i i think that's it uh dan let me ask you this i know you got a dog you have a beautiful dog what's the dog's name again iggy iggy like iggy pop Yeah,
	he was named after Jerome McGinley, a Canadian hockey player, and Sean's teammates nicknamed him Iggy.
	So because of that, we called the doggy.
	How is he doing?
	Oh, he's awesome.
	He's the best companion ever.
	He's keeping me going, really.
	He makes me laugh and smile every day.
	You're still working, five days a week driving.
	Do you drive with Iggy or do you leave him at home?
	No, I leave him at home.
	He'd be harking his head off at everybody we see.
	And you're trucking interprovincially?
	Yeah, I'm in Ontario every day.
	But it's long hours and a lot of kilometers every day.
	And I know I asked you this the last time.
	I'll ask again.
	I won't get too invasive.
	What are you doing in as much as anything as humanly possible?
	You've got Iggy.
	For anybody who hasn't seen the video, your dog talks.
	There's not a question about it.
	He just doesn't have the tongue to...
	The dog talks.
	But what are you doing?
	How do you never heal?
	How do you cope with this?
	What sort of...
	Are you doing...
	What do they call it?
	The eye movement therapy?
	What sort of things do you do to get through this?
	Yes, I was taught that eye movement therapy, which seems to help.
	It's moving your eyes back and forth, looking at a pencil or something.
	And you take deep breaths, and it does something to trick your brain.
	I don't know exactly what it does, but it works.
	But other than that, it's just pure hell every day, crying a lot.
	I'll never get over Sean.
	People say it'll get better, but I don't think it will.
	I mean, there'll be purpose in this lawsuit.
	And from, you know, fingers crossed, there can be, I've said it before, there can be no justice.
	There can only be, at this point, some form of retribution.
	We'll see if it gets even there, if the government weasels its way out.
	Let me bring up these questions here that I'll see if there's any more.
	Turn up my mic.
	Well, that's too late for that.
	Entry required.
	Vaccines, eggs, time.
	mRNA therapies.
	Interesting, attractive, untested.
	Encapsulated DNA concerns me most.
	Yields mutations and destruction of heart, brain, circulatory structure.
	Dan, elaborate.
	I don't know if Dan or Omar can elaborate on that.
	Tropical Rockets says, In the U.S., I hear liability immunity only applies if felonies were not committed.
	Some think there were.
	All right.
	And let me just see, in our locals, if there's any questions that I didn't get to.
	I don't think there's any.
	If there's any questions, get to the questions.
	I'm going to look through here.
	RocketboyTY says, experimental testing on the population required informed consent viva.
	Omar, are you going to...
	You will make it as part of the claim, the admission that this Phase 3 trial is carrying on until December 23rd, so that technically we are still part of the...
	No, it's relevant, but informed consent is extremely relevant, right?
	So when you make representations that help you inform that consent, and those representations are reckless and lead to damage, well, that's not really informed consent, right?
	And so I think it's extremely important and something we're going to bring up.
	All right, and then we got someone said, how can Anthony Howe's father stand himself?
	I don't know how they can live with themselves, but they say it just so matter-of-factly.
	Omar, Dan, do you guys have any knowledge?
	I won't ask for confidential knowledge, but either of you heard or have any information about what they call the ghost vaccines or people who were getting fake shots, saline shots, to say that they had gotten the shot?
	Omar, in your dealings, have you come across that at all or no?
	I have.
	I've heard of it.
	I don't know the truth of it.
	I think one of the things we've argued is the specific batch number that Sean got.
	And so that will open the door to discovery on other batch numbers that were included for sale within Canada.
	And perhaps we can get to that issue if, in fact, that was happening.
	Because that would significantly impact those adverse events and why you don't hear about 30 million people getting.
	Adverse reactions after the vaccine versus only a few hundred thousand.
	Do you know what the stats were on Sean's batch?
	I don't yet, no.
	Okay.
	I remember I had on the Martin family, and the batch results from their batch were notoriously bad.
	And then you look up some other what they call the hot batches, and it's statistically anomalous.
	It can't be but anything other than what Anthony Housefather just testified to, rushing the manufacturing where certain batches themselves were improper for use.
	And that's it.
	You can't aggregate by accident that type of statistical result.
	Omar, where can people find you?
	I know that I think I forgot to do this properly the last time.
	Where can people find you?
	What can they do to help Dan's give-send-go, not go-eff-me?
	His give-send-go is in the description.
	I'm going to share it again and share it everywhere, as always.
	What can people help with you, Omar, and where can people reach you?
	Well, our website is shakelaw.ca, and we're on Twitter at UASIND, and so you're welcome to...
	To reach out to us.
	I mean, it's anything we can do to help.
	But really, this is about Dan Hartman and his loss.
