Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 28, 2025 - Jim Fetzer

02:02:40

The Hidden Hand Behind the Covid Response: NSC & the Military | Debbie Lerman & Sasha Latypova

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	When there is a severe flu strain, you know, once in a while the flu comes around every year and once in a while it's a really bad one and a lot of people die.
	So when that happens in the United States, is the National Security Council in charge of the response?
	No. Well, historically at least not.
	But since I think my theory is going forward, they're going to be continuing to weaponize.
	These events, these natural, you know, seasonal illness or natural illness amongst people or animals.
	And as we've seen, they're going to continue weaponizing it.
	And so probably now it's in charge of everything.
	But before, no, it wasn't.
	So who was usually in charge?
	Well, it's a public health.
	So seasonal influenza is a public health matter.
	But from the point of view of obtaining statistics, accurate statistics, and figuring out, you know, when there is a severe outbreak and providing some advisory, such as, you know, wash your hands, stay home if you're sick, stuff like that.
	So this is normal public health kind of management of it.
	And that would be CDC, HHS, which is the parent agency above CDC.
	Yeah. But the measures like lockdowns and masking and closures of businesses, closures of schools, that has never been used as public health measure and, in fact, was always recognized for about 100 years now, recognized as counterproductive and not advised as a public health measure.
	So the two of you published what you call the COVID dossier, a record of military and intelligence coordination of the global COVID event.
	And this is a compilation, it's a large compilation of data showing that the U.S. military as well as intelligence services were in charge of the response to COVID-19 and not the national health agencies.
	And also, it shows that the U.S. military collaborated with other countries' militaries and secret services also involving NATO in the collaboration.
	I'm just going to qualify that.
	We don't show that they collaborated.
	We show that in every country...
	The military and the intelligence agencies were in charge.
	So there is a parallel structure to the response that suggests collaboration.
	So we say in the dossier, here's what happened in each country.
	I don't want to overstate the facts that we have.
	The facts are the facts.
	Every country had a military intelligence response to COVID.
	Same dates, same types of governing structures, same laws that were invoked simultaneously all over the world.
	So that suggests a high level of coordination, and we surmise and suggest that these international defense treaties were utilized in order to coordinate the response.
	Okay, so they did pretty much the same things at the same time, but you don't have some sort of smoking gun evidence that they actually collaborated on it and coordinated it.
	Okay, fair enough.
	This COVID dossier, it's really the fruit, I think, of several years of your research.
	I mean, it's digging, extensive research that both of you did.
	And we'll go into what exactly you found and what it means.
	But tell me, first of all, what was your starting point to this research?
	So where did you begin and why and when?
	The starting point for me was sometime late 2020.
	I mean, I became suspicious of...
	Government actions, nonsensical actions, during the so-called COVID pandemic in, let's say, April timeframe of 2020, when they started suppressing hydroxychloroquine.
	So I became concerned and started looking into it, but I didn't start digging into actual data until later in 2020 and then 2021, when these mRNA shots started being rolled out.
	And so from then on, I started investigating VAERS data and I found that these shots were not compliant with good manufacturing practices, which was shocking to me because it's a big crime, actually.
	Right, and that's your expertise, right?
	Not being compliant with good manufacturing practices and shipping billions of doses is a massive crime.
	And that's why, you know, I was frantic.
	I didn't understand what's going on.
	I was losing my mind because...
	I couldn't understand how in the face of this very clear data, there's no action from anyone, not from manufacturers, not from regulators.
	And it took me several years or, yeah, a couple of years to figure out exactly, you know, how they were pulling this off.
	And Sasha, just tell me briefly, why is it that you know so much about this?
	Tell me a little bit about your background.
	Well, yeah, my background is in pharmaceutical research and development industry.
	I spent all my career basically working in pharma R&D in various roles.
	And I ultimately managed my own businesses, contract research organizations, which are contractors working for pharma, implementing clinical trials.
	And so, you know, I was always acutely aware of the compliance requirements in the pharmaceutical industry, because as a contractor, you have to comply with absolutely everything.
	And you are subject to audits by pharmas and by the FDA and by larger CROs.
	So we are the people who are, you know, all life is about compliance.
	And here I see this.
	I see that these shots are not good manufacturing practice compliant at all.
	Not even close.
	It's just a massive, massive problem.
	Had you ever seen something like that before?
	No. Oh my God, no.
	No. Even a fraction of this would have resulted in humongous criminal cases and people would actually go to jail.
	And here, none.
	Nothing was done.
	And it still continues.
	It's the same thing.
	Nothing changed.
	It continues and it's supposed to last now another five years until the end of 2029.
	So when you say it continues, what do you mean?
	What are you talking about?
	They're shipping a non-compliant product.
	For what?
	For mRNA shots, RSV shots, anything mRNA is non-compliant.
	So for whatever we have a PrEP Act declaration, which is COVID, I believe, flu, avian flu, there were several others like Ebola, Marburg, and I believe RSV, but I have to check on that.
	So anyway, but for whatever they're shipping these mRNA shots, no compliance requirements for them.
	So that's really interesting.
	So they all fall under the PrEP Act.
	So they're all exempt from liability.
	There are multiple PrEP Act declarations.
	So they're on HHS website.
	It's not just for COVID.
	COVID has been extended until end of 2029.
	So we have now emergency for 10 years, at least.
	But COVID is not the only PrEP Act declaration outstanding right now.
	There are several...
	I can read you the list if you want.
	I have it here.
	There's monkeypox, which goes until 2032.
	There's Ebola, which goes until...
	I don't even know when.
	There's Marburg that goes until August 2025.
	And extend until 2028.
	There's anthrax that goes until 2027.
	There's Zika that goes until 2027.
	Let's see.
	There is acute radiation syndrome and botulism state of emergency that goes until 2027.
	There's all kinds of obscure things we don't even notice.
	Oh, yeah.
	Use of pesticides also.
	And I actually don't see RSV here, Sasha.
	So I was probably confusing it with monkeypox.
	Anyway, but you can see how many of them are outstanding.
	So any products, any medical pharmaceutical products that are shipped and used for these indications do not have to comply with any pharmaceutical law.
	None. Not manufacturing, not quality, not marketing claims.
	So you can lie about it in marketing and you don't have to be compliant from the manufacturing standpoint.
	So that's really, yeah, I mean, it's really incredible, right?
	So the PREP Act, just tell me briefly, Sasha, what is the PREP Act?
	The PREP Act was put on law in 2005 initially, and it's kind of on top of, you know, after the anthrax letters, which I think were inside job shaking down Congress to sign the Patriot Act.
	After that, in 2005, they introduced this PREP Act.
	Which is Pandemic Emergency Preparedness Response Act.
	And it was justified to Congress as, well, you know, for these really cases, like really edge cases, like war or acts of terrorism, there could be these severe emergencies.
	Let's say we're attacked by nuclear weapons or something.
	And we will need to use some...
	Products that may be lightly tested or not tested, or maybe they're used in different indications that they haven't been tested or different populations.
	So all these scenarios and for this very severe world ending emergency, we need this situation where we can distribute medical products and make them available, but then people can't sue us because we didn't have time to test it.
	Right, right.
	So it sounds like the PrEP Act, when you hear that, it sounds to me like the PrEP Act was developed for absolute catastrophes, where things were totally out of whack and society was breaking down and everything upside.
	I mean, like an absolute end-of-world scenario, something like that.
	And in a situation like that, you would say, okay, fine.
	Everything is melting down and we are in this particular situation, we are going to let go of all our...
	Of all our practices and regulations that usually are enforced just to make sure that these products that we are putting into people are actually safe.
	But now, well, you're just telling me that it's used for all sorts of viruses and diseases.
	And for many, many years, from the past to COVID until 2029.
	So that seems like kind of an abuse of the PrEP Act, first of all.
	Absolutely, yes.
	You would say it was an illegal use of it.
	I would say, Sasha, I don't know about you.
	It's an illegal use of it, but we can't challenge the legality.
	And it also goes hand-in-hand with the emergency use authorization, which was completely either illegally invoked or else they considered SARS-CoV-2 a bioweapon, one or the other.
	Okay, that's good.
	We'll come to that later.
	But to come back to the PREP Act, what I don't understand is, first of all, it shouldn't be in vogue right now under these circumstances because we don't have an end-of-world scenario at all.
	And second of all, under these circumstances, I mean...
	There's no liability for all sorts of stuff.
	Manufacturing, marketing, everything.
	No liability, whatever.
	But how can you justify in our normal situation that they don't have to follow rules and regulations for manufacturing?
	How is that possible?
	That's exactly how they're justifying it.
	They're saying...
	Any case to date, so in the last four years, any court cases trying to go after the deaths and injuries due to these shots, due to mandated use of these shots.
	The most recently I published an article, there was a decision by the Supreme Court of Maine in a case where a child was vaccinated with Pfizer shot against...
	Parents' wishes in school.
	So while the child was in school...
	Against parents' wishes.
	Against parents' wishes.
	Forcefully. And he was forcefully.
	Forcefully vaccinated.
	Against explicit parents' wishes, the child was grabbed in school into the school-conducted clinic where he was injected with the mRNA, and the parents were suing the school and the clinic provider.
	And currently, the Supreme Court of Maine, finally, so it went to the Supreme Court of Maine, the Supreme Court of Maine decided that, no, there's no liability here because it was a countermeasure used under the PREP Act current declaration.
	That's it.
	And every case is like that.
	No matter how many people get injured or killed.
	They go to court and the court says it's a covered countermeasure and a covered person.
	End of story.
	Go away.
	That's it.
	Oh my God.
	So that means that every child can be snatched away.
	I mean, if the parents don't want the kid to be injected with that stuff, they can just take it and forcefully inject it?
	Yes. This is currently set as precedent.
	Oh my God.
	This can be done.
	That while your child in school, they can be taken and injected with this mRNA shit.
	Sorry. So that is that...
	So if that is true for kids, why isn't it true for adults?
	Well, adults can fight back.
	A child is easier abducted and injected, right?
	So that's a bigger problem, in my opinion.
	But, you know, that's the situation today.
	And by the way, there will never be a liability for this, because even after the PREP Act declaration is terminated, there's no retroactive liability.
	So the PREP Act was extended by Biden until 2029.
	And I think the head of the HHS, so the head of the HHS can declare the end, can declare the PREP Act and can also end the PREP Act, right?
	Is that the only person who can do this, or are there other people as well?
	Well, no, the president can do it.
	Congress actually cannot do it.
	Congress gave up their power to do it, even though they don't have constitutional power to give up their power, but they did.
	Wait a minute.
	They gave up their power?
	Yes, they gave up their power.
	Why would they do that?
	You tell me.
	Because when they were signing this in law, I guess pharma lobby really wanted it to be this way.
	And, you know, so currently...
	By the way, the HHS is supposed to submit regular reports for extensions of these PrEP Act declarations.
	So the COVID one was extended 12 times.
	They're supposed to, I think every 30 days even, submit a congressional report.
	Every 30 days?
	Oh, okay.
	Yeah, justifying the extensions.
	This was FOIA'd by CHD.
	I was just earlier today corresponding with their fellow attorney.
	And she told me that they tried to FOIA these reports, you know, justifications.
