All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 7, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
51:26
BOMBSHELL Investigation REVEALS The Shocking Truth About COVID
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, thanks for joining me again on GBN Originals.
It's Neil Oliver here.
Today I have two guests to talk about the COVID dossier, which has been compiled by Sasha Latapova and Debbie Lerman.
Sasha is a former pharmaceutical and medical device research and development exec turned whistleblower and Debbie Lerman is an investigative researcher and writer.
They've come up with this incredible document, I would say.
It's published today.
So thank you both for joining me.
Thank you.
Thank you for having me.
This to me is an amazing piece of work.
If I can quote from near the top, COVID was not a public health event, although it was presented as such to the world's population.
It was a global operation coordinated through public-private intelligence and military alliances.
And invoking laws designed for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons attacks.
Now, that is quite a statement.
Can you talk me through the process which led you to this conclusion?
And I'll allow you to decide for yourselves who should lead off and who shall follow on.
Go ahead, Debbie.
Okay.
I started researching what happened during the pandemic.
In 2021, 2022, because I had, from the beginning, none of it made sense to me.
And I started researching the pandemic planning documents of the United States government because I wanted to see whether what happened in real life, the lockdowns, the masks.
The social distancing, and then the vaccines and the vaccine mandates, whether that was all part of a public health plan or whether that was something else, because it did not feel like a public health plan to me.
And so I looked and I found historical documents going back years that were two streams of planning.
One was the pandemic planning, or actually it was just responses to disease outbreaks for public health.
And the other one was biodefense, which I didn't really know anything about.
And biodefense is the plans that governments have.
And there are also many international alliances for this to respond to a weapon of mass destruction attack.
In particular, for biodefense, it's bioterrorism and biowarfare.
And that's when somebody releases a pathogen with the intent of killing a lot of people.
And that it's not a naturally occurring outbreak.
And so what I saw was that the response that we were carrying out in the United States, I started just with the United States, was actually a response.
It was a biodefense plan.
It was not a public health plan.
And so I freaked out because I think that if it was a disease, it should be managed by public health.
And if it was managed by...
Something else, then something else was going on.
And so I found the planning document, which is the United States government's COVID pandemic response plan.
And that is a document that is not available anywhere on any government site.
So already that tells you something.
It's the government's response plan, but it's not available anywhere.
I found it because I was doing deep research on the internet and it was on a New York Times server where it had been leaked to them for a certain...
And I saw inside that plan that what was supposed to be a public health response legally, so in the United States, the Department of Health and Human Services is supposed to be the lead federal agency for responses to disease outbreaks.
However, in this document, the HHS was superseded By the government's task force.
And at the time, the task force was being led by the National Security Council.
The National Security Council is the body that is supposed to advise the United States President on military and intelligence affairs.
And so that's who was in charge of our pandemic response.
That led to a cascade of discoveries.
About people who were involved, about agencies that were involved, and then seeing that it was a parallel response in so many other countries and that it was coordinated.
That was really where the story kind of blew my mind.
Sasha, to bring you in, why were we told it was one thing?
We were all invited to think it was a health emergency, that it was being looked after and supervised by chief medical officers, by physicians, all sorts of people involved in health.
Why were we told it was that when it would seem that in reality it was a response being coordinated by the military?
Why was it a bait and switch?
I think it was evidence of governments lying, in my opinion.
So I asked myself that question also.
I first believed, like everybody else, that this was a house event.
When the actions of the government stopped making sense to me, I also began investigating into this.
And eventually, so Debbie's article, we got in touch and met over this.
Did my own investigation.
I'm from pharma industry background.
And so what they were doing made no sense to me as far as health, public health.
It's just all these nonsensical measures which were making things much worse than if it was genuinely a health response.
And then also remember, we were all, including you probably, we were all censored and banned on social media for even questioning that this was some sort of a zoonotically evolved virus.
You know, immediately everybody would be shut down and say, no, no, it's a real virus, real virus from the back, from the Wuhan lab, not lab, from Wuhan market.
And now, apparently, it's okay to discuss it as a bioengineered virus, although that's also a second layer of lies.
Because, again, this is evidence of lying.
They prepared several layers of lies because they know one will become...
It's untenable at some point.
And they will need the second one.
And the second one, this is a biological developed weapon.
And I'm going to jump in, Sasha, because I think we might differ here.
I don't know what it was.
And I think the point that we're making in the dossier is that it doesn't matter what the trigger was.
