All Episodes
Previous Next
May 16, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
01:06:27
"Militarized Healthcare" - Sasha Latypova Interviewed by RFK, Jr - March 16, 2023
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hey, everybody.
I'm really happy that we have returned guys today.
Sasha Latipova is...
is a former pharmaceutical R&D executive.
She worked in the industry for 25 years and ultimately owned, managed several contract research organizations, working on clinical trials for more than 60 pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, J&J, GSK, Novartis, and many others.
Lypova worked many years in cardiovascular safety assessments, And interacted with the FDA and other regulatory agencies on these matters on behalf of her clients as part of the FDA Cardiovascular Safety Research Consortium.
Sasha sold her companies and retired from the industry before the pandemic.
And Sasha has been speaking out on COVID and the mRNA vaccines and related matters since early 2021 as an independent researcher.
I'm going to say this to our reader, what you're going to hear today is immensely important.
And it puts a new dimension on the corruption that has occurred and really, you know, what I would call a coup d'etat against democracy.
Uh, that by forces that include not only the medical cartel, but our military and intelligence apparatus as well.
And Sasha is not an incredible.
Great job of going into the weeds and documenting exactly how they got away with what they've gotten away with.
And this is huge fraud that they have pulled off that has gulled virtually the entire regulatory community, physicians, and the public.
I want to say this at the outset, Sasha does not have a A scientific or medical title.
She's an MBA, but she brings a special expertise.
She has a niche expertise, which is understanding the regulatory protocols and process that govern clinical trials.
She was in charge of compliance for over 60 clinical trials.
So she knows what the regulatory hurdles that are normal And that businesses have to comply with if they're going to bring a product, a drug, or a vaccine to market.
And during the early part of 2021, she began noticing some gaps in that process, let's say, and some irregularities about the way that the vaccines were brought to market.
And that caused her to do Freedom of Information requests And to really figure out what was going on.
And the fraud that she uncovered is monumental.
So I'm really going to try to stop talking and get Sasha to explain, as she does, incredibly articulately, eloquently, and clearly, exactly what happened.
So welcome, Sasha.
One thing I want to say is the last time we had you here, you look like you're in a bunker now.
Last time you were in a very luxurious house with a beautiful oil painting behind you of Daniel in the Lion's Den, which I just loved, and I asked you about it, and you said that it was your painting, and your artwork is incredible, so you are a person of many, many talents.
I don't know where you are today, but you look good, the light looks good, but the background is not as great as it was when we saw you in your home.
Yes, thank you.
Yes, I am actually in a very luxurious place.
It's just the lighting here is set up in such that, you know, it throws the background in the dark.
But yeah, not in the same place where the Daniel is right now.
And it's my favorite painting.
I think, you know, I love it.
I love the way it You must feel like Daniel in The Lion's Den some days when you wake up.
doing it.
So I'm keeping that message.
You must feel like Daniel and the lions some days when you wake up.
Yes.
Except the lions are trying to eat you.
No, they're not.
So, the message of that painting is that, first of all, God's design is perfect.
Absolutely perfect.
I wish more people understood it and it has to do with both the truth and the human body and everything that has been created in the universe.
You cannot improve on the truth and you cannot improve on the design of the human body or the cells or the DNA and and no matter what these fear mongers are telling you about the gain of function and all that nonsense it's just understand that that's fear mongering and bluff they cannot overcome what God created and that's why that story about the Daniel is told that way and if you understand it then you know that there is nothing to be afraid of
So that was the message that painting told me when I was making it.
And well, so that's sort of the philosophical underpinnings of all of this.
But yeah, so coming back to the criminals, you know, let's talk about the criminal organization.
You're correct.
When I started, When I started looking into this in early 2020, you know, later and then 2021 when they started rolling out the so-called vaccines, I was still naive and under assumption, like most of my colleagues, that, you know, these were pharmaceuticals and the FDA was regulating them.
And the CDC was supposed to be monitoring the safety signals, but somehow they missed them.
Okay, and a lot of people are still in that camp and trying to get CDC to pay attention to the things that it was never going to and has no mandate to pay attention to, and in fact has the opposite mandate.
And I'll explain how.
And so that was the problem.
So at the beginning I was looking at the VAERS database of CDC and looking at the adverse events and deaths, especially serious adverse events and deaths associated with these so-called vaccines by lot numbers.
That was the unique view because I understood how they're made.
They're supposed to be made in the lots and lots have numbers and they're tracked.
And in any normal safety surveillance system this is what you do you identify some kind of a problem a clustering of deaths, you look up the lot numbers you immediately recall them.
And that's done by the manufacturer, all the manufacturers have.
Those systems of surveillance.
And in fact, you know, you get letters from your car dealers all the time saying, oh, this part was recalled or whatever.
But that's because the same safety surveillance system was triggered somehow.
And they figured out that, okay, this this part number needs to be taken off the market.
The same happens with pharmaceuticals.
A vast majority of recalls of pharmaceuticals or food, you know, salad with salmonella, is recalled by the manufacturers all over the United States.
Yet, this never happened with these products.
In fact, there was one lot identified in Orange County, California for Moderna by Orange County, California Health Department.
On January 18, 2021, they were calling an abnormal number of allergic reactions.
And nothing happened.
So they flagged it, but there was no action taken.
The lot was being continued to be distributed all over the United States.
Ultimately caused something like 65 deaths and over 3,000 adverse events, serious adverse events.