	Yeah, I would like to read the report.
	What is the emergency?
	And the response came back that there is no such records.
	Wait a minute.
	Wait a minute.
	So these records, so they FOIA'd it and they got the response that they don't exist, although they are supposed to be released every 30 days or so?
	Well, no.
	So the response came back that they don't have these records.
	Or records are not available, something like that.
	And they're currently appealing this in that spending.
	But so far, there's been no production of any justification for the initial declaration, nor for the subsequent extensions.
	Yeah, well, I'm not surprised because I have no idea what kind of explanation they would come up with.
	You know, how can you possibly justify the extension of the PREP Act?
	It's impossible.
	You know, no wonder they can.
	They have a hard time getting their hands on these documents.
	So Robert Kennedy is the head of the HHS now.
	Why didn't he declare on the first day of being in office and enter the PREP Act?
	That's a great question.
	I wrote an open letter to him exactly asking that.
	Yeah, I saw it.
	And I sent it to him by text.
	And we don't know.
	We don't know why he continues to uphold this.
	By the way, the law says that this is extended based solely on his opinion or HHS secretary's opinion.
	And also the EUA countermeasures status is also issued based solely on his opinion.
	And the mRNA shots that are on childhood schedule right now are also based solely on his opinion.
	So my question to him was, is it his opinion?
	That the prep act declaration should be extended and that the shots should be on childhood schedule.
	That's my question.
	Yes, absolutely.
	I mean, it's my question too, and I do not know the answer.
	Do you have any idea, Debbie, why that would be?
	I mean, we can only guess because he hasn't spoken about it, right?
	So we don't know.
	We can guess that he is actually not in charge and that he has somebody wielding some power over him.
	Which is telling him, we are the military, industrial, biodefense, and public-private partnership, and we're in charge, and we do not want you to stop the PrEP Act, because that would ruin our entire mRNA.
	Humongous bubble.
	I mean, it is so humongous, and it is so lucrative, and so many companies and people and organizations are dependent on it right now.
	I mean, I just saw a list.
	James Rogolsky published a list of how many mRNA...
	Studies are going on right now at Moderna.
	How many?
	I don't know.
	Dozens and dozens.
	Dozens and dozens and dozens of studies on cancer, on RSV, on flu, on who knows what, on any disease that you can make up or imagine.
	In my opinion, it is currently, with the knowledge that we have about mRNA, it is unethical to even run a clinical trial, in my opinion.
	Because what we know about this material and these shots is that they cause A lot of harm.
	And so how do you justify having an experimental group that is receiving something that you already know is harmful?
	I'm not sure how you can justify it ethically.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Plus, Kennedy stopped this trial.
	I think it involved 10,000 kids for a new mRNA COVID vaccine.
	So he stopped that.
	Well, good for him.
	That's great.
	I'm glad he did.
	And he did some other good stuff.
	And based on his values and what he knows, you would think that he would have ended the PrEP Act as soon as possible.
	And also taking these COVID shots.
	Because, you know, with the PrEP Act, you get this stuff like in Maine.
	When did that happen that the child was just forcefully injected?
	Was that recently?
	This was in 22, I believe.
	And it's been going through the court system and finally went to the Supreme Court.
	Okay. Okay.
	But I mean, this prep act sounds like an absolute nightmare.
	It is a nightmare.
	Yeah. It's a law illegally.
	So what Sasha and Catherine Watt, who is a researcher who has researched the legal background for this more than anyone in the world, she knows the legal history of all of these acts and all of these laws, has shown that it's funny to say illegal laws, but... It is actually a fact that they are illegal laws.
	So they are not laws that actually comply or fall within the constraints of constitutional liberty rights and constitutional law, but we can't challenge it.
	It's like extra constitutional or something.
	Sasha, I don't know how you would describe it.
	Yeah. So that's, we were describing them as illegal laws, the PrEP Act and Public Health Act that Kind of go together to enable this.
	And also, we also call it license to kill because it's exactly what it is.
	It's a license to kill.
	Has this gone to the Supreme Court?
	No. Not yet.
	The way they've written this, there was only one case that challenged constitutionality or at least addressed constitutionality of PrEP Act, which was filed by CHD.
	And that was the death of a 24-year-old student who received a Pfizer shot after it was claimed fully FDA approved because he was mandated in college.
	And so he died.
	The autopsy found that it was because of the vaccine.
	So there is a confirmation that he was killed by the vaccine.
	And nobody actually contested that.
	As the law is written...
	PrEP Act preempts all state law, so you can't file in the state for a runful death or something like that.
	You have to file in the federal court, and the only federal avenue, there's one court in D.C. that you can file, which CHD did, and they filed against the Department of Defense, and that case was dismissed, again, because they are saying, you know, it's PrEP Act and full immunity.
	So wait, the Supreme Court dismissed that case?
	It's not Supreme Court.
	It's the District Court in D.C. where there's only one court where you can file these claims.
	It dismissed the case, and I don't think they were going to continue because it's a dead end, and it's designed to be a dead end.
	Nobody can bring any effective case.
	Under this PREP Act structure with the current judicial system.
	Wow, this is absolutely horrible.
	So these main parents, are they going to try to...
	So the main Supreme Court said, you have nothing to complain about, go away, case closed.
	But, I mean, they can appeal this and they can try to bring it all the way to the Supreme Court.
	I mean, they can appeal it.
	I don't know if they're going to be appealing it, but also people need to realize each one of these cases costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.
	You know, so I was talking to one of leading attorneys in the space a couple of days ago, and he himself told me, I put two and a half million of my own money to help people and try to prosecute these cases.
	And we've raised more money from others and from volunteers.
	And, you know, we've brought some cases and got some success.
	But it's a huge...
	And he said there are only few people.
	So, you know, only few people can sustain and maintain these cases because you have to appeal, appeal, appeal.
	And by the time you get somewhere, you spend, you know, 200,000, half a million.
	Well, who has this kind of money?
	And most people just give up.
	Yeah, no, of course.
	To your knowledge, how many Americans do you think even know about this PrEP Act and what it actually means and for how many infectious diseases it applies?
	Well, very few people know about this.
	I mean, I have some following on Substack.
	I mean, I probably have, I don't know, 20,000 people in the U.S. who are aware of it.
	I mean, I have international following as well.
	But very, very few people.
	I am suppressed on every platform.
	I'm suppressed on...
	On X as well?
	On X as well, yeah.
	I'm shadow banned on X. X is not a free speech platform.
	No, free speech platform.
	So how can you prove that you're shadow banned on X?
	Well, because I have close to 20,000 followers on X and my posts get less than 100 views.
	Wow, that's weird.
	Less than 100 views.
	Yeah. Sometimes I have a post that gets more views, but the open letter to RFK Jr. got many more views, thankfully.
	I mean, maybe like 30,000.
	How many views did that one?
	How many?
	Maybe 30,000.
	30,000.
	Okay, okay.
	That's like the tops I get.
	But my regular post, I get maybe 100 views.
	I have likes, you know, the likes and retweets are always from the same people.
	The same people who follow me on Substack.
	Okay, well, that's suspicious too.
	How do you explain an explanation for that?
	Well, because it's Shadow Ben...
	X is a censored platform.
	Everybody has to get it through their heads that X is a censored platform just to get it through your heads.
	Yeah, it's a censored platform.
	They design these eco-chambers so that you're fenced in.
	Like I am.
	I'm fenced in.
	Only the people who are, you know, very small accounts respond to me and like me.
	Like regular people, maybe they have less than a thousand followers, maybe two thousand followers.
	And so there is this created fencing where you're...
	Tweets or your posts only seen by a small number of people and it's the same people that you're seeing and interacting with.
	And you don't get access to any broader audience.
	And I'm just going to say something else.
	They have created X as a right-wing bubble in order to convince people on the right that there is free speech when in fact they are doing the exact same thing on the right that they were doing on the left.
	And I'm saying right and left in quotes because those are not really...
	Real constructs.
	Those are fake constructs that are used to divide us.
	And now X is a right wing bubble.
	And the only people who have millions of followers on there are people who will praise Elon Musk and Donald Trump and Doge and everything.
	That's the only people who have big followings on there.
	And so and then now we have blue sky.
	So we have a nice little liberal bubble over there.
	But if people don't understand that they are being shoved into a propaganda bubble on the right.
	The same way the left has been shoved into a propaganda bubble on the left and we can't extract them anymore from the left.
	I mean, they're just so far gone.
	It's very difficult right now.
	It's very scary.
	It's very scary to watch.
	Well, it's interesting what you say because my impression of, you know, since Elon Musk bought Twitter is that the platform really opened up and there's way, I mean, there's all sorts of content now that was that you couldn't.
	Publish on, you know, your account would be banned or you would be shadow banned.
	That has really changed and there's a lot of information that wasn't allowed before.
	But you are saying now that there still is some sort of censorship, but it's just going...
	I mean, this thing with the prep act, that's particularly interesting because that is something extremely concerning and people should know about it.
	And I don't see any reason why Musk wouldn't want people to know about it.
	Musk owns billions of dollars of mRNA factories.
	That's the reason.
	He owns billions of dollars of mRNA factories.
	And he thinks mRNA is a miraculous technology that we can use software to solve the hardware problems of the body.
	That is a quote from Elon Musk.
	I wrote an article about how Elon Musk doesn't understand anything about biology, and so biotech is a realm that he probably shouldn't be investing in.
	But he is, and he thinks that the body is a computer and that the genetic code is the software and that he, genius scientist that he is, can manipulate that code in order to solve all the problems of the hardware of the body.
	And so we need lots of mRNA factories everywhere.
	That is Elon Musk.
	He will never allow the PrEP Act to be revoked.
	So which mRNA factories does Elon Musk own?
	He has the...
	So I don't remember off the top of my head the names of the...
	One of them was, I think, used by CureVac.
	So he has a collaboration with CureVac.
	He invested in this technology for manufacturing.
	One of them I know was purification.
	So it has to do with purification of RNA, the technology.
	But he also has made other investments in just all these mRNA factories that they're putting everywhere.
	And the reason they're putting mRNA factories everywhere, by the way, it's not like...
	It's not a necessity.
	You can have one factory supplying the entire world if you wanted to.
	They're putting them in every state and every country to capture the lawmakers in that state and that country.
	The same way, and I was giving the analogy, for example, the latest, I think, F-35, the fighter jet program.
	Is manufactured in 47 states of the United States.
	Interesting. 47 states.
	How do you justify it from the business perspective that you have factories manufacturing like this one?
	You know, it's a very expensive and complex jet, but you're just increasing complexity and cost by putting it in 47 states.
	But that's not the objective.
	The objective is to capture territory.
	That's what they're doing.
	So they're putting these factories everywhere so that they can then push on the congressmakers or congresspeople in that territory to say, oh, you're going to ban this?
	No, no, you're going to affect the jobs and the taxpayer base in your state.
	You're crazy.
	It's just a capture strategy.
	So everybody gets a piece of the pie.
	Right. So with this...
	mRNA factories, you said that they are in every state, in every country.
	I mean, so they are all over the United States.
	They are in various states of the United States.
	And you also said they are also in other countries.
	Other countries, yeah.
	So U.S. manufacturing mRNA vaccines in other countries.