So the fact that everybody's focused on whether it was from a pangolin or a raccoon dog The Wuhan lab, it's not beside the point.
It's an interesting question, but it is not what destroyed the world.
What destroyed the world was the lockdowns and the vaccine mandates.
That's what destroyed the world.
And so what we're asking people to do is refocus.
What was the origin, not of the virus, what was the origin of the response?
Exactly.
Because the origin of the response is what destroyed the world.
Over the years, my position has evolved.
I woke up in 2020, I suppose, and I've spent the last four years listening to as many people as possible.
The point at which I have arrived is that whatever COVID was...
Whether it was something that happened between a pangolin and a bat that met in a bar and had too many drinks, or whether it was something that was cooked up in a lab and released deliberately or accidentally, is interesting but beside the point.
What matters to me is what they did with it.
What they used, the thing they called COVID, to then do.
That's what troubles me.
And the statistics to this day still declare that this, whatever it was...
There was no excess dying until 2021, and after the rollout of the things they called vaccines, and the toll was taken on people who were average age, 82, 83, which is beyond life expectancy, and in most cases they had comorbidities.
So whatever it was, it was killing the ill elderly, if indeed it was something new at all.
But why were we...
Placed under military coordinated controls in the face of whatever it was that was largely non-lethal.
All right.
So, again, in this dossier, we try to step back from giving our own interpretations, although in the interview I'm happy to do so.
But we just want to point out that people who are using the dossier will see this is dry facts only and references only.
So we try to remove personal interpretation as much as possible and just say...
They used what was designed for CBRN, which is chemical, biological, radiological nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction response, never told public about it, lied about it, which is evidenced by their action and by how they were lying about viruses, non-viruses, biological weapons.
So they have massive amounts of lies, massive amounts of censorship, which was driven centrally from intelligence agencies.
People need to realize this has nothing to do with health at all.
Now, why they were doing this, you know, you can speculate.
And, you know, my personal view is that this is for population control, global population control.
And as you know, they're also not...
Hiding this, the Agenda 2030, the establishment of global government.
So I think those goals and those plans existed for quite some time.
And this was supposed to be the final push for establishment of that new world order, new global government.
And health happens to be a really, really good mechanism for controlling people.
It's a really good mechanism to scare people, like they did here, with some imagined story.
And then push all these nonsensical measures, which are primarily designed to control, like lockdowns, masking, vaccine passports that they wanted in every country, which is now being probably replaced with digital ID. And so they're still trying that, the digital ID, the biometrics, the surveillance.
So that's still ongoing.
And that was the first implementation of it, because through health, you can convince masses of people.
To voluntarily submit their freedom.
And then whoever is running this operation has perfect beginning to establish all this control.
And I'll jump in here because Sasha and I agree on all of the global control issues.
And I think the important thing to realize here is that there is...
So for me, it's more structural and systemic than that they were trying to use COVID to kill people.
Because I think if they were trying to use COVID to kill people, it didn't do that great a job.
Or the vaccines or the so-called whatever the mRNA technology.
I don't think it did a good enough job for that to be the justification.
It might have been.
I'm open to that interpretation.
In my opinion, the global structures that have been put in place and that have been growing and growing and growing, especially since 9-11 and since the fall of communism, which is these It's an enormous
international global conglomerate that includes pharmaceutical companies.
Global pharmaceutical companies and all their subsidiaries.
So just think about how many tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people already are just employed in that.
Then we have all the academic institutions and the journals and the governmental agencies that are in charge of those things.
And it becomes a too-big-to-fail entity.
That's how I think of it.
It's a too-big-to-fail entity.
And so if there is no outbreak and there is no biowarfare or bioterrorism, something has to happen.
Yeah, right.
So the evidence of this consortium also we're including in the, just the tip of the iceberg, really, in the dossier itself.
So I received at some point a couple years ago, I received anonymously a whistleblower tape from an internal meeting of AstraZeneca executives.
So the meeting, it was a larger meeting, but the recording is about six minutes from two people talking, Pascal Soro, who is the AstraZeneca CEO, and Mark Esser, who is VP for monoclonal antibodies.
And they both kind of recount the success so-called from the 2020 when they were developing vaccines and biologics for COVID.
And specifically, Mark Esser says that, oh, this is part of the consortium that was established in 2017 when we were approached by DARPA, which is a U.S. Department of Defense Advanced Research and Development Agency.
And so DARPA, specifically Colonel Matt Hepburn, which we've included in our dossier, approached numerous pharmaceutical companies.
This consortium contains hundreds of companies.