And after something like this happens, what I need people to understand, you don't have to continue going and saying, oh, I need to demonstrate excess mortality associated with this product.
No, you don't.
When something like this happened that I just described, it should be considered intentional murder.
And those responsible should be prosecuted.
At that point, the law enforcement needs to be triggered into action to go after those responsible, who are now responsible for 65 dead people all over the United States.
Yet again- Let me add, and I'm going to try not to interrupt you, but let me just add one other thing that you may have just neglected to say, but there have been surveys of which lots are injuring people.
And my understanding is that something like 90% of the injuries are the result of one or two or three or four, you know, a very, very small number of lots, maybe 5% of the lots.
That was early data point, which is still true based on the raw output from VAERS database.
Well, in reality, we also found is that CDC also manipulates the data through their contractors.
So they manipulate the data very heavily so that it looks this way.
In reality, actually, the percentage is something like, I would say 30% of the loads are accountable for 90% of the deaths.
But because of data manipulation that CDC does, it looks more like 5% of the loads.
But it, you know, Yeah, it's neither here nor there.
We still see that there is a huge signal triggered, there is a huge signal associated.
Even if, you know, somebody just took a raw output and said, oh look, there are 5% of the loads, let's look at them more closely, let's recall them.
The first thing to do is stop and recall.
If this is done in the interest of public safety by everyone involved, the government, HHS, FDA, CDC, All the manufacturers, you know, Pfizer, their subcontractors, anyone has those systems in place.
Anyone can detect it.
And once they detect it, the first thing to do is stop and recall.
None of this ever happened in the United States.
It happened in Japan for a couple of months of Moderna, but it never happened in the United States.
And even after they flagged it, they continued selling it and they killed 65 people.
Okay, so that was, to me, that was enough.
I didn't need to continue going and screaming at CDC, please, you know, look at my data.
I knew that they were criminals at that point.
And they were doing it intentionally.
So I started looking as to, you know, do I have a confirmation that these products are not good manufacturing practice compliance?
And yes, we do.
We have direct documents from The European Medicines Agency stating that Pfizer was not in compliance with good manufacturing practices at the time of authorization or conditional marketing approval actually in the in Europe, and they were not in compliance and that was regulatory objection number one which is a major red flag.
Formal objection by the regulator to the approval, and that should have been resolved before anything was being shipped.
Yet, two weeks after that notice was issued, commercial lots of Pfizer, which had been manufactured long before that opinion was issued, got shipped in the US and internationally, violating every import-export rule, all other GMP compliance rules.
Again, so after that, you should say it's completely intentional, not only in the US, internationally.
Again, nothing happens.
I'm still confused as to why nothing happens and everybody is asking, you know, everybody on our side is asking that question.
Why is there no action?
Why there's no action by the courts?
No, actually, we can't even bring them on charges for any of these very flagrant violations.
And then ultimately, I ran into this, you know, brilliant analysis by my colleague now, Catherine Watt, who writes Bailiwick News Substack.
And she's compiled what I would say encyclopedia of law reference and law reference on this topic of how the US government over time, created this pseudo legal structure I'm not saying any of this is lawful, I'm not, this is completely unconstitutional what I'm just going to describe, but they made it legal on paper.
And that's what, you know, Catherine has tracked, and once I read it, you know, the universe started making sense to me again.
Because this is what they've done.
This is the crime that they're committing, as we speak.
So, what they put in place, and this has been done over time, so it shows a lot of preplanning and premeditation.
They've created a framework of pseudo-legal laws that they're using.
First of them is, well, there are several statutes, six key statutes that she describes, but I'm going to speak about just a few of them here.
The Emergency Use Authorization Law, that's what's being used here in the U.S.
It's a little bit different outside of the U.S., but let's focus on the U.S.
It was put in place in 97 under Clinton, and it actually authorizes FDA to put drugs or devices on the market without proper testing.
or authorize an unauthorized use of a device or drug.
And that was initially explained as, you know, very limited niche kind of application for desperate cases, for terminal cancer, for something that very, very critical criteria for EUA is that there is no other treatment option.
So that explains the suppression of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which were perfectly workable, safe, and long-used medications that were showing a lot of promise for treating COVID.
And yes, we know now definitively they're quite effective at treating COVID.
And that is because, just to elucidate this for our listeners, The EUA provision regulation that was promulgated by the Clinton administration had safeguards in it.
And it said, yes, you can take a medication that has no approval and you can distribute it and approve it for use without clinical trials, without any safety or efficacy testing.
But you cannot do that If there is an existing drug that is approved for any purpose, that is demonstrated to be effective against the target illness.
And so you can only use that EUA if no other drug or treatment exists.
And so it was very important if they wanted to use that EUA for their vaccines, They needed to first discredit or destroy any drugs that actually were effective against COVID.
And very early on, they knew that hydroxychloroquine was effective against coronavirus because NIH did studies that showed it was.
It was devastatingly effective.
Both as a preventative and as a cure.
And they knew that.
And ivermectin was also devastatingly effective.
But it would have killed their entire use of the emergency use authorization if there had been any acknowledgement that those drugs work.
So they had to suppress them.
Let me just give the punchline to what you're about to tell us.
Which is that essentially there were a series of laws put in place that allowed the military to take over distribution of vaccines and under a provision that does not allow any clinical trials and does not allow any safety testing.