	Which countries?
	Australia has enough mRNA capacity to manufacture enough shots for like, I don't even know how many times to vaccinate their whole population so many, many times over.
	It's absolutely insane.
	Well, did they notice that nobody wants them?
	I mean, did they look at the booster uptake and how many people don't want to have anything to do with these mRNA shots?
	That's a good question.
	Yeah, and that's exactly the case.
	Nobody wants them.
	Nobody's taking them anymore.
	I mean, very small percentage, very small uptake.
	But they're putting these factories everywhere.
	Again, it's not because they're business-minded and this is some kind of a supply-demand calculation.
	No, it's a capture-the-territory calculation.
	So they literally stake the ground by putting these factories everywhere so that they can exert pressure on lawmakers to continue the scam.
	Are there any mRNA shots that do not fall under the PrEP Act?
	I think you mentioned this one where you weren't sure, but are there others?
	Or is it just the rule that mRNA shots are usually, you know, exempted under the PrEP Act?
	Well, so another thing that people don't realize is the vaccine, there is no definition of vaccine in law.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	Say that again.
	There's no definition of a vaccine.
	Why is that?
	Why can't that be?
	It has never been.
	So as a product, nothing is defined as a product, as a vaccine.
	And it has never been.
	So actually, by the way, the first law in the U.S. was about biologics, not drugs.
	So in 1902, the Virus and Toxin Act, it was a biologics act.
	And that did not define...
	What is a biologics act?
	Biologics, well, so the vaccines are biologics.
	Biologics traditionally have been defined as products derived from nature.
	So the first, the 1902 Virus and Toxin Act, which established the biologics licensing.
	Category. Yeah, category, licensing, not exactly regulation, was about blood products and insulin and a few other things.
	So at the time, insulin was only derived from nature, from pigs and cows' pancreas.
	Today, it's synthetically made.
	But at the time, so they put that law in place, Virus and Toxin Act.
	And FDA was established much later, in late 30s, early 40s, regulating drugs.
	So vaccines, historically, have never been defined as a product.
	They're a preparation, they're a cocktail.
	Originally, it was all naturally derived substances.
	Over time, now, these mRNA shots, I can make a very good case that they're synthetic drugs.
	And in fact, the EMA regulators wrote a whole page of opinion during the approval time saying that it's a novel chemical entity and it's a drug.
	But they're still regulated as if they are biologic.
	And this vaccine regulation, it all hinges on arbitrarily declaring anything you want as a vaccine for prevention of infectious disease.
	So you can use extremely toxic things like gene therapy.
	So as far as the product definition, all of these mRNA shots are gene therapies.
	But because FDA has this discretion to just decide, like declare something as a vaccine, once they declare something as a vaccine, it's only a use definition, then a completely different set of rules applies to them versus how they regulate the same exact technology
	I just wanted to say, Sasha, when you say for the prevention of infectious disease, I'm not sure in which part of the law they changed the definition, but right now it's not.
	A vaccine is not for prevention of infectious disease anymore.
	It's for activating your immune system against something.
	Yeah, so when you read the FDA guidance documents, so for example, where I noticed this, there's a cell and gene therapy guidance from 2015.
	And that one defines, that one talks through all the risks.
	So it says, you know, gene therapy category is very risky and then lists all the risks that they've known already.
	So a bunch of people got killed, got cancer, got blind, got strokes, heart attacks, miscarriages, blah, blah, blah.
	So they list all this and they say, oh, okay, these are the risks that are known for this category, gene therapy, blah, blah.
	And then they go into, here are all the kinds of studies that manufacturers must do.
	To characterize the risks.
	And then there's a footnote that says none of this applies if you're using it for infectious disease prevention.
	Oh, wow.
	So, okay.
	So let me get this straight because this is all very confusing.
	So the FDA can declare what a vaccine is, but there is no legal definition of a vaccine.
	Not as a product.
	Not as like, you know, composition of a product.
	Okay. So there's no definition as a product.
	So is there a definition as...
	Something else?
	As a use.
	Only as a use.
	So if I declare a gun a vaccine, theoretically, if I'm at FDA, I have a discretion to take a gun and declare it as a vaccine and then go ahead.
	So you can define anything to be a vaccine, but without really saying what a vaccine is.
	So that is truly, completely strange.
	That's how, well, both law...
	And their own discretionary authority allows them to do it right now.
	And they're using all of this in their arsenal to continue this crime.
	So they're using PrEP Act, they're using Public Health Emergency, they're using their discretionary authority, they're using their enforcement discretion.
	So in theory, they could actually go and enforce something on these manufacturers.
	But they don't.
	And they're using the law as a cover for their non-enforcement of any manufacturing rules or marketing rules or anything.
	And so, from what I can say, FDA is acting maliciously because in every category, they're acting against the public and for the pharmaceutical manufacturers.
	Right. But at the same time, we know that the...
	So you just said there's no legal definition, but at the same time, the definition of a vaccine has changed, like in the dictionaries.
	So if I understand this correctly, the definition of a vaccine was it stops infection and it stops transmission.
	No, that was never in law either.
	That was like how people understood what a vaccine is.
	Yeah, it was marketing.
	It's marketing, but it's false marketing.
	Because in law, it was never defined like that.
	They were always defined as, you know, basically using something for infectious disease prevention.
	That's it.
	Or for infectious disease control or something like that.
	So they would always use language like this.
	So that sounds very vague.
	Yeah, very vague.
	For controls, what does that mean?
	You tell me.
	It's whatever they feel like, that's basically what it's been used for.
	So where is that written down?
	So there is something written down.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So my friend Catherine Watt wrote a huge five-part series, Legal History Review, going back in the history of law to the late 1700s, actually.
	So from late 1700s to today.
	All the legal changes and all the legal history related to this matter.
	And we can definitively say that vaccines have never been regulated at all as pharmaceuticals.
	Their claims have always been fraudulent.
	And the law always allowed them to ship poisonous products because vaccines are poisons and they're intentional poisons.
	And so it's not possible to regulate them for safety as drugs.
	And that's why they've never been regulated.
	They've always been presented to the public as regulated products, but they're carved out in a totally separate category in law for which none of the pharmaceutical standard regulations, such as good manufacturing practices, good distribution practices, marketing, you know, strict marketing rules and so forth, none of it applies.
	And that's for all vaccines.
	So you're saying then that it wasn't only after 1986 when Reagan signed this.
	No, it was always like that.
	So what was the difference?
	What did Reagan do in 1986?
	The difference was that the use of vaccines or uptake of vaccination wasn't as high up until the 80s.
	And in the 80s, they wanted to start forcing universal vaccination.
	So before the 80s, well, first of all, there were only a few vaccines, you know, like if we go 50s, 60s, 70s, it was probably, you know, three to five vaccines that kids would get.
	But then by the 80s, they started, you know, introducing vaccines for adults, for travel, for all sorts of things, annual vaccinations.
	And at that time, because they wanted to force universal 100% vaccination for everything, They knew that they were going to kill people and injure people, and the lawsuits are going to drive them out of business.
	They already had a lot of lawsuits, even with the three to whatever, the few vaccines that were given, they had a lot of lawsuits against them.
	And they were successful, yeah.
	And so they knew that they were going to be generating a huge amount of litigation against themselves by doing this, because, as I said, these are intentionally poisoning substances.
	They know they're going to have victims.
	And so they went and lobbied for that law, for the first removal of liability, which was the National Vaccination Injury Fund, which created unconstitutional vaccine courts, so removed the constitutional right to sue for injury and removed it completely into the separate system.
	It's not your regular system into this separate vaccine court, separate program, which is now totally overwhelmed by the way I also wrote about.
	Yeah, plus they don't have much money to pay out anyway.
	Yeah, and they don't have that much money.
	And so that was the first layer.
	And now the second layer even...
	Worse is this PrEP Act, which is the PrEP Act on top of what was already there.
	Okay, so I just want to go back to what you just said about vaccines, because I think many people will be shocked to hear that vaccines are poisonous substances.
	Now, a vaccine, I mean, at least traditional vaccines, not these gene therapies, but the traditional vaccine was like a pathogen.
	You would take the pathogen that caused an illness and you would take that.
	And inject it was kind of dead or a subcute form of it, but it would have been injected into the body to trigger an immune response against it so that the body would be taught to react against this pathogen.
	So when the pathogen, when it would meet the real thing, the live thing, would be affected with it, then it would already be pre-trained and it would be easier for the body to, you know, to...
	Deal with illness.
	Is that correct?
	Well, that was the theory in the 1700s and early 1800s.
	I'm slightly behind that.
	So tell me.
	That was the theory of vaccination, which was popularized sometime after mid-1800s started going mass scale.
	But by 1913, it was definitively found that it's not possible to do that.
	So Charles Richet...
	By 1913, he received the Nobel Prize for his research on anaphylaxis.
	And because of this effect of anaphylaxis, it's not possible to vaccinate for anything.
	Sorry, I didn't catch that last word.
	It's not possible to vaccinate because the effect of anaphylaxis, it affects unpredictable percentage of the population, but it's large.
	It's somewhere on the order of 10-15% of the population, depending on what you inject them with.
	Injecting proteins...
	Which is all vaccines are proteins.
	And not only they contain the so-called pathogen, whatever that is, but because just injecting the pathogen by itself never worked, they had to combine that with all kinds of different proteins as a vehicle to stimulate the immune system, that they call it.
	And these proteins, they're saying, oh, they're safe because they're food.
	And that's a lie because...
	Explicitly what Richer found and what he received Nobel Prize for is you cannot inject food directly into bloodstream.
	You're going to kill people and disable them for life.
	That's what he found.
	And so if we had honest science and if vaccination was a benign and beneficial effort, it should have stopped right then or maybe two years after that Nobel Prize.
	And that was in 1900, you said?
	1913. Yeah.
	1913 that he got.
	Yeah. So you cannot inject.
	So today we have chronic disease epidemic, which is explicitly driven only by vaccines.
	It's not food.
	It's not NASA.
	It's only vaccines.
	Why? Because vaccines contain the albumins, which are derived from all kinds of wheat, corn, soy, all kinds of cereals.
	So we have all these allergies to gluten and corn and soy and rice and other cereals because of the vaccines.
	Peanut allergy because of the vaccines.
	Walnut, nuts because of the vaccines.
	Shellfish because of the vaccines.
	Vaccines contain yeast and gelatin.
	Gelatin causes allergy to meat, alpha-gal syndrome.
	To meat?
	Yes, allergy to meat.
	There is allergy to...
	So all of those allergies that you know of...
	Today, every child has allergies.
	100% of children have allergies.
	Yeah, I mean, my kids do.
	100% of them come from the vaccines.
	And also, you know, when I was little, there wasn't a single, I didn't know a single kid.
	Exactly, me neither.
	Not a single one.
	Yeah, none of us.
	Yeah, because we didn't have this mass push for vaccination.
	Then also, all the childhood cancer, 100% caused by vaccines.
	There is no childhood cancer.
	It does not exist without vaccination.
	Actually, majority of adult cancers don't exist either without vaccination.
	Asthma is because of the vaccines.
	Autism, obviously, because of the vaccines.
	Neurodegenerative conditions, psychosis, anxiety, depression, all of this is vaccines.