	And like I said, we're just honored to be working with him and very humbled to be on your show.
	And I got iCare22 says, Thank you, Dan.
	Omar, you're on the target now.
	On the target list now.
	Keep it up.
	Well, I say Dan's been on it for a while because...
	Oh, yeah.
	And Omar, you probably walked your way onto it a little while ago as well.
	If I've forgotten anything, we're in touch on Twitter, so any questions I forgot to ask, I'm just going to go look one more time before we end this.
	It looks like we've gotten everything.
	It's an outrage.
	It's an absolute outrage.
	You listen to them describe it just so nonchalantly.
	We rushed it.
	We were exploited by these big pharma companies.
	They wouldn't bring it to market because of increased liability, because it was rushed, untested.
	Manufacturing wasn't being overseen.
	You'd know that there were hot batches, and they'd tell you it was safe and effective, and now they're jamming it in the arms of six-month-old and more.
	Ah, my goodness, I almost forgot to ask.
	Omar, and Dan, you probably know as well, for the latest new vaccines that What's-Her-Face is pushing out there, Theresa Tam.
	Six months and older, do we know what the testing is on these?
	I mean, I know what I've read.
	Yeah.
	52 people followed for 20 days.
	Omar, do you have any more insight or is that basically...
	No, I would just...
	I mean, look, people need to make their own decisions, but you've got to be very careful.
	When you were talking with that or showing the video of that minister of procurement, first of all, I don't believe any of that.
	That nonsense, right?
	So we rushed them.
	The vaccine manufacturers exploited us.
	That's nonsense.
	If a product wasn't ready, it wasn't ready.
	You had other ways you were dealing with what you perceived as the threat of COVID-19.
	No one said that get us a vaccine at all costs and we're willing to sacrifice our children for that.
	That wasn't the thing.
	And then, you know, when they talk about immunity...
	The government may or may not have provided immunity to the vaccine manufacturers that doesn't make it so that Dan Hartman can't get redressed.
	Dan Hartman didn't give anybody immunity.
	Sean Hartman didn't give anybody immunity.
	I didn't give anybody immunity.
	And so I think that this case is very much live.
	I think what that Minister of procurement said was absolutely abhorrent and probably even more misleading on purpose.
	Because it makes no sense that you're the ones who are rushing the vaccine manufacturers and they're the ones who are saying, no, no, we don't want to do this and all of that nonsense.
	Bullshit.
	They made billions upon billions of dollars.
	I didn't see any testimony as to the discount they gave because their product wasn't effective.
	It's not like you buy a piece of furniture with a ding on it and you get a discount off a floor model.
	You didn't get any of that.
	You got full rates and guaranteed money.
	That's nonsense.
	And, you know, the Trudeau government just apologized for the residential school, call it genocide, disaster, whatever, where they were testing, experimenting on children in residential schools.
	Apologize for that.
	And then in real time say, well, we're also doing this right now, which can be described as nothing else other than real-time experimentation, quite literally, because we're still in phase three and we're all part of it, those of us who took that, took at least one, two, maybe even more of those shots.
	Dan?
	Omar, stick around.
	We're going to say our proper goodbyes.
	So Omar, your website again, say it one more time.
	Sheikhlaw.ca.
	S-H-E-I-K-H law.ca.
	Yep.
	Your last name, even for the simplicity of the pronunciation, is extremely complicated.
	Well, more complicated to pronounce or to spell.
	S-H-E-I-K-H law.ca.
	You're on Twitter.
	It's U-A-S-I-N-D?
	Yep.
	The I-N-D is what?
	Oh, that was a company I started in law school called UAS Industries, but that's what it is.
	Okay, so U-A-S-I-N-D, that's your at.
	Dan, where can people find you?
	Answers, number four, Sean, S-E-A-N, on Twitter.
	And the Give, Send, Go, hold on, I'm going to share it one more time right now before we leave.
	Get the chat here.
	Give, Send, Go, right here.
	Share it away.
	I mean, I know the budget is $100,000.
	This lawsuit can last easily two years.
	I mean, easily at the very least.
	Yeah.
	And there's going to have interim motions to dismiss coming from the government, coming from Pfizer.
	There'll be motions for particulars.
	I don't know how it works at the federal, provincial level, but they're going to ask for details if they don't get it dismissed.
	They're going to drag you through the ringer.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	So let's see what the precedent that will be set is.
	Okay, so you guys stick around.
	I'm going to end this and we're going to chat it out and say our proper goodbyes afterwards.
	Everybody, the links will be in the pinned comment.
	Omar, thank you for being here.
	Dan, thank you again.
	Strength in as much as there can be strength, but this will be the project to distract from the pain and hopefully attempt to find some no-justice retribution for the injustice that has been caused.
	Everybody out there, I'll see you all tomorrow.
	Gentlemen, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.

▲