And that essentially the safety testing that we did see, which was conducted by the pharmaceutical industry, was Kabuki theater put on for the public with no regulatory implications.
And that's why they were able to take all these shortcuts because it was meaningless theater.
Now, I'm going to let you explain kind of the long version of that, but that's what people, you know, that's kind of where we're going.
Yes, exactly.
So it was, you know, a pretend authorization by a regulatory agency, FDA, that has no regulatory mandate to regulate countermeasures in the United States.
You know, remember the FDA mandate is to regulate interstate commerce of medical products.
And food, right?
So they are supposed to approve medical products, and these are not medical products, they're countermeasures.
So that legal framework that's being utilized here is essentially pretending that this is a health event and pretending that these are health products, while using the laws that actually put them into a totally different space.
Legally, or pseudo-legally, I would say.
So in addition to the emergency use authorization, they're using another set of laws that are allowing them to contract under other transaction authorities.
So Department of Defense, and they're not just overseeing the distribution of vaccines, by the way, that was sold to the public also.
They're actually the Department of Defense is fully in charge of their of the development of the clinical trials of the execution of all this manufacturing and ordering of them and distributing the money and taking the possession of the delivered product and distributing it and owning it until it is injected into a person.
So they're using Other Transaction Authority, which is a way for the government to contract.
Again, initially it was very narrowly defined, given authority to NASA to do it in the 60s.
Now 11 government agencies are using it and DOD is a particular frequent user of this method.
Other Transaction Authority, it's called OTA.
And it was essentially designed to allow the Pentagon to quickly buy weapons and weapons systems without paying attention to any existing regulatory authorities.
Yes.
What they've done is they've taken that authority and they've applied it to the vaccines.
They're purchasing the vaccines under OTA as a demonstration product.
It's not a medical product.
FDA has no authority over it.
CDC has no authority over it.
Military is actually manufacturing.
They've farmed this out to hundreds of military contractors to do the manufacturing.
To do the distribution, to do every aspect of it.
And it's all a huge military operation.
And the involvement of the drug companies is kind of window dressing because the Pentagon did not want to say, did not want to put on the product, this is a Pentagon made, Defense Department made product.
They essentially paid the pharmaceutical companies for their brand name, so people would think they were getting something from Pfizer or Moderna.
But all of the back room and the distribution and manufacturing is done by the military, and the pharmaceutical companies were brought in to put their name on it, and then to pretend to do clinical trials, which have no legal significance.
Absolutely.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
So OTA allows them not only, you know, quickly order otherwise regulated products from regulated industry, private industry, without following the regulations.
So that's critical.
And that's why DoD loves it so much, because not only they can do that, they can also hide a lot of technology and IP from public, from each other, from other government branches.
So it's perfect for them.
And also they don't have to follow any federal procurement accounting rules.
So that's why their stated budget is $800 billion, but they can't find $8 trillion because they lost it and there's no accounting records for it.
So that's how they do it.
And they distribute humongous amounts of money through this and through their agency.
So it's technically HHS agency, but it's called BARDA, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.
But BARDA kind of distributes the money.
And also, so they've all contracted.
So these contracts became available, over 400 of them, for all countermeasures, not just vaccines, but vaccines got the largest chunk of money.
So it's vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, you know, even masks were included in that.
And so they gave them a huge chunk of money.
The scope of work of these contracts, the primary scope of work is large scale manufacturing demonstration.
Demonstration meaning fake.
And also use words sometimes prototypes sometimes, you know, it's prototype demo countermeasure large scale manufacturing demonstration, those are typical scope of work in these projects.
And then they mentioned, you know, in a fluff language they mentioned things like, oh, it's going to be subject to FDA rules and compliance but then they also have these scope definition clauses where it says.
Specifically out of scope, and we're not paying for it, we're not ordering it, is preclinical clinical development and manufacturing compliance.
So that should be understood very clearly by everyone.
Department of Defense gave humongous amounts of money to all these pharma companies for a demonstration.
Just a demonstration.
And if you knew that you're going to inject your child with a Department of Defense prototype ordered under OTA and emergency use authorized, would you do it?
I don't think so.
So that was the biggest lie that was sold to the public, that come get injected with the safe effective thing that's manufactured by Pfizer, you know, a prestigious pharmaceutical company, which is also a felon, by the way, but that's, you know, people think that it's a pharma company.
So, anyway, so that that's how they did it, and they can invoke all this structure under public health emergency.
And continue invoking it under public health emergency, because this whole thing clicks into place when they announce public health emergency based on absolutely no data and no evidence that any emergency exists.
And they have been extending it and will continue extending it as long as we allow them to, because of this, because they need it in place so that they can continue implementing this structure.
And so when they do that, when they operate under OTA, There is no quality control, right?
Because normally you would have quality control joke points.
In other words, the government regulates quality control at the factory.
And then again, in the distribution system, when you cross state lines, you have to show the lot number and you have to show that you complied with quality control and best manufacturing processes.
But now there is no, under OTA, there literally are no best management practices.
There are no best manufacturing processes.
And so we don't know what the ingredients are.
We don't know how it was manufactured.
We don't know where a lot of these were manufactured.
And we just know nothing about these products.
And nobody is actually looking at them.
Is that accurate?
Yeah, that's accurate.