AstraZeneca was approached in 2017. So Mark Esser says, interestingly, when the DOD asked him to participate in this, he said, I thought it was science fiction.
Because as an experienced pharmaceutical research and development professional, he knows it's science fiction.
They were being asked to develop vaccines and drugs in response to novel viruses that DOD will identify for them in 60 days or less.
And so he said it's science fiction.
Because it is science fiction, you can't do that.
But somehow they were convinced by money and decided that that's okay, and we're working on this until 2020, when he also says that on February 4th, 2020, that's why we're publishing it here, DoD called them, the entire consortium, and told them to switch to COVID products now.
So at that time, on February 4th...
Because?
Because?
Yeah, because COVID was declared a national security threat.
So on February 4th, there are no cases, practically no cases, no deaths in the world.
U.S. government DOD somehow decides it's a national security threat.
They themselves call.
There's no presidential action, nothing.
DOD goes directly to the pharmaceutical consortium and says, you guys switch to COVID. Money is coming.
And that's it.
The rest is history.
So from then on, we also see that all these militaries...
Execute the same plan in all these countries that we've tracked.
Us blokes hate talking about a little thinning up top and many of us settle with that balding look but that wasn't for me and that's why I went to Elite Hair, the world's leading hair loss clinic and now I've had over 4,000 new hairs added to this barnet and very soon I'm going to be rocking some brand new flowing locks and you can too!
So how does it work?
Step 1. I sent the team a set of photos of my head.
Step 2. I then spoke to one of the Elite Hair staff who looked through my photo submissions and worked out a treatment plan for me.
Step 3. Elite Hair then organised accommodation And the treatment.
I was at their state-of-the-art treatment centre in Istanbul and their incredibly kind staff took me through the process and before I knew it, I was in surgery.
Elite Hair and their leading medical experts have specialised in pain-free treatments using the Sleep Deep method.
And they really mean that!
I've felt incredibly relaxed the whole time and I haven't felt any pain since.
Check out Elite Hair using the link in the description.
When you do, Elite Hair will provide you with a free personalised hair analysis.
Then you'll join over 100,000 happy patients.
Hit that link and start your hair growth journey.
Like I did today!
Yes.
Because within the...
I mean, it's definitely...
I mean, I was very shocked by so much of it.
But the fact that all of this was happening simultaneously in, according to the dossier, the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy.
Yeah.
And those are only the countries that we know about.
Yeah, there are many more.
Yeah, anecdotally, I know that many more countries did the same.
My attention to this was drawn a few months ago, a couple of months ago now, and I had content on this channel then.
The Dutch health minister, Fleur Agma, testified, if that's the right word, in her own parliament, that as far as she was concerned, there had been a coup d'etat, that the control, the decision-making processes were taken from Taken away from the parliament of the Netherlands.
And the overarching control was coming from NATO. And it was her use of coup d'etat really stuck in my head.
She did not say coup d'etat.
So I've talked to the researcher who said it was a coup d'etat and who brought all of this forward.
He has actually contributed to our dossier.
She did not say coup d'etat.
She is the health minister of the Netherlands and she was actually reporting within the framework of the government in a stance that seemed to the public and it might have been or it might not have been supportive of the government's response.
So all she said was that we had to fulfill our NATO obligations.
And that our intelligence agency was running it.
That's all she said.
She did not say coup d'etat.
So I just want to make sure the record is correct.
The coup d'etat is the interpretation of the researchers who brought all of this forward.
Now, she was very much against the COVID measures when she was not the health minister.
That was several years ago.
But when she became the health minister, she stopped criticizing them.
The researchers that I have talked to, they don't know whether right now she's just trying to send us some messages, you know, covertly or sort of surreptitiously so that we can get those messages and actually appear to be supporting the Dutch government's response, because that's what she's doing.
But there's no denying, is there, that the decision-making process was assumed by...
Yes.
By national security.
Yes.
Referring to NATO. Yes.
And effectively, the response to whatever it was, was being coordinated not by the Dutch Parliament, but by NATO and the Dutch security services.
Yes.
Yes.
I was just correcting the record.
Absolutely.
No, I'm glad that you did so.
But I mean, to me, that's a coup d'etat in all but name.
That's the assumption of the control and the coordination of the process being taken out of...
Which is the people's hands and placed in the hands of NATO. And Italy too.
We just got the information about Italy from a contact in Italy.
In many different countries, researchers have been desperately trying to get access to documents.