	Oh, metabolics.
	Type 1 diabetes, it's MMR vaccine.
	The type 2 diabetes, other vaccines, because they destroy microbiome.
	Every single chronic disease, especially in people under 65, 100% attributable to vaccines.
	Yeah, so I write this book, and I think it's a great book, Tartals All the Way Down, which goes into the entire history of vaccines and details.
	I mean, it's extremely well-researched.
	The authors are anonymous, for obvious reasons, because they didn't want their careers to end.
	I think it's several authors, and they're extremely, extremely well-informed, and it's well-written.
	So they describe in detail that the death rates from infectious diseases actually dropped dramatically before vaccines were even introduced.
	And that was because of better sanitation and better food and all sorts of good water and sewage systems and all this kind of stuff.
	So the effect of the vaccines was really a reduction in morbidity and not in mortality.
	They increased morbidity.
	As I said, they've driven all this chronic disease epidemic.
	Yes, right.
	So that's a lie also.
	But I mean, just morbidity for example, there aren't that many who get like measles or chickenpox or something, but then there are all these other effects that they get all sorts of other diseases.
	diseases. So if you, if you, yeah.
	But, and, and, and.
	I don't want to get too much into that because then we can just talk about this forever.
	And that's another discussion.
	So let's try to get back to the work that you did.
	But this was all very interesting.
	And for people who are interested to dig further into this, because I'm sure a lot of people say, oh, this is absolute rubbish and shocking and doesn't make any sense.
	No, it actually does.
	And I was very surprised about it, too, because when I grew up, everybody says vaccines are great.
	You need vaccines and there's absolutely no problem with it.
	And people were just, what?
	You're against?
	You think vaccines are dangerous?
	That's crazy, you know?
	And I've really changed my mind about this after reading that book and other books.
	And we could go into why that is and why it continues.
	And I think having Robert Kennedy as head of HHS, he's someone who, I mean, he knows all this stuff, obviously, because he has been doing that for the last decade.
	So he's very well informed.
	And he knows exactly what you're talking about.
	And I hope that that's going to make a difference.
	We'll see.
	Don't know what's going to happen.
	But let's get back to the PREP Act first of all.
	I want to know, Sasha and Debbie, are there PREP Acts in other countries or is the United States the only country that has such an impossible, illegal law?
	Yeah, it's only U.S. that has PREP Act.
	But in other countries, they achieve the same effect.
	By signing mRNA contracts, which were extremely predatory, and they forced the governments to indemnify Pfizer, Moderna, and all the other manufacturers completely.
	Who forced them?
	When you say they, who forced them?
	Ostensibly, it was Pfizer who forced them, but I think it's DoD who forced them on behalf of Pfizer.
	But ostensibly, all these governments...
	Signed contracts with Pfizer, which is, I mean, it's ridiculous.
	So you have a government that has a sovereign power, signs a contract with the ostensibly pharmaceutical company that has these clauses, these extreme predatory clauses that not even like the first year law school student would sign up to.
	But yet we have all these, you know, prestigious government attorneys agreeing to these clauses.
	And the clauses are saying that essentially so they achieved the effect of the PrEP Act in the U.S. By saying the government will indemnify Pfizer for any injury resulting from these products.
	If the citizens of the country sue the government and win, the government indemnifies Pfizer and they put up state assets as collateral.
	Wow, that's unbelievable.
	When was the first contract of this kind?
	Well, this was signed in late 2020, all these contracts.
	And, you know, since then.
	That's what's been going on.
	And I would say, Sasha, I would extend it beyond DOD.
	So if they're using sort of biodefense treaties and agreements and memoranda of understanding and stuff like that, those treaties say that there's a mutual agreement to do certain things.
	Now, we don't know, right?
	Because we don't know what they say and then we don't know what they invoke.
	But my guess would be that if there's a...
	NATO alliance and there are agreements regarding biodefense.
	Those agreements say that when there's a countermeasure, everybody agrees that we're going to do this.
	Otherwise, the governments would never sign it.
	They would never sign it with a private entity.
	They would never sign a predatory contract.
	They would only sign a predatory contract like that if it were actually a military operation, which is what it was.
	So if it's a military operation, they're going to sign something completely different than what they would do under a normal civilian.
	It's not a civilian contract.
	Sasha, you started talking about what you started to find suspicious.
	How much experience do you have?
	25 years in the pharmaceutical industry.
	You ran over 60 clinical trials for all these big companies, right?
	Pfizer, Johnson& Johnson.
	So you know this industry really intimately, correct?
	And how it's done correctly and how it should be done and what's usually done.
	And I signed large contracts too.
	And I know how long it takes to negotiate and what they will and will not do.
	And they are not anything like this predatory contracts.
	So nobody would sign these contracts usually.
	You would be laughed out of the room if a private entity would like...
	You know, write in and say, oh yeah, now you have to put state assets as collateral.
	So basically your ships, your military bases, your embassy buildings, everything you put up as a collateral to indemnify a private manufacturer for their product that you're buying?
	I mean, come on.
	They would think you're crazy, right?
	Yeah, it's crazy.
	They were also forced to suspend, forced to waive any good manufacturing practices, any distribution practices.
	Any import expert laws that also control, you know, the trade in pharmaceutical products and so forth.
	So all of that was suspended by these contracts.
	And then they identified Pfizer and Moderna for anything.
	Okay. So now tell me this.
	So there must be like many people, lawyers, officials, many people who know about this and who have seen this and who were probably shocked about it at some point when they first saw it.
	What's going on in their heads?
	Why are they doing this?
	And how do they rationalize and justify this?
	Well, I mean, people did comment.
	There was a lot of commentary on these contracts and the fact that they were negotiated by text between Albert Berla by text.
	Wait, by text?
	By text message?
	They were negotiated by text.
	I don't believe they were negotiated by text.
	I believe they said that so that they could...
	Pretend that they don't exist.
	Because now, at this point, they pretend that they can't actually give us any documentation because it was done by text.
	I think it was done through these agreements and memoranda of understanding and biodefense mutual agreements.
	Though that exists, but they're saying that it was done by text with, you know...
	Ursula von der Leyen.
	Von der Leyen, yeah.
	So now we don't have any evidence at all.
	But I don't believe that.
	So, like, in addition to this nonsensical, you know...
	Contract structure, they also have these cover stories and covering up the evidence.
	And, you know, as I said, people did comment on it.
	There was a bunch of commentary on how bad the clauses are.
	Some, again, smaller accounts, people that have following like mine because we're all censored and suppressed.
	A few of us have written on this consistently.
	But again, nobody knows.
	It doesn't get out.
	Because Tucker Carlson will never touch it.
	Even Cheryl Atkinson...
	Why not?
	Why would he not touch it?
	He's not.
	He's part of the propaganda operation.
	I'm trying to get it in front of any journalist.
	You know, Cheryl Atkinson on Substack writes, oh, you know, I'm going to interview President Trump.
	Can you please submit questions that you want him asked?
	And I'm actually a pretty large account on Substack.
	And I'm verified, and I'm not like a random person.
	And so I submitted my open letter to RFK Jr.
	I said, hey, can you ask him this question?
	Why are you continuing the Prop Act declaration?
	I sent it to her through a direct message, through notes.
	She never even acknowledged anything.
	She'll go and ask.
	She'll respond to other people, but nobody will touch this.
	Not a single sort of high-profile journalist will touch this.
	Because they're probably briefed in on the situation.
	They're probably briefed to the sense that, like, this is above your pay grade.
	It's classified.
	Don't touch it.
	Your sponsors will not like it.
	Well, Tucker knows.
	So Tucker, you know, he's part of the propaganda industry.
	He's part of the propaganda bubble on the right, and he's never going to go there because he knows.
	People like Cheryl Atkinson, I don't know if they know, but I think you're right.
	I think that they know that that's a subject they're not allowed to touch.
	Mm-hmm.
	Not allowed to touch.
	The PrEP Act, when was it first invoked?
	Well, so 2005 is when it was put in law.
	They did have some declarations that preceded COVID.
	I just, I don't have, you know...
	Anthrax vaccine was the first one that it was used for, and I think remains...
	The declaration continues.
	And, you know, a few others that they were using, but kind of in a small scale.
	So they were...
	They were not something...
	They never used it for anything that would be, like, mass pushed into civilian population.
	They did use it to cover themselves for injecting the military with all sorts of bad things, like this anthrax vaccine that caused...
	Yeah, which was extremely toxic.
	Extremely toxic.
	Yeah. But they were doing it kind of on a small scale, in the small populations, and they were using it primarily to just...
	It's kind of like a scam.
	You know, the government goes and orders the vaccine that nobody needs, which is extremely toxic, you know, Ebola vaccine.
	It causes Ebola, I'm sure.
	So they'll order anthrax vaccine.
	So they will order it from their crony company, Immersion Biosolutions, who has the exclusive manufacturing rights for it, and pay them, you know, many, many millions of dollars for total junk.
	That nobody needs and it just goes into storage and nobody uses it.
	So it was just, you know, money laundering kind of thing.
	Interesting. But in 2020, they really went mass, pushed mass, and that's what Debbie found, that the DOD and HHS merged into this partnership specifically to overcome their constraints, their respective constraints for using these authorities to now...
	Mass-produced consumer product and push it on practically everyone in the world.
	So that was done the first time.
	Okay. So it used to be since 2000.
	So between 2005 and 2020, it was really used in a very restricted sense.
	And often this toxic stuff was produced, but luckily not used.
	It was just sitting there on the shelves.
	It's called a national stockpile.
	So they have a stockpile and the stockpile is where they say, oh, we need to have certain amounts of countermeasures in case we have attacks by blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	And they have a list of pathogens that are potential bioweapons, you know, Marburg and Ebola and anthrax.
	And so we need to have a stockpile of things counter against them.
	So let's have some vaccines against them.
	So let's pay, like Sasha says, a whole bunch of things.
	Mm-hmm.
	I remember the smallpox vaccine that they wanted to...
	I think they wanted to push it on all the...
	No, it was first doctors, I think.
	They were looking for people who were willing to participate in the medical field.
	And it's such a toxic vaccine and so dangerous that, I mean, they started the whole thing and then they abandoned it because people refused to take it because it was so dangerous.
	I mean, I think people are not aware that...
	I mean, I certainly wasn't.
	I'm sure there are many, many other people who are not aware that vaccines are actually dangerous and not safe and effective.
	I mean, this propaganda of safe and effective, safe and effective, which I've been hearing forever as a kid.
	And, well, I mean, that was just a little bit compared to what's going on now, the tsunami, you know.
	But that is really stuck in people's minds.
	And not only safe and effective, but we need it in order to survive.
	Right? I mean...
	That's what many people still think, although I think this whole narrative is starting to crumble.
	Yeah, hopefully.
	Right. So now let's go to you, Debbie.
	So how did you get into all of this?
	You are an independent researcher.
	You have become an independent researcher, really.
	Tell me how all this started.
	So I was a medical writer for many years as my day job.
	Marketing and advertising stuff for agencies that worked with pharmaceutical companies.
	I also did it for government agencies, for nonprofits.
	I just wrote any kind of copy that was needed for consumer or physician-facing explanations about pharmaceutical products or about diseases.