I even have, you know, suspicion that given, you know, reading these documents, and this is an educated guess, that Pfizer, for example, also doesn't know exactly what's in those products, because they have been, they, you know, there are some indications, I'm not going to discuss this deeply right now, but that Pfizer is also not necessarily knowing exactly what goes into what.
And, you know, so there's a huge question mark as to whether there is mRNA in these products or no.
Sometimes there is.
I know some of the researchers found evidence of RNA, but it was not conforming to the specification that Pfizer described.
It was different lengths of mRNA, different strands of mRNA.
And there were huge impurities, you know, thousand times greater than limit, there were impurities of DNA, and all kinds of other toxic materials were found such as metals, for example, very toxic metals and other, you know, large structures that are unexplained, but they're too large to be in an injectable product and that should be again basis for recall.
Any of this.
And so, so we don't know if there is RNA, what it's coding for what it's not coding for when even when it's not coding for things, it has been designated this RNA and small, small pieces of RNA have been designated as a biological weapon.
Since 1997 at least I found a number of government reports, including a whole textbook by NIH that that says so and has a whole chapter on this.
So we have these non compliant biological materials distributed in these vials, we don't know exactly what there are billions of vials they're all over the place as far as some may be blanks and some may be super toxic.
They're non compliant, we know for sure.
They're biological materials.
They have been designated as dual-use.
In fact, the contracts are saying they're dual-use civil and military application.
We have government reports describing them as a biological weapon, and the use of them is indistinguishable from use as a biological weapon.
So I have a question to our government.
What is it that they're exactly forcing on us?
And so somebody needs to start an investigation and address it.
But while we're doing an investigation, it should be stopped.
It should be stopped and recalled.
So that's my message.
Let me ask you this.
I know that BioNport, which is this crooked company that I'm very familiar with, had a monopoly on the smallpox vaccine and the anthrax vaccines, and they have this very corrupt relationship with Robert Cadillac, who runs BARDA, and BARDA runs the national strategic stockpile.
They buy all the countermeasures, so he's looking at a multi-billion dollar budget that he can distribute to his friends, and he gives most of the contracts to one company, Bioimport.
Bioimport, now it's called Emergent Biosolutions, they renamed themselves.
And he used to be their business partner.
He was their employee.
And he's given them faithfully for the entire time he's been in government.
He's been giving them these very lucrative monopolies over vaccines.
And their product was found to be substandard.
Nobody understood what was in it.
And they shipped it to Canada.
As I recall, because they couldn't use it in the United States, so they gave it to the Canadians.
But the question I have is, how much of these vaccines are actually being manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna, and how much of them are going to military contractors like Emergencies BioSolutions, which used to be called BioPort.
Yeah, so yes, there are hundreds of companies that are involved.
So Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen have been advertised as sort of a front, right?
But in fact, there are hundreds and hundreds of both different vaccine manufacturers of different sizes and locations.
Also, raw material suppliers and fill finish companies, which is, you know, takes the product and then fills it into vials and does all the packaging and things like that.
So that's a network that had been established by the Department of Defense through various consortia.
So here specifically is chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear consortium is involved, which contains about 300 companies.
I'm not saying all of them are doing this, but a good chunk are involved.
And the whole thing, you know, people are saying, well, but how, you know, that means that all of these people, thousands of people are in on this conspiracy.
Actually, it doesn't require thousands of people to be in on the conspiracy.
It is so compartmentalized.
It's so split into small pieces, and they did it immediately.
Well, normally, if you're doing something very, very novel as a manufacturer, you do everything from soup to nuts at the beginning, and then you start outsourcing once you understand certain components of your product, and you've defined inputs and outputs.
Here, they did the opposite.
They went right away Into huge scale, had broken into little pieces, everything.
And now you have this hundred companies making billions of vials.
So, for example, drug substances made at Rensselaer, shipped to Andover, or in others like Kalamazoo.
And they make a drug product, then they ship it to Phil Phinish in Kansas.
So, and I actually interviewed some of the insiders on the manufacturing floor.
They have no idea what they're doing.
Their stuff comes from somewhere, they mix it, send it somewhere else.
They don't know what's going on.
So that's fine.
A lot of them have to comply with best manufacturing practices.
Yeah, and oftentimes people working, first of all, so Moderna, for example, bragged that their entire Biologics manufacturing facility in Norwood, Massachusetts was built, by the way, in 2019, when they had no products.
to have a manufacturing facility for.
Yet, Anthony Fauci went and cut the ribbon.
And everybody was super proud.
And they said it's fully digital.
Well, you know what fully digital means before you have any products designed anything?
Well, it means that there are no humans on the floor to ask questions.
And or or to ask about compliance or to ask what the ingredients are.
And they frequently hire very inexperienced people and they don't train them.
And as Brooke Jackson found, oftentimes they don't even they're not even aware that they're supposed to have a quality system, standard operating procedures, that they're supposed to be trained, that they're supposed to be signing off.
So they hire people who don't know it.
They don't tell them.
And then, you know, they don't need to be on the conspiracy because they're not aware of the rules.
So that's that's how I'm, you know, I'm telling everyone, you know, when I say FDA, when I say Pfizer, I don't mean the thousands of people who work there.
I mean, the leadership, a general counsel who are aware of the legal structure that's being utilized here, and in fact, invoking it in their defense right now.
So that's that's what's going on.
You know, one of the problems is they're trying to make billions and billions of units of this product in a three month time period, right?