I am actually involved in a two-year ongoing FOIA battle with the government trying to get the documents that are behind the government's COVID response plan, but they are supposedly...
National Security Council, you can't FOIA the National Security Council.
So other countries have managed to FOIA planning documents of their governments.
So the Dutch researchers were able to FOIA a lot of excellent documents that showed exactly what you said, that it was an intelligence takeover and that it was a coup.
In Italy, they also FOIAed a lot of documents.
And in fact, there was a committee in Italy created on February 5th.
Okay, so this, again, the coordination is incredible.
So the day after somebody from the DOD called the pharmaceutical companies and told them that it's a national security threat before there was any deaths or any illness at all.
And before the public was told, I really want to emphasize that that recording that Sasha has should have been front page news everywhere because the pharmaceutical companies were being told by the military that there is a national security threat and nobody in the public was made aware of this.
So if they knew and they thought that it was a public security threat and we weren't told about it, that's an enormous scandal right there.
Just that.
And so in Italy, the same thing happened.
So on the 5th of February, they established a special scientific commission within the government that was now responsible for responding to the national security threat posed by the coronavirus.
You would think you would think that the government's.
Of all of those nations that you're listing, would see it as being in the interest of the people to know that they were in that kind of danger, that it was a national security threat.
Not a health problem, but they were effectively in as much danger as though some foreign agency was pointing nuclear or biological weapons at them.
You would think.
You know, they might mention that to the general public.
You might.
Yeah, but I remember what they were insisting on and shutting people down for and delisting the ban.
I was banned on Twitter, is for questioning that this was a naturally evolved virus.
So, I mean, this is an enormous lie.
Not only they didn't tell the public it's a national security threat, they also suppressed and banned and censored anyone who suggested that it be.
You know, might be something other than a naturally evolved virus.
And the dossier shows, so we also included lists of agencies and organizations that are associated with intelligence and military that were doing the censorship and the propaganda.
And that evidence that we have in the dossier shows that in multiple countries, that started in January 2020. So the planning for this started...
In January 2020, when there was absolutely nothing going on anywhere.
That's the point.
As we said at the top, well, you and I, Debbie, were saying that it's not what COVID was, it's what they used it to achieve.
Exactly.
You know, that is the point.
When they started, when the lockstep coordinated effort to lock down, shut down, you know, take control of the narrative was happening, As Sasha says, there were 500 or something confirmed cases worldwide, a negligible number of deaths, and no deaths in the United States of America.
So there was no reason to operate as though there was a national security threat.
There was nothing there.
Yeah, and another thing I want to remind about pandemics, I talked about it with Debbie in my recording, but people today don't realize, even the public health professionals, I often run into this issue, they don't realize that declaring something an epidemic The pandemic in public health, when it's a legitimate public health issue, is a retrospective affair.
After it transpired and already self-extinguished, then you compile all the data, and then you statistically determine whether it was a pandemic or not, because you need to compare it to the average of the previous years.
So today, in the United States, we have cases of the plague every year.
We don't have a pandemic of the plague.
Because cases of something doesn't mean a pandemic of something.
So cases get treated with antibiotics and nothing happens.
And again, declaring something a pandemic, in my opinion, is absurd because pandemic means a simultaneous illness all over the world and deaths all over the world.
And that never happened in the history of time.
So based on just public health alone...
They couldn't have prospectively declared, like in January decided we need to censor everyone, and on February 4th called the pharmaceutical consortium and told them to go switch to the...
So, you know, you can't do it prospectively, yet here's what they've done, and now they're claiming it's okay, and now they're writing it into the medical textbooks and in everywhere and convincing everywhere that this is totally normal, guys.
Pandemics...
Not just the textbooks, Sasha, you're right.
That's absolutely correct.
And not only that, but in every...
Plan now that every government has written and you can look it up in Biden's, you know, it's now called biosecurity because they have now merged public health and biodefense into one because that's what COVID did.
It took public health, which is a tiny little thing.
Public health is not a big deal.
It's like it's important and we have to monitor for outbreaks of disease and we have to make sure that we keep the public as healthy as we can.
Hygiene is good.
You know, making sure people have nutrition and heat and a place to live and a place to sleep.
Those are good things for public health.
But it's not very sexy.
What's sexy is, woo, scary viruses.
And we need to do these crazy things like lock everybody down and shut down businesses and transfer $3 trillion of wealth, which is what happened.
It was the biggest upward transfer of wealth in the history of the world in a short period of time.
To declare something a pandemic while it's happening had never happened before.
No, because you can't.
It's nonsense.