	And so I did that.
	And so I was pretty well-versed in reading studies and statistics.
	And my husband's a doctor, so he helped me understand things.
	And I did that until about 10 years before COVID.
	So about 10 years before COVID, I retired from that and I started doing visual art.
	I was a visual artist for 10 years.
	That's quite a pivot.
	Were you always an artist at heart?
	Well, I always wanted to be a writer of fiction.
	But because I had to make a living, I did not write fiction.
	And so writing became a job.
	And when writing became a job, it stopped being an art form.
	And so I had to have a different art form.
	And I've always loved, you know, I love all art forms.
	And so I had always done photography.
	And then I started doing printmaking and all kinds of other things.
	And that was really fun.
	And I was having a great time.
	You know, doing, having shows and selling things and, you know, not making a good living at all.
	Thank God I didn't have to make a living as an artist because that's really, really impossible.
	But I was doing it and it was great.
	And then in March 2020, actually, I guess in January and February, my husband and I were hearing about this virus in China like everybody else.
	And I looked it up and I looked at the numbers and I saw that it was a nothing burger.
	And so I stopped worrying about it.
	And I thought, okay, well, nobody's going to worry about this because it's really not affecting anybody and it's not really that dangerous.
	And all of a sudden, in the middle of March, they started telling us that, oh, and they were telling us, wash your hands and stay home if you're sick and everything's fine.
	Don't worry about it.
	Don't panic.
	It's nothing.
	Which was true.
	And then all of a sudden, there was this pivot and there was this bombardment of fear porn.
	And I am a person who is very averse to So whenever anybody around me is getting panicked or having anxiety, my reaction is to immediately question the basis of that.
	And stay calm.
	And also public health, by the way, one of the main precepts of public health is to keep people calm.
	That's the first thing that you do.
	First, you calm people down.
	Then you figure out what's going on.
	You don't first make everybody panic massively so that every person who has an itch on their butt thinks that they have COVID and then everybody rushes to the hospitals and overwhelms the system, right?
	That's not what you do.
	That's exactly the opposite of what public health does.
	Public health says, wait a minute, let's calm down.
	Here's what it actually is.
	Here's who it affects.
	Here are the symptoms.
	You don't need to rush to the hospital at all.
	And that way you don't overwhelm the health care system.
	So they did the opposite.
	Everything they did was the opposite of what I knew to be the actual public health protocols.
	And what scared me the most was that in the middle of March, with the lockdowns and everything, all of my media, so I was very left.
	I was in the left-wing bubble.
	That's why I'm also very sensitive to propaganda bubbles.
	I was in the propaganda bubble.
	Extracting oneself from a propaganda bubble is like getting out of a cult.
	It's very, very hard.
	It's your beliefs.
	It's your foundational beliefs in...
	The institutions and the people who you think have your best interests in mind and you find out that they don't.
	And that's extremely, extremely disorienting and destabilizing.
	Yeah, you're absolutely right.
	Plus, I mean, you are in the bubble probably together with your family, your friends, your acquaintances, your relatives.
	And if you get out of it, then you might leave all of that behind or a good part of it behind.
	That is absolutely devastating for anyone.
	It's devastating.
	And so for me, luckily, my husband and some of my kids had to come home.
	Their college careers were destroyed.
	Everything was horrible.
	I mean, we were very, very lucky.
	We are privileged, privileged people.
	We spend all the time with our kids at home.
	We had been empty nesters.
	We were so happy for our own selfish reasons to have them at home.
	We also had a friend staying with us.
	I completely ignored all the things that I could.
	In fact, you know, having lots of people over all the time and having, you know, dinner parties and playing games.
	And so we had a house that was a non-COVID house.
	But when I heard the propaganda and I realized that, so what I was saying is being in the bubble, that the New York Times and NPR and All of the academic institutions and the medical institutions and the doctors, they were all lying.
	They were lying.
	They weren't just saying things because they were misguided.
	They were literally lying about everything.
	And when I realized, I'll talk about myself, that everything I trusted was a lie, you know, that's like an existential crisis.
	And that's what I had.
	And so I started, like Sasha said, she was going crazy when she realized that they were shipping products that had no regulation at all and that were completely adulterated and poisonous.
	I had that reaction when they started lying to me about how dangerous the virus was, about how masks were somehow a good measure for something.
	About how social distancing and putting stickers on the floor.
	And I mean, I really was actually, and how they were torturing children.
	So torturing children was probably the worst.
	And I had these fights with people.
	Thank God my family, you know, even though they might not have gone as far as I did, they totally understood.
	Every day I would rant, rant.
	I would get up.
	We used to get the New York Times delivered to our house.
	We don't do that anymore.
	But at the time, I would get the newspaper, I would look at it, and I would start screaming.
	I would just start ranting.
	And they're lying about this and they're lying about that.
	And I had a game with my kids where we would get in the car and I would say, okay, I'm going to put NPR on and we're going to count how many seconds it takes, not even minutes.
	How many seconds does it take before they say virus, coronavirus, you know, pandemic?
	And it was always less than a minute.
	Did you place bets?
	Debbie, did you place bets?
	No, because I knew it was going to be less than a minute, but that would have been a good game.
	So the game was just to count how many seconds before they said it and then turn it off.
	So we did that, and so I turned it off.
	So if you have to turn it off within a minute, any time that you turn it on, you might as well not listen at all.
	So I stopped listening.
	And then I started trying to fight on a local level because I...
	Was it planning on doing writing?
	I mean, I started writing op-eds.
	I wrote an op-ed, I think, in early April or something, saying that, you know, the response is more deadly than the disease and we have to stop with all of this.
	And I sent it to all the papers and to Philadelphia papers and also national papers.
	You know, of course, nobody's interested in any of that.
	Then I started trying to fight.
	The arts organizations that I was a part of in Philadelphia.
	So you wrote these articles and you sent them to newspapers, a whole slew of newspapers, and nobody was interested to publish this?
	No response.
	None. So you couldn't get it out anywhere?
	No. I contacted the science writers at the Philadelphia Inquirer.
	I literally tried a one-on-one approach where I would try to present them with the scientific evidence just of what it means to say A case fatality rate and an infection fatality rate.
	Because there were so many scientific terms and ideas that were being perverted and manipulated during the pandemic.
	And these science writers were going along with all of it.
	And I didn't think they were doing it maliciously, but they were just doing it because case, case, cases, cases, cases.
	And all you had to say, and this is something that I was explaining to anybody who would listen, which is nobody.
	But if everybody's getting sick, If everybody's getting infected and nobody's dying, then this disease is not deadly.
	Good point.
	That's a very good and reasonable point.
	If you have a ticker tape on the bottom of your TV or whatever, I don't watch TV, but where the news is, and it says this many cases and this and that and millions of cases, that is a meaningless statistic.
	That statistic is actually telling you that this disease is not dangerous and you can turn off the TV and go live your life.
	Right. And moreover, Debbie, if you have a situation like that where everybody apparently has a disease and most people feel perfectly fine and have no problem, then you also ask yourself, well, what's wrong with the test?
	I mean, do they really have this disease?
	I mean, what kind of weird disease is that?
	Well, you feel perfectly fine.
	We now know that with this test, if you have enough cycles, you can declare everyone to have COVID if you want to.
	You know, you just have to.
	Dial up the cycles high enough.
	Is that correct, Sasha?
	Yes, correct.
	Well, first of all, it's not a test.
	It's fraudulently designated as a test, but it's not validated as any diagnostic test.
	It's a lab tool.
	Yeah, the inventor had said himself he was shocked.
	He didn't want it to be used as a test.
	It wasn't a test.
	It should be used as a test, correct?
	Correct. It should not be used as a test at all.
	Yeah, but they're using it fraudulently, declaring people Dangerous virus carriers when they present no danger to anyone, to themselves either.
	Send them in a two-week quarantine.
	The specific COVID test, the specific COVID PCR was created by Kristen Drosten, who is one of the Biodefense Industrial Complex main players.
	And he submitted the paper supposedly validating the test, and it got approved in less than 24 hours, which means nobody ever looked at the paper or, you know, tried to review it or anything like that.
	It was like in January when, like, they had some kind of whatever Sasha calls it, you know, whatever computer model they had for the virus.
	And they said, oh, yeah, well, we don't really have that one.
	We don't have the one that applies to actual SARS-CoV-2, but we have other ones that are...
	Coronaviruses or spike proteins or something that's similar.
	So we're just going to use that and that's going to be, and we're going to validate that.
	And so we're just going to, and now we validated it.
	Oh, look, we validated it in like two seconds.
	And now we wrote this paper and now we published it.
	Nobody looked at it.
	Nobody reviewed it.
	And now the PCR test that we didn't validate, that we didn't test, and it's based on some kind of computer model, that's the one that's going to tell us who has SARS-CoV-2.
	It's absurd, yes.
	And then they changed the definition of case.
	Because case, in all of history, a case is when somebody presents with symptoms that need treatment.
	There's no other way to define a case.
	I mean, you can't define a case as a healthy person.
	That's not a thing.
	And so I have the documents that show that the CDC was, at some point, there were internal communications saying that, oh, the WHO just changed the definition of case.
	And now a case is anyone who tests positive.
	Regardless of symptoms.
	They changed it.
	Officially. Something is wrong with your lighting.
	I didn't know that they changed the definition of that too.
	So they changed the definition of case.
	Yes. So even if you have no symptoms whatsoever, you're still a case if you test positive or whatever.
	If you test positive on this thing, whatever it is.
	They also changed the coding for death.
	They changed the coding for death?
	How to code the death certificates.
	That was changed right before or right at the beginning of 2020.
	Something is wrong with your lighting.
	I just wanted to tell you what is happening here.
	I'm in my daughter's apartment.
	It's some sort of a cave apartment.
	It's very, very dark.
	There's one south-facing window.
	And it doesn't have a curtain.
	And the sun is just now in between these other houses for like 10 minutes where the sun comes in through the window and I look like an absolute ghost.
	I was like, what's going on?
	I know.
	As soon as the sun moves, there's nothing I can do about it.
	Absolutely nothing.
	So you just have to bear with me.
	And I'm just going to, for this part of the interview, I'll just make sure that my video is not shown.
	I was like, the aliens are abducting you.
	It's a great effect, though.
	I love the effect.
	Right, right.
	I'm turning into a ghost.
	But I will become less ghostly once the sun is moving more towards west.
	Crazy, yeah.
	So yeah, I was saying about the death certificate coding.
	So that was also changed right around the beginning of the so-called pandemic.
	Yes, I will...
	So like in 2020?
	In 2020.
	So before, you had to...
	Only the primary cause of death would be recorded.
	And then they said, oh no, you can record multiple.
	And that's how they got all these death certificate fraud, where people died from all sorts of things.
	And, you know, also other people were publishing on that.
	They were showing, you know, here's death certificates that are declared COVID deaths, counted as COVID deaths.
	But in fact, these people had like five to seven comorbidities.
	They died of something, you know, old age, pneumonia, the heart disease, diabetes, kidney failure.
	Falling out of a window.
	Oh, wow.
	That is super interesting.
	Yeah, traffic accidents, all kinds of accidents, homicides.