So they have to put in the orders, they have to do, I mean, you have to get all of the, put the supply chain in place, have the bottles, have the glass, have the syringes, have all of these.
And it seems like they had to put this Manufacturing process in place earlier.
I mean, it's not something with a pharmaceutical where you can go to the pharmaceutical industry and say the pharmaceutical industry stopped making flu shots and started making COVID shots and they can produce billions overnight.
Right?
That's it's not that simple.
I mean, did the pharmaceutical industry have any part of this or how was it done?
Yeah, so they had some some part in this.
So I have these contracts with DoD for COVID countermeasures go back to Emergent Buy Solutions in 2012.
I'm sure they go to, you know, earlier than that, but that's the ones that I have.
And what appears to have happened is since at least that time, the Department of Defense was recruiting them through industry days.
They still do them.
It's a public event.
So they would do this industry day, like a recruiting event.
They will invite them and say, oh, you can submit proposals for these kinds of grants.
And it was all focused at that time.
They were calling it pan-influenza vaccine.
And that they need this, you know, manufacturing base.
And that they, you know, it's a niche application that doesn't make sense for private manufacturers to invest in, but the government needs to help them out.
And here's the purpose of BARDA to give grants and technical support and establish this kind of a network, which they did.
And it's a gigantic network.
I mean, they're saying niche, it's 50% of pharmaceutical industry money for R&D goes through this mechanism.
So how is this niche they're controlling the entire industry because it's single buyer buying 50%.
And so, so but anyway so since then they've established this gigantic network of manufacturers ostensibly for pen influenza that they have exchanged.
You know, IP throughout and manufacturing.
So because you can't just say here, you know, I need 10 billion doses of this new, completely new drug.
It's an extremely complex manufacturing system.
It's just as complex as making a new aircraft.
Or making a brand new type of a vehicle, you know, has as many parts and suppliers and procedures that you need to put in place raw materials need to be available.
These are very expensive raw materials is these DNA templates, you need to grow them in cells.
You know, so they fail frequently, you know, you grow some batch and it fails, so you have to do it again.
So somebody estimated, so just to produce what they claim to have produced for these RNA products, you need to make about a kilogram of DNA as a template.
I mean, it's a staggering number.
You know, you can't just make it overnight.
So, and I guarantee you they didn't.
Also, just even having these contracts in place for this amount of money, all signed in, like, the signatures begin in early February.
Well, that means that it was negotiated a year before.
Because you can't just walk into the room and say and sign a $10 billion contract like this.
So all of that indicates that they sold the public a bunch of fluff, a story about the Cinderella overnight success.
Whereas this was pre-planned, they made the manufacturing facilities, they established the relationships, they established the raw material suppliers, they put in place the contracts and relationships so that they can just turn it on when they wanted to.
And they called them all and they said, oh, stop working on your influenza models, switch over to COVID.
That's what happened.
I mean, if you were to go to the automobile industry with a totally new product, which this is, nobody had ever done anything like this.
You have to manufacture this 100 degrees below zero or something.
The story keeps changing on that, yeah.
Nobody has a manufacturing facility that can do that.
What if you went to an automobile It's a totally different kind of vehicle.
Can you make 10 billion copies in three months?
I mean, is it the same kind of thing?
Yeah, it's the same kind of thing.
They would tell you, I can't do that.
I don't even have raw materials for that thing to happen.
Not enough raw materials, not enough parking space, not enough staff, not enough...
You know, production lines.
So that's why all of this story about, oh Moderna made it in the weekend.
That's nonsense.
That's absolute nonsense.
So, yeah, they had this all pre-planned.
The contracts show that the relationships go way back.
There are material transfer agreements between NIH and Moderna going to 2015.
There, you know, there's all kinds of evidence that shows that this was pre-planned activity and the machinery was in place.
And it's all companies that people are not aware of, like Emerging Biosolutions.
Like ology, they call it ology, it used to be called resilience, but it's basically government owned biologics manufacturing facilities that they bought from pharma companies.
And now, you know, it gave them gigantic amount of money to do this biologics manufacturing.
So all of this government-owned, DOD-owned, DOD-managed through the defense contractor networks and with the same mechanisms that they use for weapons, and also with the same mechanisms of not following any regulations as they do for weapons.
Oh, is this why they needed the public health emergency?
Yes, they needed this to specifically the public health emergency allows them to invoke these illegal laws that I just described, including other transactions authority use of emergency use authorized countermeasures under public health emergency is not does not it does not constitute clinical investigation, which means it puts them outside of the FDA regulatory supervision.
And then other transaction authority allows them to order undisclosed prototypes.
In this word, undisclosed prototype, you can hide whatever you want, a tank, a missile, or a biological weapon.
And then, so what also happens under public health emergency is HHS secretary becomes de facto head of the government and a dictator.
Again, nobody really knows, but there was Alex Azar and now it's Javier Becerra.
Who deploys these things on the United States population, on every man, woman, and child here.
And he, in his sole capacity, or she, whoever succeeds them, decides, you know, the criteria for this deployment is their personal decision whether these particular things, countermeasure prototypes by Department of Defense, may be effective.
That's it.
There's no other standard.
Okay, so let me just clarify what you're saying.
Normally, you know, the protocols that you had to go through in your businesses, you would do, you know, you do a series of proposals, you design the clinical trials to make sure that they're going to show efficacy, that they're going to be safe.
You do those clinical trials for a number of years.
Then you go and show the results to FDA.