And they also changed the definition of pandemic also, by the way.
Even if you were to do it retrospectively, it used to be that it would have to be something that killed a lot of people in a lot of places.
It had to have killed a lot of people in a lot of places in order to retrospectively, like Sasha says, be declared a pandemic.
That wasn't happening when they declared it a pandemic.
So they changed the definitions of a lot of things, including pandemics.
But what I was trying to say is if you look at the planning documents, and this is true in the UK, it's true in the EU, it's true in the United States and in Australia, they came up with planning documents in the last few years that are biosecurity plans now for dealing with so-called outbreaks.
And in the first paragraph, it always says that because of human activity...
And the increase in human travel and interaction with nature, there is an increased threat of outbreaks of novel diseases.
That is false.
That is demonstrably false.
I can point you to the research studies that have showed that that is false.
But it was certainly false in the 20 years leading up to COVID. In the 20 years leading up to COVID, there was an average of 10,000.
deaths in the entire world, 8 billion people, 10,000 deaths a year average from any of those kinds of novel disease outbreaks.
That includes SARS, MERS, H1N1, all of that.
There was no demonstrable threat at all.
And there still isn't because we know that COVID was something else.
It was not that.
Yeah, so I think another thing that was so important for them and why they did it is that, is to establish that, A, you can prospectively declare something a pandemic without any evidence, and their key to the fraud is PCR. So nowadays, PCR was never, like again, I'm coming from a pharmaceutical medical device, PCR has never been validated as a diagnostic for anything, and you can't.
It's a lab tool.
At best.
It's just a laboratory machine that they use for lab experiments.
It's not a diagnostic test.
But through this whole affair, they've now solidified the lie that PCR is valid to declare novel viruses and pandemics.
This is critical for them.
And, you know, so that's what people need to understand.
So they will commit, and not just in humans, because they're also now merging all the health into one health.
That's right.
And they're claiming everything is health.
And even, like, animals and plants around are, you know, if we declare some novel virus in the chickens, guess what?
Now we have zero eggs in the store, as of now.
I went shopping, I got the last carton in the entire store.
Why?
Because they murdered all the chickens based on this absolute fraudulent PCR testing, declaring that all the chickens are sick when the chickens are perfectly normal.
And they're going to continue doing this, continue crashing the food supply in our country, in your country, and claiming that humans are just encroaching on the planet too much.
And all these, you know, all these plans, again, of gender 2030, we need to, you know, constrain, retreat, managed retreat, rewilding, all these words, and, you know, just kind of give you the idea that fewer people on the planet is better.
And I think, yeah, I was just going to say, so when we talk about why the dossier is important, It's not just, I mean, I think we had talked before that it's an important record of what happened, and that's absolutely correct, and we hope that we can continue to add to the dossier, and we're asking anybody who has any information, any documents to please let us know, because we want to add more countries and we want to add more information.
So it's important as a record, but it's also important in order to draw people's attention to the global mechanisms of control that are happening.
So the global mechanisms of control that we know from the dossier exist already is a huge web of censorship and propaganda that exists, that was used during COVID and can be used for many other things.
And we also know what Sasha said, which is that using public health and diseases is a way to control global populations on a global level, and also to control the food supply.
All of those things are things that...
Why isn't this leaping straight to the top of everyone's news agenda?
The mere suggestion that something that was pitched as a health emergency was in the background, in the shadows, being coordinated and overseen by the military.
Without that being declared to anyone, that NATO and the DOD and other manifestations of the military complex around the world had assumed control, while people were being invited to listen to men in white coats say it was a health emergency, let's save the NHS or whatever.
What will it take before this kind of information...
Leaps out at people as demanding a response from us.
We're trying.
Yeah, we've contacted, and thank you, and we've contacted so many journalists, independent journalists.
The mainstream doesn't want to have anything to do with us.
So there's several layers to this.
So the mainstream, of course, has a...
No interest in any actual real topics anymore.
We know that.
But even independent media find it very hard to go to places which could be construed as conspiracy theories.
Again, I think during COVID we learned that conspiracy theory is actually not a bad word.
And we actually learned that conspiracy theory is a concept that was invented by the CIA in order to prevent questioning of the JFK assassination.
So in order to...
Smear people who were questioning it, they called it a conspiracy theory, and it's a very convenient tool that they use, and I think we need to reclaim it.
I am a very proud conspiracy theorist.
But it's not a conspiracy theory.