	They were just tested post-mortem with PCR, found positive, and that went on a death certificate.
	So now CDC has all these death certificates that miraculously produce all this gigantic number of COVID deaths, which had nothing to do with it.
	Okay, so this is very interesting.
	I knew about the thing that somebody who was hit by a car and then they test this person for COVID while dying or maybe even after death.
	I have no idea.
	And then they would say, oh, this person had COVID and was killed by a car and we conclude that it's a COVID death.
	But I didn't know about this death certificate coding.
	So before 2020, you would give a primary...
	The primary source was only one source of death, like cancer, heart attack, pneumonia.
	Cancer, heart failure, kidney failure, you know, that sort of thing went on the desert.
	So you would boil it down to one cause of death.
	And then because of this change, you could now have multiple causes of death.
	And was there still some sort of like a primary cause and secondary causes or were they all like equal and you could pick the one that suited you best?
	I believe so.
	I have to check on that, the primary and secondary.
	But the point is that now you can have all these things tested for COVID, found positive with PCR, and CDC could grab that statistic and say, oh, look at all these COVID deaths.
	But nobody was dying from COVID.
	And by the way, the...
	So you could have declared if you wanted to, you could have declared like almost all deaths like COVID deaths.
	If you just do the PCR test even post-mortem with enough cycles until it turns positive.
	That's a neat little trick.
	And not only that, they also gave bonuses to doctors, to the funeral homes, to everyone who would go along.
	They also would give bonuses later on to the people who were killed by COVID vaccines.
	And I know several people, especially Ernie Ramirez, if you know this name, his son was killed by the COVID shot.
	They would go to the victims' families.
	So Ernie Ramirez was approached by FEMA, who said, we will give you $10,000 for the funeral expenses if you declare that this was COVID death.
	Wow, really?
	That's what they said.
	I know that they would pay for the funeral only when it was declared a COVID death.
	Yes. And funerals are expensive, so no wonder many people would have accepted that, even though they knew it was not a COVID death.
	Yep. And that's why if you ask people now, when I try to talk to people about this and explain to them, and I say things, and they say, well, but lots of people died of COVID.
	And I say, well, do you know anyone who died of COVID?
	Not a single person that I know.
	Well, one person does because of the hospital protocols.
	If it wasn't the hospital protocols, if it was just somebody who died of COVID, there's nobody who knows anybody who died of COVID.
	Yeah, I still don't know anybody who died of COVID.
	And another thing is, in that Pfizer clinical trial, also, I was tearing my hair out when I saw that first briefing document in December 2020 that went to the FDA.
	On which the EUA authorization was issued.
	In that briefing document, they summarized the data from their so-called clinical trial.
	So as you remember, the clinical trial was 40,000 people for Pfizer.
	And they ran it for six months.
	And the objective was to count the COVID cases in vaccinated and unvaccinated arms.
	And all that trial has demonstrated is that COVID is not dangerous.
	They definitively demonstrated by that.
	Because out of 40,000 people in six months, They could get, I believe it was like 160 cases, which is, you know, PCR positives.
	So that tells you right away.
	And there were no deaths.
	So that tells you right away.
	It's a BS thing.
	It affects nobody.
	You may get a tiny, tiny percentage of cases and even tinier percentage of deaths.
	So what are we talking about?
	So that whole trial just shows you COVID was nothing.
	Yeah, well, I mean, COVID was not dangerous to the vast majority of people.
	But I do think that some people died of COVID, but all these deaths, probably all of these deaths could have been prevented because the people who had, like, older people, obese people, people with comorbidities, they were really at risk.
	But if you had given them the therapy, I mean...
	It was known pretty quickly how you can treat them.
	It was not hydroxychloroquine.
	They knew that from SARS-CoV-1.
	There were studies about it.
	Ralph Baric himself wrote about how it worked.
	The guy who engineered the spike protein and the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
	So it was known what to do.
	It was not like some sort of a death sentence.
	You couldn't do anything.
	So the fact that some people actually died from it was because these working therapeutics were withheld from them.
	They were told to go home, come back when they couldn't breathe anymore.
	And then they got the death treatment.
	I mean, then they were put on remdesivir, they were put in the ventilators, and most of them died, like 80% of them died.
	So all of these deaths would have been preventable.
	So even for the few people for which this...
	This toxic spike protein really was dangerous.
	They could have been saved as well.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	You know, and the doctors, you know, we have experience with doctors who treated patients properly, like Dr. Mary Taliboden and Dr. Setti.
	You know, numerous doctors were treating with, you know, standard generic protocols.
	Steroids, if people need it, you know, with allergic reaction.
	And they didn't lose anyone.
	Yes, yes, exactly.
	Exactly. So it was definitely not a deadly disease at all.
	And that was known even in March 2020.
	I mean, remember reading about kids.
	Kids were not affected.
	It wasn't deadly to kids.
	It wasn't really deadly to anyone who wasn't already in danger of dying, was already had several co-morbidities, was obese, wasn't doing well.
	And then they let these people, and then they let these people die.
	I want to come back to you, Debbie.
	You were explaining to us how you got into this.
	And I wonder, before we get into the whole COVID and the vaccines and all that, continue your story and tell me what you found.
	Debbie found a really interesting document that I want you to talk about.
	Sure, yeah.
	So after about a year and a half of flailing around, like I described, trying to rebuild something resembling, you know, a life and understanding of the world, like I had to readjust my whole understanding of the world, trying to fight all of the local institutions, trying to fight against mask mandates, vaccine mandates, blah, blah, blah.
	I found Brownstone.
	And I sent Brownstone a letter that I had written to an art institution that I was closely affiliated with.
	And I said, maybe you can use this.
	And they published it.
	And so then I felt like I had a platform so I could actually write stuff and people might read it.
	Because I had stopped trying to send stuff to newspapers, I realized that it was completely useless.
	And being a writer by profession, I went back to that.
	I stopped doing visual arts.
	So the arts community collapsed.
	You know, the studio that I had, you know, you had to be in the building with masks.
	You know, when I tried to talk to fellow artists about it, you know, they were the worst.
	They were really the worst in terms of, like, they were very panicky.
	Really? The artists were the worst?
	They were the worst, yeah.
	Because you would think, I mean, the artists are the creative people and they think for themselves and they, you would, I wouldn't have thought so.
	Sasha, you are an artist too.
	Both of you are artists.
	Very interesting.
	And Sasha, actually, she publishes some of her art on her sub-stack.
	And Sasha, I love your art.
	It's good.
	I mean, it's good art.
	It's not some sort of fake art.
	It's good art.
	You're talented.
	You're talented.
	There's no fake art.
	But I was actually shocked.
	Because of what you're saying, Cornelia, I thought artists were questioners of authority.
	And that's all I do in my art.
	So I'm more of a conceptual artist, so I was doing art where I was basically using my husband's naked body as my subject.
	Wow, you let you do that?
	So he's an amazing person, and he...
	Basically, we look through all of the history of art and we realize that when people do nudes in art, it is 90% women, women's bodies, and it is a male artist doing his lover or whatever.
	Then we have the females doing females, and then we have the males doing males.
	So there's a lot of gay art where it's a nude male body.
	There is almost no art.
	Where a straight woman uses the body of her straight male partner as a subject, which is insane if you think about every male artist in history has used his female lovers as a subject at one point or another.
	And that is just a fact.
	We did a whole compilation of males by females, males by males, all of that, and we showed that there are barely any male nudes by females.
	And at the time, also, there was this whole thing going on with straight white men.
	You know, and wokeness and all of that.
	And so there was a lot to interrogate in that realm.
	And so I felt like I was doing, like, interesting work on an interesting subject.
	And all of a sudden, you know, I couldn't talk to anyone in the art world anymore or work with anyone in the art world anymore because they were all petrified.
	And if I tried to talk to them about masks or about anything or about how the disease wasn't affecting anyone, they would just get mad at me.
	So I stopped.
	I said, okay, so these people aren't the ones who are actually questioning.
	And these people are actually not.
	So apparently artists are actually not questioners of authority.
	Apparently they are actually very, very much prone to follow whatever panic narrative is presented to them.
	And that was also true in the theater.
	So I'm also very involved in the theater community in Philadelphia because my daughter wants to be an actress and went to theater school.
	And we have a local theater that I was involved with.
	And I was fighting them tooth and nail about vaccine mandates and about mask mandates.
	And they were all absolutely terrible.
	I mean, they kept the mask mandates and stuff much longer, much, much longer than necessary and than most other institutions.
	The arts institutions kept all the mandates longer.
	And who wants to go to a concert or play and wear a mask for two hours?
	I don't.
	It's horrible.
	It's horrible.
	And the people on the stage aren't wearing them, which is great.
	But why?
	The whole thing just was so terrible and awful that the whole art world, for me, that was one of the worst losses that I experienced was the loss of what was...
	My community and what I thought I wanted to do with my life.
	So I was like, okay, well, I'll go back to writing now because I know how to do that.
	And now I have a platform at Brownstone.
	And so I started just writing about how crazy everything was.
	And then I started writing.
	So Jeffrey Tucker, who's the founder of Brownstone and the editor there, asked if we could review Deborah Birx's book.
	Deborah Birx was the...
	Coordinator of the government's COVID Task Force.
	And I said, okay, whatever.
	I never read nonfiction, but I'll read this for you, Jeffrey.
	And I took the book and I...
	When did she publish her book, Debbie?
	2022, I think.
	2022. And so I was...
	And it's called Silent Invasion.
	Yeah. Right?
	Because why?
	Because millions of people are getting infected, but they're not sick.
	So immediately when I read that, I was like, okay, so this book is telling us that COVID is a nothing burger.
	Let's shut the book and let's, you know, move on.
	I mean, she was, Debbie, she was the one, Deborah Boggs, she was the one who wanted to test, test, test, test, test.
	That's all she wanted to do, test everybody and make sure that everybody was sick.
	Right? And now she's actually coming out, just these last days.
	Saying that it comes out that she fudged data and she's talking about all of a sudden...
	I wonder what she's hedging against now, but she has very much changed the tune of...
	No, actually, interestingly, she hasn't.
	So what they're doing is they're parading her out to say, oh, actually, the vaccines were not intended to prevent COVID.
	They were intended...
	To lower the severe, whatever nonsense.
	However, the contracts that were signed by the government, the DOD, with the pharmaceutical companies specifically state that these are contracts for vaccines to prevent COVID-19.
	That is the only reason that those products were ordered and paid for by the United States government.
	So when Deborah Brooks says, They were not intended to prevent COVID-19.
	She is lying.
	And so what they're doing is they're parading her out to lie and say that actually the contracts that were signed that said these are products that are supposed to prevent COVID-19, which means the product failed.
	It is a failed product.
	Even if you disregard everything that Sasha has been talking about for the last hour and a half about the laws.
	About vaccines, about biologics, about EUA, about PrEPAC.
	Ignore all of that.
	Just look at the contract for billions of dollars and hundreds of millions of vaccines that the government signed with the pharmaceutical companies.
	Just look at what it says.
	It says, vaccines to prevent COVID-19.
	If the vaccine did not prevent COVID-19, then it is a failed product.
	It did not do.
	What it was designed, paid for, and ordered to do.