FDA has to make determinations about safety and efficacy and has to make determinations that the product is going to avert more harm than it causes and the appropriate warnings and the side effects that you put on the manufacturer's inserts and all these thousand things that you have to do to get a product to market and get the inspections, etc.
Here, All of those are abolished.
And the only determination is that the Secretary of HHS decides in his head, with either some evidence or no evidence whatsoever, that the product may be effective.
That's it.
So, and even if the evidence then shows that it's not effective, if he can say, well, I still believe it's effective.
Absolutely.
Even if there's a mountain of evidence that says it's killing people, it's not effective, he can choose legally by, under his own decision making, That I'm going to believe this is effective no matter what the evidence says.
As long as I believe it's effective legally, I can, you know, essentially mandate it for all Americans.
Absolutely.
There is no stopping criteria.
He never has to reconsider the decision.
And since there is no criteria to begin with, well, whatever made him believe so can continue making him believe so.
And so that also explains why mainstream media, well, the huge propaganda campaign of fear and lies that mainstream media pushed on the American public and global public in cahoots, obviously, with FDA and CDC and the NIH.
I mean, that explains it, because they need to maintain this theatrical performance, pretending that there is no evidence, and so that the HHS Secretary can continue his delusion and deployment of these unauthorized, non-compliant biological materials on everyone.
As long as he keeps saying it's safe and effective, that's all he has to do.
He just has to mutter that line.
I believe it's safe and effective.
And as long as he says it's safe and effective, it achieves the criteria, which is that it may be effective.
That is all he has to show.
That's all he has to do.
That explains to you also why Janet Woodcock and Peter Marks, with clear fear in their eyes, Keep repeating this mantra on mass media all the time.
And no matter what the experts bring, you know, we have, this is the best documented atrocity as far as the deaths and injuries in the human history by all sorts of experts.
And I respect them very much.
And they keep bringing these documents to these people and they look at them like this and they say it's safe and effective.
But that's why, because that's their role.
To support this charade.
Yeah, they just have to have to just keep repeating that mantra.
And meanwhile, two of the highest officials who were in charge of FDA of making these determinations quit in a very, very, you know, dramatic way, because they must have seen the hoax that was happening.
Yeah, I'm not sure if they saw the hoax, but I know I read the emails of Marion Gruber and I forget the person who was reporting to her, they both quit.
So the issue was exactly that at the time of the so-called approval of this, the charade that Peter Marks by the emails is quite aware of seems to me because it's easy to tell people who freak out about the deadlines that were put on them, which were absolutely outside of the norm by a long stretch.
You need to understand that any normal drug approval is thousands if not a million pages of documentation.
and terabytes of data that needs to be very carefully reviewed according to very standardized protocols and and rigorous protocols that are written up and the people who are and then the staffers at FDA were pushed to the absolute limit and these completely unreasonable deadlines were pushed on them specifically by Peter Marks and Janet Woodcock who would then go and push people and say if you don't do this in this time people are going to die and it's going to be your responsibility
Then, yeah, so a bunch of people quit.
I know it was reported by Vanity Fair two people committed suicide because they took it seriously.
Two FDA staffers, according to Vanity Fair article, committed suicide during this process.
I mean, I can understand why.
People were just out of their mind, driven with fear by media on one side, and scary, scary virus stories.
And on the other side, we have the top FDA officials telling them, you know, people are going to die because of you.
Because you're not reviewing this quickly enough and you need to review it in two weeks where before it took six months.
Six years.
Oh, six years.
Yeah, well, I mean, just the review process of documentation itself.
That's why also, for example, Pfizer submitted fake results.
Like, clearly, we've written a lot of it on Substack.
They submitted fake, what's called Western blots, which is the test that shows that this mRNA produces this spike protein.
They just computer simulated them, and it's very obvious.
There's a program that does it, and it was made obvious on purpose.
So that this, you know, people wouldn't pass it as a real test.
But they did.
They submitted fake tests to FDA, EMA, TGA.
All three of them accepted them.
And FDA actually lied, as you have pointed out, as they did a rat study or to look at a maternal rat study to look at if they gave this vaccine to rats.
This is while they were testing whether it was safe to mandate to pregnant women.
And in every litter of rats, there were individual pups who had these really horrible bone deformities.
And it was a signal that was as loud as a signal that you can get that you ever see in medicine.
I mean, these rats were horrendously deformed.
And yet FDA And Moderna didn't even try to lie about it.
Moderna submitted the rat study because it had to, and then FDA lied about it by saying there were no problems with the rat study.
It was just a huge enterprise in lying.
Absolutely.
So the FDA lied on the behalf of Moderna, but they're not, you know, accurately described.
I think it's their own report.
Maybe it was even worse.
I only saw their own summary.
I didn't see the underlying data.
But in their own summary, they admitted to this and FDA just said, okay, we're going to lie to the public, to all the pregnant women that we're going to inject.
And that's another thing people need to understand.
So I am describing a very illegal structure that's made legal on paper.
It's unlawful.
The government is driving this.
People misunderstand that this is just another instance of big pharma corruption.
It's much, much bigger than that.
Because the FDA and the US government expanded their immunity from prosecution under PrEP Act to these people.
And they said, here's billions and billions of dollars very quickly.
Just do this under these DOD contracts, and we're going to protect you.
We're going to give you this protection that we have as a government to do these things to you as a private manufacturer, as long as you follow orders and you don't ask any questions.