There's no doubting, based on the receipts that you have, the coordination that is demonstrated by the paperwork that you've got, that there was a conspiracy.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
There was a conspiracy.
And it's also hard for people to fathom.
It's hard for people to fathom because they always say that there's two things.
One is people say, and Sasha, you and I talked about this, that, oh, well, the military, you know, they can help coordinate.
They have, like, these large networks where they can help coordinate the distribution of supplies, the distribution, you know.
You know, so people somehow have been made comfortable a little bit with the thought that the military is this integral part of whatever national activities.
And I think that's very disturbing.
I think we have to shake them out of that.
But I think that's one reason why when we just say, oh, the military was involved, people like, yeah, sure, the military was involved.
They have good distribution channels.
What about the allegation that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made or made some time ago?
that the DOD went to AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, whoever, and spent money To acquire the right to put those labels on a product that was actually coming out of the DOD. Yes.
He's saying that those vaccines were not developed, were not developed by Big Pharma.
Wherever they came from, it came from somewhere else.
And that Big Pharma was paid to stick its...
It's labels and branding on those products.
Yeah, this was part of my interview with RFK Jr. And we were discussing my findings about contracts.
So when I looked into contracts of all these DoD operations, that's what we were discussing in the interview.
We later provided him another dossier of this.
So, yes, the way this was done, ostensibly they're saying HHS partnered with DOD, although actually David Lerman figured out why they partnered together.
They partnered together to overcome their own respective limitations.
Legal limitations.
Yeah, legal limitations established by Congress of what they can and cannot do.
So to overcome those limitations, they combined their forces, HHS and DOD. To mass-order medical products and vaccines that were going to be distributed to the civilian population and they would be under these EUA countermeasure frameworks, which absolves them of all regulatory requirements.
And so, separately, they couldn't do that.
So DOD could do it for themselves, but not for civilian population, not in mass.
And for HHS to do that, it needed to go through regulatory approval, which this didn't.
So they combined their forces, and then the Department of Defense gave this consortium, this public pirate consortium, $50 billion, just the first go, to produce these shots.
But the shots were coming from the DoD.
So the DoD actually, there are several Pentagon press releases, or press conferences rather, where they're discussing that they had their own product, their own mRNA product.
And I also in touch with other people who worked and currently work for Moderna, and they were saying, yeah, we have a separate office inside Moderna.
This is outside of Boston.
They have a separate office, which is DoD only.
Only people with security clearance can go in that office.
And we receive active ingredient in bags.
We don't know what it is.
And we just mix it in with LNPs and ship it out.
What?
LNPs are lipid nanoparticles.
So the recipe for the product?
DARPA and also NIH participated in this, so specifically NIH developed several vaccine candidates, transferred them to Moderna.
New product candidates, transfer them to Moderna right before 2020. There are documents for that, too.
And then, as part of the R&D, I also discussed this with RFK Jr., as part of the R&D program, which was very poorly done, but still there were some studies being done, NIH ran several critical studies for Moderna.
So NIH themselves, in their vaccine research center, ran those studies, gave reports to Moderna.
And these reports, we still have a very hard time to FOIA them.
And it's in process.
We're trying to FOIA them.
And NIH also co-owns investigational, so there's an investigational number assigned to every new product in pharmaceutical R&D and FDA approval program.
So NIH owns a separate number for Moderna product in addition to Moderna owning.
Another number.
So there are two numbers for one product.
One is owned by NIH, one is owned by Moderna.
So clearly this is a government vaccine.
Could the EUA, the Emergency Use Authorization, have been invoked without the involvement of and the oversight of military protocol, DOD? No.
So EUA, so the law, I spent a month actually figuring out The regulatory and legal underpinnings of the COVID countermeasures.
So EUA is a law intended exclusively for response to a threat posed by CBRN agents.
That is chemical, biological, nuclear, radiological.
No mention at all of naturally occurring anything.
And so in order to invoke emergency use authorization or a disease caused by such an agent, now I think they're using that as a loophole.
But in the law, that's what it's intended for.
And so when they said, and it is dated February 4th, so that's another reason.
So the date February 4th is extremely important.
That's why we're releasing it on this date.
It's the recording that we have that the DOD on that date was calling the pharmaceutical companies and telling them it's a national security threat.
And also that's when In the register, in the federal register, the emergency declaration for EUA and the PREP Act are registered to that date.
Now, it's very important to understand all the different kinds of emergency declarations that were made.
There's the public declarations like what President Trump made.
You know, or the HHS made that are just like public declarations of emergency for the country.