	Therefore, any other thing that they say that it does, reduce severity, reduce, I don't even know what they pretend to claim, like make it less severe or make it less deadly.
	That's not what it was designed to do, and there's no evidence of it doing that from any clinical trial.
	Yeah, well, yes, right.
	There's no evidence of that from any clinical trial ever in the history of the vaccine.
	So those claims are A, not based on anything, and B, they actually don't address what the product was designed to do.
	Interesting. So that kind of brings us back to this whole question of what is a vaccine and that there is no legal definition, but in the contracts, it said the purpose of this product is to prevent COVID-19.
	I mean, that's really clearly spelled out.
	That's the purpose.
	It's really spelled out.
	It's all it's designed to do.
	Okay, so the contract was not fulfilled then.
	Correct. So can you sue?
	I mean, what happens in a case like that?
	Interestingly, Brooke Jackson has been suing since actually late 2020.
	If you know about Brooke Jackson's case.
	Yes. So she was a clinical trial manager at Pfizer and she observed all kinds of fraud.
	During conduct of the clinical trial, and then she was swiftly fired after she reported this to the FDA.
	So obviously FDA called Pfizer and told them to fire her.
	And, you know, since then she's been suing under False Claims Act, you know, the same allegations that they haven't fulfilled the contractual obligations, that the clinical trials were full of fraud.
	And the case has been dismissed several times.
	I think there's still...
	They're still appealing, but it has been dismissed again because of the PREP Act.
	And so Pfizer has successfully used PREP Act.
	DOJ joined Pfizer in their defense, also, you know, using PREP Act as a shield.
	And they're saying, you know, the payments in the contract were not predicated on fulfilling any obligations.
	So it was, you know, they were just payments for doses.
	And so you can read the case history.
	It's all online.
	It's Brooke Jackson's website.
	And you can read those documents and you can see for yourself what they're using.
	Also, famously, in the last dismissal, when the DOJ, Department of Justice, joined Pfizer in their defense, the judge agreed with them.
	And there's a famous statement there that says that if we continue to prosecute this case, we are running contrary to the United States public health policy.
	And now, given the background that the dismissal of the case essentially does not contest Brooks' allegations.
	So the dismissal works like this.
	They have to say even if everything that she says is true, so they're agreeing with her.
	Meaning even if vaccine is adulterated, contaminated, fraudulent, completely mislabeled and misrepresented, even if all of this is true, this is contrary to, you know, prosecuting this fraud is contrary to the United States public health policy, meaning that it's intentional.
	What they're doing is intentional.
	But wait, so it's contrary to the...
	To the United States public health policy.
	So what is the United States public health policy?
	Obviously, top-fold fraud and poisoning.
	Because that's how the case is framed.
	The case is framed.
	You are conducting fraudulent studies.
	The product is fraudulent, adulterated, contaminated, mislabeled.
	Therefore, it should be prosecuted.
	That's the allegations of the case.
	They come back, including the United States Department of Justice, comes back and says, no, we don't contest any of this.
	Even if it's all of this is true, we can't prosecute the case because it will go contrary to United States public health policy.
	So, right.
	So that's not a public health policy then.
	It's more like a public death policy.
	Right. I mean, that doesn't make any sense.
	So you have to explain this to me.
	Well, yeah.
	So that's what's written in the dismissal.
	I think the final dismissal, I mean, they've since submitted an appeal, but, you know, the district judge in Texas, Trunk Hill, so he sided with the motion to dismiss by Pfizer and Department of Justice,
	which stated this, that they don't want to, that they, the Department of Justice feels that Brooke Jackson's case is going to They contradict United States public health policy.
	And Brooks Jackson's case is False Claims Act, saying the government was defrauded by the manufacturer who made all these claims and didn't fulfill the obligations on the contract.
	Which it clearly was, right?
	Which it clearly was.
	Not really, because the government...
	Didn't actually contract with them to do anything except produce countermeasures that were completely unregulated under EUA.
	So as Sasha always says, they produced the fraud that the government ordered.
	Actually, the reason that all the cases have failed is because actually the government did not contract with them to do clinical trials.
	It did not contract with them to have good manufacturing practices.
	None of that was in the contracts.
	The contract said the company's in charge of overseeing all of that.
	Company can tell us or not tell us or do it or not do it or do some of it or do it however they want.
	And then they can come back and tell us that they did it and they can tell us that it was great.
	And we'll decide whether the evidence shows that the risks based on known, unknown, imaginary things outweigh whether the risks or the benefits outweigh the risks.
	And so the government actually did not obligate the companies to do anything.
	Uh, except produce a whole bunch of doses of something.
	Yeah. Well, so, so yeah, so the, so there's like a sensible, uh, and the real.
	So the real is, yeah, like when, when I reviewed the contracts and reviewed the law, essentially it's, it's a, it's a, all of this is designed to create like the illusion that stuff is regulated and it's done properly and it's contracted properly.
	So it's, it's created the illusion of that.
	In reality, there's no obligations, and they have several mechanisms to protect themselves from any liability, as we've witnessed, the PREP Act, the EUA countermeasure status, all that.
	Now, Brooke's case is, you know, in the context of a court case, you know, you have to allege certain theory, right?
	So they're going with the theory that, okay, yeah, everything was, you know, kind of rushed, but done properly.
	And if we assume that, then look at all this fraud that...
	We found, shouldn't it be prosecuted now?
	So that's the theory of the case.
	And they come back and say, no, all this fraud is fine.
	We don't care about this fraud.
	Okay, so very interesting.
	So these contracts, you see, they look kind of like proper contracts, and they say in there the product is there to prevent COVID-19, but the contract really is kind of window dressing.
	It doesn't really mean anything.
	It's just there as a facade to...
	You know, to pretend that everything is proper in the way it usually is.
	Whereas, in fact, with this EUA and the PrEP Act in place, all this was just no longer relevant because it was all superseded by this freedom from any liability.
	And freedom from anything, anything working or having the effect that it's supposed to have, all this was What was just invalidated by these illegal, as you said, by these illegal laws.
	Yeah. Wow.
	That's what the Department of Justice essentially confirmed to us by that, you know, interceding on behalf of Pfizer and defending them and saying, you know, no, everything is fine.
	Judge, you should dismiss this case.
	Oh, my God.
	I mean, if I were a judge, I don't know, I would commit suicide or what.
	I mean, what do you do as a judge?
	They say, oh, yeah, well, I mean, you are a judge, right?
	That's not just like you have.
	I mean, so what do you do as a judge?
	How can a judge go along with this?
	Well, he did.
	Judge Tranquil did.
	And I don't know what, you know, well, and it's not really difficult for him to present it as if he He issued the judgment according to the law, because the law is also set up to encourage, to enable all this, right?
	So he can just say, well, I just ruled the way the law is written, and that's his plausible deniability.
	Okay, fine.
	So he ruled the way the law was written, but then doesn't he have an obligation to say, and this is a law that is...
	Waging war on human beings or this is a law that is deadly and I have to speak out about?
	Because, I mean, if I'm a judge, am I really bound to follow law that is deadly?
	That has nothing to do with justice.
	Absolutely nothing.
	That's what all the judges so far have ruled this way.
	And, yeah, that's a good question.
	I think they understand exactly what they're doing.
	They're not stupid people.
	I followed the Brooke Jackson case.
	Did she write a book?
	I don't know.
	But I read something that she had written and she spoke about it.
	I don't know.
	But the way she explained what was going on in this trial, it was just absolutely hair-raising.
	It was awful.
	And good for her that she decided to be a whistleblower and she expected to be kind of...
	I think praised and said, oh, ma, this is horrible.
	And we didn't know and we are going to get this in order.
	And on the contrary, she was just fired like an hour later or something like that was really swift, if I remember correctly.
	Yeah. Yeah.
	So she put her life in danger.
	I really do.
	Yeah, she did.
	She's a brave woman.
	I know her.
	She's wonderful.
	And she's a hero, in my opinion, for doing this and going all the way and spending all the money and, you know.
	How does she even finance this?
	I mean, it must cost millions.
	Well, she's been fundraising.
	She's been fundraising for this case.
	Yeah, but that's a lot of work.
	I mean, yeah, you have to finance your own cases.
	One of the earlier decisions that's also very interesting, because part of the thing, part of the case that they brought was that in the contract, it says that they want 100 million doses.
	And that this is the military ordering 100 million doses of a prototype, manufacturing prototype, which is supposed to be for military purposes.
	And so they said, how could 100 million doses of this prototype be then used on civilian population if it was ordered under these contracts that are military contracts?
	And what the judge said was, I can't judge anything that has to do with the military.
	Well, who judges things that have to do with the military?
	Exactly. So if we have no recourse, so if the military signs contracts with Pfizer and we can't say anything about the military and the judge refuses to rule on anything, he said, I can't judge the military decisions.
	If the military made that decision, then, you know, there's nothing I can do about it.
	Yeah, but so the decision was made.
	For the civilian population.
	But the military is not exempt from law.
	According to this, they are.
	They are.
	And these 100 million doses, they were meant to be used for military personnel, or did I know?
	For the civilian population.
	But it was ordered by the military.
	Which brings us closer to the original topic of this interview, namely the COVID-19 and the involvement of the military.
	You know what I suggest?
	I mean, I had planned to actually talk more about what you researched, what's in the COVID-19, the U.S. military involvement, the intelligence services, etc., etc., and how there are similar structures in other countries, especially NATO countries.
	And we didn't really get around to it, but we talked for almost two hours, and I think it was really interesting.
	We got into all sorts of interesting stuff and rabbit holes, and I think that's totally fine.
	Because there's just so much and you cannot cover it in just an hour or two hours.
	So what do you think about this?
	You, Debbie, you just tell us about this pandemic plan that was the adapted plan and the meaning of that.
	And then I suggest that we wrap it up for this session and we do a follow-up.
	So this is part one and then we have a part two.
	Because there is so much more stuff to unravel that it just takes time.
	And it also takes so many new things and so many incredible things.
	You just have to go into it and try to come to grips with it.
	So what do you think?
	Let's do a second session, the second part?
	Yeah, hopefully.
	Okay. So, all right, we're going to do a sequel.
	But before we do that, Debbie, you tell us what you actually found out.
	So what I found was a document called the Pandemic Crisis Action Plan adapted for COVID.
	And yesterday, March 13th, was the fifth year anniversary of the date of that document.
	So the document is dated March 13th, 2020.
	And it is titled...
	The U.S. government COVID response plan.
	So that is the document where the United States government says what it's going to do about the coronavirus in 2020.
	And what I found, first of all, the document is not available on any government website or anywhere at all.
	The only reason I found it was because it was on a New York Times server where it had been leaked to the New York Times.
	They had used it to write a non-story about a few things in the document, and then they left it up on the server probably by accident.
	It's still there.
	You can still find it.
	So if you put PANCAP A into Google, you will find that link, and then you will find nothing.
	So you will find none of my articles.
	You will find nothing at all about that document.
	You will find another thing that's called PANCAP A, which is like a pan-Pacific something or other, and you'll find a whole lot of other things.
	So Google doesn't index anything that I write on Substack or on...
	Groundstone. Everything is very, very suppressed.