And that's exactly what's happening here, because we see the FDA line in a lot of places, not just the RAD study, but in a lot of places FDA and regulators align on behalf of the manufacturers.
Also, the Department of Justice lawyers are showing up in court defending Pfizer's commercial interest.
That's not Pfizer's commercial interest.
It's the government's commercial interest.
And also in the international contracts, as you remember, they have these predatory clauses where Pfizer takes possession of military bases and government state assets in case they get sued.
Well, I was asked, why would private manufacturer, pharmaceutical manufacturer want a military base?
Well, because it's not the pharmaceutical manufacturers, it's the US government that wants that military base.
So that's what people need to understand.
It's a collusion.
It's a merger of pharma with government.
You can't treat it as just bad pharma, private company being bad.
It's them together being bad.
And that's a much, much worse problem we have.
All right.
Well, I'm going to let you go, Sasha.
But before I do, I'm an attorney.
I try to figure out ways to sue people like this.
And you know, one of the frustrating things during this pandemic is that the PrEP Act, the CARE Act, and the 1986 Vica Vaccine Act I've all bestowed broad immunity from liability under all of these actors, so they're getting away literally with murder, with mass murder.
They're getting away with it because they have been given this bubble, this shield of immunity from liability.
You have an expertise in corporate liability.
As a corporate liability officer, do you see any obvious ways where somebody like me can file a lawsuit and get redress for some of these illegal acts?
Yeah, so first of all, neither me nor my colleagues discourage anyone from doing just that, just going after Pfizer because of all the fraud that they have committed.
I think what the problem is we're all having, we don't know exactly what's going to crack that wall.
But we have to attempt different ways.
Now, yes, we can try going after Pfizer.
I'm just saying, you know, here's the lay of the land.
This is the defense they're going to invoke.
They already invoked it in Jackson's case.
They're saying, we did not defraud the government.
We delivered the fraud that the government ordered.
And that's a... In which day?
Oh, in Brooke-Jackson.
In Brooke-Jackson, in April, they filed a motion to dismiss.
So while, you know, the case may be dismissed, it hasn't been dismissed, but let's say in the future it gets dismissed because of this.
That admission alone...
is priceless.
And we need to elicit these admissions in court, they need to tell us ultimately, ultimately, through whatever method we're going to go after.
Ultimately, they need to tell us it's an explicit US government policy to commit mass murder and genocide, or These were rogue actors, these people, Robert Kodlak, Peter Marks, Fauci, whoever.
These specific individuals, they were rogue actors and acting outside of their authority.
Those are ultimately the admissions that we need to make from them publicly, and they need to repeat it over and over and over again so that everybody hears them.
Sasha, let me ask you one other thing.
You know that Robert Barnes, The attorney who's been very, very active on these issues, along with me from the beginning, who's partnered with us on many, many lawsuits, and who is directly involved in litigation against the federal government on some of these issues.
He has come down criticizing some of the things that we've been talking about today, saying that, well, even though statutorily, There is, because the military contracts are written the way that they are, there is no statutory obligation to do the clinical trials, etc.
There is a contractual obligation because in each of those contracts with the entities, with the pharmaceutical companies and places like BioNTech, The manufacturers, etc.
There is a contractual requirement that they do perform clinical trials and Barnes believes that that is equivalent to the statutory requirements.
So how do you respond to that?
Well, you know, first of all, I'm not an attorney and I do, you know, I respect Robert Barnes a lot and I am also, you know, I support Brooke Jackson's case and I want it to win.
You know, I want people to understand why I'm saying what I'm saying is I really do want them to win and I want this to stop and I want this to be resolved and investigated properly.
Now, I disagree with the position on the contracts, the position that the legal team has taken on the contracts.
I disagree with it because I read these contracts quite thoroughly.
And they are very strangely written if your objective is legitimately to produce a good pharmaceutical.
Because, you know, I have negotiated, you know, while I'm not an attorney, but I have negotiated numerous pharmaceutical research and development contracts, including several large ones with Pfizer.
And I know how Pfizer writes contracts when they do mean to put a good product on the market, and they want the suppliers to behave.
And this is not how this contract is written.
And also Pfizer is not the writer of this contract.
This was written by the government and I suspect, you know, Department of Justice lawyers or whoever crafted this.
So it's written by the government, it's written in the government language, and it has very curious features.
So first of all, as far as I understand, I know I can't, you know, really argue statutory versus contractual, but as far as I understand the OTA, the Other Transaction Authority, Contracting method that's being used here.
Department of Defense can use it, but they can only use it to buy prototypes.
It's not the method to order legitimate pharmaceutical products, regulated pharmaceuticals.
So number one, we're already in trouble here because they can only buy prototypes.
And in fact, the prototype language is all over this contract.
That was always odd for everyone involved.
Why are they talking about prototypes?
But that's why, because OTA requires them.
If they want to use OTA, which they want to use for a variety of reasons, avoiding regulations, secrecy and so forth, They have to buy prototypes.
That's what they're buying.
They're buying prototypes.
And they call them different ways.
They call them countermeasures.
They call them large scale manufacturing demonstrations.
Anything under the sun, but the properly pharmaceutical defined products.
Another thing is that these contracts have curious omission of defined terms for Anything that has to do with good manufacturing practice compliance, anything that has to do with clinical trials or preclinical or anything like that, none of them are defined terms.