And that has to do with funding and all kinds of things like that.
But then there's a very specific kind of emergency declaration that the Secretary of HHS is responsible for making in the case of a CBRN threat or attack.
It's a very specific case.
And it's supposed to be very limited in terms of geography and time.
Because if you think about it, if there's a...
An attack by a bioweapon on a city or during warfare, it's limited to a particular place and hopefully we can contain it and we can get people out of there or we can give them a countermeasure and it's over.
It's not intended for a whole country and certainly not intended for the whole world.
So an EUA to indemnify people because a product was about to be offered to 8 billion people alive at the same time was an unprecedented event.
And that's PREP Act.
So again, being specific, the EUA is the Emergency Use Authorization.
And then in the United States, and Sasha can speak to other countries, but in the United States, we have the PREP Act, which says if you use a countermeasure that was under EUA... Which has no regulations.
There's no regulatory process.
There's no oversight because it's an emergency situation.
There's an attack with a bioweapon.
We have to do something.
Oh my God, we have these vaccines in our stockpile.
Let's just try them.
Maybe they'll work.
It's an emergency situation.
We don't have to go through all the regulations.
But if we do that and some people get hurt or die because of the countermeasure, we don't want anybody to be held responsible for that, right?
That makes sense.
It's an emergency.
We took the stuff out of the stockpile or we, you know, developed it in two seconds and, like, injected it into a lot of people.
We don't want to be sued for that.
And that's what the PREP Act is for.
It's to protect people who deal with covered countermeasures under EUA. But like you said, it's not for giving 8 billion people an unregulated...
And you might have imagined that if a city or a region was anticipating a chemical attack or the detonation of some sort of bioweapon, that they might say to people, we have a product here, we can't vouch for it 100%, but we have reasons to believe it might help some of you.
And now take it if you want, refuse it if you want to refuse it.
But instead...
Military intelligence, like in Britain, the 77th Brigade and the Nudge Units, which were also part of the military establishment, were being used...
That's in the dossier, yes.
Encourage people to take something.
They weren't saying, this might help.
It's a desperate situation.
You've got five minutes to make a decision.
It wasn't like that.
It was rolled out.
So in the law, in the US law about the EUA countermeasures, they're only for these seaburn attacks, only for the chemical, radiological, biological nuclear.
And absolutely, so the Congress insisted...
You know, reasonably, that there is an informed consent requirement.
Now, so the people need to be told about risks and benefits.
Now, it's kind of funny because the way the EUA countermeasures, which is all these vaccines, go on the market is by two pieces of paper in the U.S. And actually, globally, it's the same.
One piece of paper is HHS Secretary declares that in his sole opinion, 1%, Circumstances justify for it to be an emergency declaration for, let's say, COVID. One piece of paper.
That piece of paper was issued by Alex Azar under Trump, and it has been extended 12 times now, and now it's extended by Javier Becerra, outgoing HHS secretary, until end of 2029. So, again, it was supposed to be limited.
Remember, two weeks to slow the spread.
And it's still in force for the next five years.
It's still in force for the next year.
Now, the second piece of paper for the EUA specifically, HHS Secretary asks FDA Commissioner to issue EUA, blanket EUA, for all these products to address COVID. That's it.
That's the entire regulatory process I just described to you.
Two pieces of paper, decisions by two people.
And actually one person, so he just tells FDA commissioner to issue.
And FDA commissioner issues EUA. And then this EUA, so you're supposed to tell people that this is because of the Siberian attack, and because we have nothing else, and this is your informed consent.
We don't know if it's going to work or not, but we are offering it to you.
We can't mandate.
So mandates were absolutely a no-no, especially after the Ansaract scandal.
When they injected a whole bunch of service members with the Ansarx vaccine.
Which was experimental in violation of informed consent rules.
And so that was a big scandal in congressional investigation.
So that was, again, clarified that you must offer informed consent.
You cannot mandate these kinds of things.
So what did they do, the U.S. government?
They contorted themselves.
So Peter Marks, who is head of CBER at FDA, who is issuing all these EUAs, so he went on record in the court proceeding.
And he said, we asked Pfizer to provide several lots to us which were manufactured under good manufacturing practices under regulatory constraints.
So he claims they never tested it.
It was all just self-declared by Pfizer.
Pfizer just shipped them two lots and said, nine lots and said, these ones are good ones.
Okay, we manufactured them according to standards.
And so because they produce these nine lots, therefore, we believe that they are capable of producing.
Good manufacturing practice compliant product.