	And so what that document, I started reading it, and what it showed me was that a public health document that was supposed to show us how to manage this in the way that public health always manages disease outbreaks, which is they say, okay, when there's a cluster of cases in a local area, we will send help.
	We will increase hospital capacity.
	We will use our stockpile of antivirals and other things to try to help.
	You know, we'll send masks or PPE or whatever we need, depending on the local situation in various places.
	And the CDC will be in charge of communications and all kinds of just the usual protocols for emerging disease outbreaks, which they call pandemics.
	And then on top of that, there was a layer that had been inserted where actually no.
	The public health agencies aren't really in charge.
	And who is in charge?
	The task force.
	The task force is housed in the office of the vice president.
	So it's actually in the White House.
	It's not at any agency.
	It's not FOIA-able.
	You can't FOIA it.
	And it's run by the National Security Council.
	And the policy for COVID, for the COVID response, is run by the National Security Council.
	When I saw that, I almost fell off my chair.
	I didn't.
	Because as you asked at the beginning of the interview, Cornelia, when has the National Security Council ever been in charge of anything that's related to public health?
	Never. And so if they were in charge, that means that they considered it a national security threat.
	And as we know from Sasha's scoop, which she received a leaked video of...
	Pharmaceutical executives discussing how on February 4th, 2020, so over a month before the PAN-CAP-A was officially dated, I mean, they had been working on it, obviously, for months, but the pharmaceuticals executives said, yeah, on February 4th, we got a call from the Department of Defense, and they told us that the coronavirus was a national security threat.
	And they said it so casually, as if this was just like another kind of technical administrative detail.
	Because what that did was it unleashed all of the regulatory and legal, it opened up a framework in which they could start working on countermeasures and the PrEP Act would give them total indemnity.
	So it basically opened up the entire ability for the pharmaceutical companies to now develop whatever they wanted, so-called countermeasures for this virus, on February 4th, 2020.
	There were no deaths in the United States.
	There were a few dozen, maybe a dozen cases, so-called whatever cases identified.
	There were fewer than 500 deaths in the world.
	So the fact that they casually called it a national security threat on February 4th, they didn't tell the public.
	They didn't tell us that they were treating it as a national security threat.
	They didn't declare that there was a national security threat ever.
	They pretended that it was a public health emergency.
	And these executives were talking about it so casually because for them it was just a legal definition.
	It meant that what they were doing now was defined under a certain type of law that is not public health law.
	It is intended for national security threats, but there isn't really a national security threat because otherwise they would be scared and they would be upset.
	But they weren't.
	They were happy because now they could develop things without any legal oversight and any regulatory enforcement.
	So they needed the national security threat in order to get the PREP Act declared and to get the EUA declaration, correct?
	So that was like the foundation for enforcing or declaring these two things.
	Exactly. Okay.
	And as you just said, Debbie, the date, I mean, February 2, 2020, there was nothing.
	There wasn't a raging pandemic and people dying all over the place.
	There were hardly any cases in the United States, even on March 13, 2020.
	Correct. There were very few.
	How many cases were there?
	What did you just say?
	I don't remember.
	So on March 4, I mean, on February 4, which is the date of the...
	EUA emergency declaration and PrEP Act and also the date of the executives talking about it, there were no deaths in the United States.
	Yeah, there were maybe a couple of cases, PCR cases.
	Okay, well, this is incredible.
	So there were no deaths and they declare a national security threat in order to get the PrEP Act and the EUA.
	There was no national security threat.
	There was no widespread disease.
	There was no pandemic.
	There was nothing like that.
	And then you said that people didn't know that it was declared a national security threat.
	When did that become even public?
	Never. Well, never.
	Because of you, right?
	Only based on this video recording that we know.
	And I got it in like 22. And I didn't realize what it was at the beginning.
	And when I started getting information about the law, then it kind of clicked in my head.
	So where did you get this tape from, Sasha?
	From a whistleblower.
	A person was in that meeting who recorded this meeting.
	And say again, so there was a whistleblower who sent you this tape, and the tape was from a meeting between...
	It's a meeting at AstraZeneca at the end of 2020.
	When they were doing kind of like executive presentation on Zoom.
	At the end of 2019, you mean?
	No, 2020.
	Oh, so he sent it to you later?
	He sent it to me later.
	So the recording is from end of 2020.
	They were doing kind of like a recap of the year because they got the monoclonal antibodies approved based on this.
	And they were discussing this whole history.
	So there's a six-minute recording where Pascal Soro, the CEO of AstraZeneca, and VP of Monoclonal Antibodies, Mark Esser, are kind of rehashing this history and saying, oh yeah, on February 4th we received a phone call from DARPA telling us this national security threat.
	Okay, and that was leaked by Whistleblower.
	Do you know who that is?
	He's anonymous, actually.
	I don't know that person.
	Okay, okay.
	Well, no wonder they were happy, right?
	Because it meant, oh my God, we can do whatever we want.
	Well, I mean, it's hard to imagine.
	I mean, are you really happy?
	I mean, don't you want to...
	What? My dog is here and he's wagging.
	I know, I know.
	I can see it.
	What a nice dog.
	What a nice tail he is.
	I don't know about the...
	Don't see the rest.
	I met your dog, Debbie.
	Anyway, so, yes.
	So, I mean, so you said that they sounded happy in this?
	Yep. So that's the amazing thing.
	So the whole idea of...
	So the fact that the National Security Council was in charge and the fact that the entire thing was a military operation...
	If it were real, if it were a real national security threat, everybody would be terrified, I would think.
	I mean, if their lives were in danger, if it was a national security threat, their lives would be in danger, right?
	But they didn't feel their lives were in danger.
	Nobody felt their lives were in danger.
	They're celebrating it as like, hey, we just got this lottery ticket.
	We win.
	Because they got the legal framework that they needed.
	It had nothing to do with actual national security.
	But that's how it was treated, and that's how it was treated in the PANCAP-A, Cornelia, which is that document that you're asking about.
	So in that document, there's all these inserts and all these comments that actually HHS is in charge, but they're not really in charge.
	CDC is in charge of communications, but actually, no, it all has to go through the office of the vice president, which is the task force.
	And so it's a document that is a very interesting combination of a public health document that was then mutated and added on to in order to sort of reflect the new governing structure, which was the National Security Council.
	And then five days after that document was published, HHS, which was still officially supposed to be the lead federal agency in charge of COVID, in that document it says repeatedly that it is.
	President Trump's emergency declarations and in all of the declarations that the CDC made and that everybody made about COVID, HHS is the lead federal agency.
	HHS is the lead federal agency because in law it says that HHS has to be the lead federal agency.
	But on March 18th, they were no longer the lead federal agency.
	FEMA, which is never in charge of public health ever, it's in charge of that.
	So then the Department of Homeland Security became in charge.
	So HHS was out of the picture.
	CDC was out of the picture.
	NIAID, which is Fauci, out of the picture.
	They were out of the picture.
	They were not in charge of policy.
	They were not in charge of implementation.
	They were only in charge of PR.
	They were in charge of going in front of the cameras and saying, this is a public health emergency, and these are the public health measures that we are going to use, when behind the scenes they were saying, this is a national security emergency.
	And these are the lockdown until vaccine measures that we're going to use.
	Okay, so who was in charge?
	Was it the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Defense?
	All together.
	And the National Security Council, all together.
	Okay, because it's all wrapped up in the National Security Council.
	Yeah, so under National Security, all the executive branch agencies merged together, and they actually explicitly call it whole-of-government approach.
	Yes. There are several videos from DOD, from Pentagon Press events that I have reviewed extensively.
	And in all of those videos, I even caught a clip of them repeating whole of government at least 14, 15 times throughout one presentation.
	They're repeating whole of government, whole of government.
	By the way, Sasha, they did that in a lot of other countries too.
	So they used the same framework in all the countries.
	Whole of government, whole of government, which basically means...
	The military and the defense and the intelligence, they're all taking over and everybody has to do what they say.
	Interesting. So there's already an example of what you describe, you know, that they reacted in the same way, that they even used the same words.
	Okay, so I think this is a great place to stop.
	So we have reached this very strange document that you found that talked about a national security threat.
	That nobody knew.
	Population wasn't informed of it.
	I would think if there is a national security threat in a country, everybody would know.
	You wouldn't have to be told.
	I would think.
	Nobody saw it.
	It was a secret.
	It was a national security threat.
	It was kept secret.
	HHS was no longer in charge, but National Security Council with the Department of Urban Security and the Department of Defense and other intelligence services.
	And the question is...
	Why? For what?
	What's happening?
	Nothing is going on.
	People, not even a single person has died.
	So it's a big, what the heck is going on here, right?
	And nobody knew because people thought, well, what people told that FEMA was in charge, I missed that, I think, back then in 2020.
	I didn't know that FEMA was put into charge.
	Was that something that was publicized widely?
	Nobody knew it.
	It was public knowledge.
	Nobody wrote about it.
	Nobody knew about it.
	Yeah, it was announced.
	So when Trump made a declaration under Stafford Act, which actually has never been done in U.S. history.
	In all 50 states.
	It has been done for FEMA.
	So Stafford Act is an act that FEMA uses to release funds and resources in order to help in a disaster situation, which is all FEMA is supposed to do.
	Help with disasters, earthquakes, fires, floods.
	That's what FEMA does.
	And they happen locally and they happen somewhere.
	Declare a Stafford Act for that place.
	And it has never been done for a disease, right?
	For the entire U.S. And it was designed for all 50 states at the same time.
	So it's supposed to be local.
	And they did it for all 50 states at the same time.
	And then they said, okay, now FEMA's in charge.
	And it was public.
	The New York Times didn't report on it.
	In fact, the New York Times had this document.
	Pan-Cab A, which says that the National Security Council is in charge of COVID policy, and the article that they published based on this leaked document that they got was something about how, oh, there's going to be disruptions to trade, and, you know, there might be some lockdowns for, you know, whatever.
	They produced a non-article using this incredible document that they had leaked to them, and if it wasn't on their server, I never would have seen it.
	So the document was leaked to the New York Times.
	It wasn't given to them.
	I mean, they might have just...
	Well, I don't know.
	Probably not.
	It probably was leaked.
	No, they said in the article that it was leaked to them.
	Oh, I see.
	So, okay.
	Well, maybe that's true.
	Maybe it's not true.
	But so let's say it was leaked to them and they just sat on it and never really said what is in it.
	So that means people...
	Most people thought that HHS was still in charge.
	The health agencies were in charge.
	Fauci was the one who was...
	Well, he wasn't really the top guy, but he was kind of in charge.
	At least he was like the spokesperson or the face that people knew.
	But nobody really knew what was going on behind the scenes.
	That we had a national security threat.
	That the whole response to COVID was now in the hands of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, of other intelligence services.
	All that was not known to the population.
	No. And it still is not known to the population.
	Okay. So I think this is a great place to stop.
	And isn't it interesting?
	We needed two hours even to get to this point.
	I mean, right?
	We should do a sequel.
	Yes, we do a sequel.
	And there's so much more.
	So much more to discuss.
	But we'll continue.
	We'll continue at this point.
	Okay, thank you very much.
	Thank you, Cornelia.
	I'm going to go let my dog out.
	He needs some lunch.

▲