And if you understand what defined term means, it's like if you're really serious about something, you have to define it up front in the front section of the contract that says defined terms.
And then that serves as later on if you have a dispute or something, you know, went wrong, then you can go and enforce it.
Otherwise, it becomes, you know, subject to, you know, eye of the beholder type of a deal and unenforceable.
And then when they do talk about good manufacturing practice, which they do, they mention them throughout this contract in a variety of places.
It's also very curious because in many places they make mistakes.
They call them good manufacturing processes, they call them good manufacturing procedures, which is not what it is.
The law says good manufacturing practices and has specific citations that you have to make if you, again, if you really mean it.
In one place, in the scope, they're saying specifically preclinical clinical trials and good manufacturing practice, or chemistry manufacturing controls rather, is out of scope and the government is not buying it and not paying for it.
And then in the deliverables section, finally, they cite it correctly as good manufacturing practices 21 CFR part 210.
But then it says that the deliverable itself is Pfizer is going to write a plan of how they're going to comply with it.
It's just a plan that's a deliverable, not the compliance itself.
So and the acceptance criteria from the government is the government is going to review that plan.
Nothing else.
So I am, again, I'm not trying to, you know, hurt the case or defend Pfizer in any way.
I'm not defending Pfizer.
I mean, they're collaborating in this criminal enterprise, in my opinion.
But you have to understand the lay of the land, like how the thing is structured, who is doing what, and my opinion is it's been structured together by the government, it's led by the government, by the Department of Defense.
They're using these, they want to use the frameworks that are inappropriate for buying pharmaceuticals.
And they're weaseling themselves, you know, out of those requirements in this way.
But then the main lie is that they, together with Pfizer and FDA, they're lying to the public that these are properly purchased, ordered, pharmaceuticals, regulatory compliant, and the FDA is regulating them.
That's the lie.
You know, so that's what needs to be understood when they're going after these contracts.
Yeah, you know, I feel like, you know, both you and Robert are my friends.
You're both people I respect enormously, but I feel like I have to come down on your point of view on this issue because there's a huge difference between a contractual obligation between two parties and a statutory obligation that is enforceable by multiple parties and gives rise to all kinds of duties and obligations to the general public.
If Pfizer violates a contract with the military, with the Pentagon, with the Department of Justice, only the Department of Justice has the right to redress.
And it gives the Department of Justice the ability to ignore breaches of contract and to overlook them.
And we know that the Department of Justice does not have a regulatory enforcement arm that is expert in pharmaceutical product production or distribution.
So there's nobody sitting in the Department of Justice whose job it is, who will lose their job if Pfizer screws up.
And it's, and you know, I know just from having Try to get the Justice Department involved in pharmaceutical cases, even breach of contract and breaches of judicial settlements with the Justice Department.
I've been begging the Justice Department for three years to get involved with a case where Merck has been just blatantly lying.
About the efficacy of the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine.
They cheated on it.
They lied to the regulators.
They used rabbit blood and told them that it was human blood and we know this all and I've been trying to, I've been wrestling with the Justice Department.
They already have an enforcement contract.
They have a judicial settlement and they're not willing and Merck is in breach of it and they are not willing to go in and redress it and sue Merck or just say to Merck You violated your stipulated penalty.
They won't do it.
So I think you're right.
And then also it's one thing to have a statutory obligation where you have a statutory obligation to do good manufacturing practices.
And where there's somebody over at HHS who can walk into your factory any day without notice and say, Hey,
You know, you got rats in here, or you know, you got glass in your product, or the product is not homogenous, each of these batches is completely different, and all the things that they look for, and that are critical in this case, where you're dealing with a product that has to be kept at super freezing, you know, levels all the time.
If HHS has a statutory obligation and duty to enforce that, and they know they can walk in at any time without giving notice, it's very different than a contract between the Justice Department and Merck saying, you've got to do this, but nobody's going to be looking over your shoulder.
Nobody's going to be walking into your plant.
To me, it's highly unlikely that they would.
Comply with any of those obligations if you don't have that enforcement power.
So I think I have to come down on your side on this one, Sasha.
And I want to thank you again for joining us.
You are, you're an amazing, you're an amazing resource.
And I know, you know, the work that you've been doing exposing this has been very damaging to your own career.
And it's unlikely that your livelihood has been in the pharmaceutical Industry, I highly doubt whether you ever get hired again.
No thanks.
I highly doubt it.
One of these amazing people who's just said, you know, this is wrong, and I don't care what the personal cost is, I'm going to expose this.
So, thank you.
You are a true hero, Sasha.
Thank you very much.
How can people support you, Sasha?
All my content is available for free.
I write on Substack.
You can find my Substack, just SashaLatipova.Substack.com.
And I link to other websites where I post and where I collaborate.
So read it, share this information.
I'm making it specifically available for free so that you can share it freely and you can find this truth and you can explain it to your friends and family.
Everyone needs to be educated on this ASAP.
And most importantly, we just need to stop taking these poisons.
Then they can't do anything about it.
And Catherine, why?
Tell us about her.
Yes, Catherine Watt.
Her Substack is Bailiwick News, so she is amazing and she's written all this legal research and anybody who is prosecuting cases should use it.
She makes a lot of summaries that are very useful and you can quickly utilize in your work, so that's what I highly recommend.
Saja Latipova, thank you so much for Thank you, Robert.
▲
Export Selection