And therefore, he specifically says in court, and therefore we instructed all the healthcare providers to not offer informed consent.
To not offer informed consent.
To not provide informed consent.
It's not necessary.
Because we, me, Peter Marks, determined, because Pfizer told me so, that Pfizer is capable of.
That's how he himself Made a completely new law and nobody knows about it.
That's how they removed the informed consent entirely and then went and mandated it.
Is there any process by which there ought to be consequences for this?
Or are we simply in unknown territory?
Is it all unprecedented territory and therefore there is no...
A predetermined way of responding to all of these actions that were taken by these individuals.
So I collaborate with another researcher, Catherine Watt, who's looking more into the law.
She's a paralegal and she's traced a whole bunch of law going back 200 years, relevant law.
And so the recommendations that we have as far as how to go, these people need to be prosecuted criminally as individuals, not as officials in the government, but as individuals who are treasonous to the United States government by their actions, which are clearly harming Massively harming American population.
The same needs to happen in other countries.
In addition, these laws, these illegal laws such as EUA, PREP Act, all that, they need to be nullified.
In the U.S., there is a pretty straightforward process by which states can nullify bad federal law.
And that happens.
So, for example...
Legalization of marijuana in the United States in several states happened by the process of nullification federal law that prohibits it.
So they know how to do it.
They're capable.
Attorney generals of the states can bring criminal charges.
And so far, unfortunately, only fake civil charges have been brought by Attorney General of Texas and Attorney General of Kansas.
They're being all paraded as if this is a heroic act of suing Pfizer in Kansas and Texas.
But I have written extensive analysis of these cases.
They're just fundraising exercises.
The Texas one already has been dismissed and Kansas will be dismissed also.
And so and I think I'm going to add to that, Sasha, any approach to this that does not acknowledge the public private partnership aspect of it, if you're just going after Pfizer or if you're just going after Fauci, then you're not actually going after the entity or the entities that were in charge. then you're not actually going after the entity or the And you're actually kind of obscuring, either intentionally or not intentionally, what actually happened.
And often helping to solidify the bad law.
Most of the cases have been going after Pfizer, claiming product liability, claiming as if it's a regulated product.
Now, of course, the government is lying, saying it's a regulated product, so you could go under this theory.
But it's all designed to fail, and it's all designed to just solidify the fact that all of this, you know, the government has the right to do all this, and they can protect Pfizer in this situation.
For any of this to have teeth, really, it would have to come from a place, correct me if I'm wrong, where there was an admission, an acceptance that wrong was done.
This should not have happened.
First of all...
It has to be declassified.
So even before you can admit that wrong has been done, you have to admit that somebody did something.
And all the people who did it have security clearances and can't talk about it.
So, sure, you can talk about Pfizer separately.
You can talk about Fauci separately.
You can talk about the public health agencies need to be reformed.
And we need to have commissions all over the world that are spending tens and hundreds of millions of dollars investigating COVID. But unless they look at the classified information from every country, as we've laid it out in the dossier,
so in various countries, including the United States, all of the discussions about the response started to be classified in January of 2020. So if we don't have that information, we can't even start to prosecute.
Like you're saying, I always get frustrated when people say, well, we have to prosecute here and there.
Well, first of all, let's...
We have to get the information.
The reason we can't prosecute right now anybody is because it's all classified and we don't have the information.
So that's what the dossier is trying to do.
How much interest have you had in the dossier so far?
Because clearly for these events to unfold, if they ever could or would, it has to be...
On, you know, front pages and channels all over the place.
Has it pricked up ears, the dossier?
I mean, your ears?
Your ears are the most mainstream we got to.
Congratulations.
It pricked up all the people that we know that we have been in touch with who have been publishing it.
We have tried to publish it today on as many independent platforms as possible.
We're trying to get it out.
Simultaneously in order to make a bigger splash than when Sasha publishes her stuff and I publish my stuff and nobody pays attention.
So thank you for helping us with that effort.
But as far as getting attention, even from mainstream adjacent platforms, so far we haven't had any.
We'll see.
Yeah, we need help getting it out there and introductions and just people looking at it.
Because as I said, it's facts only, references only.
We're not putting any color on it.
This is just what happened.
Sasha and Debbie, you've been very generous with your time.
Please, please come back to me and update me with the progress of the COVID dossier because this is holding it up and letting people be aware that it exists.
So let's continue with this conversation and see if anything else unfolds from it.
But for the moment, Sasha and Debbie, thank you so much for your time.
Thank you.
▲
Export Selection