All Episodes
Previous Next
April 26, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
01:01:05
The PREP Act: A License to Kill & an Act of TREASON | Sasha Latypova & Katherine Watt
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the Fed, insiders bringing accountability, integrity, and reform to a broken bureaucracy.
At Fed for Freedom, we value constructive dissent and healthy debate.
The views and opinions shared in today's episode are those of the speaker alone, and do not express the views or opinions of the U.S. government or any other employer.
Welcome back to this week's episode of The Feds.
I am Stephanie Weidel.
Please, before we begin, go ahead and like this episode.
If you can comment, comment, and as always, share it with your friends.
We have a new website up, so go ahead and check it out and donate towards our mission at fedsforfreedom.org.
Today, we have two very distinguished guests, Sasha Latyapova and Catherine Watt.
Catherine Watt is a reporter, paralegal, wife and mother.
Her primary work product is a timeline documenting acts of treason committed by federal legislators, executives, civil administrators and judges called the American Domestic Bioterrorism Program and can be found at her popular substack,
Bailiwick News.
Sasha Latyapova is an independent writer and researcher.
She spent 25 years of her professional career in healthcare technology, medical device, and pharmaceutical R&D industries.
Sasha has retired from pharma and currently writes a popular independent substack publication called Due Diligence and Art.
Thank you both, Catherine and Sasha, for joining me today.
It is such a pleasure to have you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for inviting us.
Thank you.
Well, let's start with you, Sasha.
Would you briefly describe your background and when and how you started questioning the given narratives that we were being told by the government and pharmaceutical industries?
Right.
Well, I'm originally from the Soviet Union, from Ukraine at the time, was a republic in the Soviet Union.
And I came to the U.S. to study for my master's degree.
And then I got a job and stayed and got married and had children and so forth.
I worked for about 25 years total in pharmaceutical medical device technologies and drug development.
I ran several companies doing contract research work for pharmaceutical clients doing clinical trials and interacting with FDA, with EMA, with Japan regulators, submitting data, approving drugs.
And so I've learned a lot about the industry.
I retired before 2020 because we sold our companies.
I didn't need to work.
And then, you know, in 2020, I became extremely concerned with what was going on.
And I started my independent research and started publishing.
I had no social media presence.
And I started publishing.
I was banned everywhere.
I was putting videos on the shoot with like 200, 400 subscribers.
Um, type of a deal.
And, you know, from then on, but I continued and, you know, now I am writing on Substack and continuing my independent analysis.
And I met Catherine on Substack and we started collaborating.
And so we're basically now publishing two independent publications, talking about these issues and, you know, trying to, trying to get something, something stopped here.
Let me ask Sasha, when did you start drawing a connection between the totalitarianism that we are seeing happening within the United States and where you came from, the totalitarianism there?
Yes, so initially I didn't make that connection.
I just thought something wrong was going on with what I knew, which is the pharmaceutical R&D and healthcare industry, and there were some actions of the public health agencies that I previously trusted that just like...
We're incomprehensible to me and why were they doing this knowing what they know, which I knew what they knew.
And it took me a while to figure out what actually is going on.
And, you know, meeting Catherine on Substack was instrumental because she's doing the legal research.
And once understanding what laws got invoked for what purpose and what the net effect was, then this picture started evolving in my head.
That this is a march toward some sort of global totalitarian, you can call it communist, you can call it fascist.
Actually, fascist is probably more apt definition because it's a merger of corporations and the state for purposes of establishing this totalitarian regime and then, you know, profiting off of it.
So that's basically what we are in right now.
Also, I see it ongoing.
Trump administration, unfortunately, all of their moves right now are actually toward that goal versus undoing that.
Could you just unpack what you're seeing in the current administration, how it's not stopping this move towards what you're saying is fascism?
Right.
So I actually just had this discussion with my husband this morning.
Now, I think the main theme I'm...
Very briefly.
It's because what is going on right now, Trump is doing both affecting the government, so slashing the government drastically, which, you know, in principle, I support.
I support very limited government, actually as little government as possible.
So, like, that would be a positive idea in my head.
But then he's also simultaneously crashing the private sector by tariffs.
And this is going globally.
So what happens is we're going to...
So this is, in my opinion, this is a precursor to the Great Depression.
And exactly, we didn't have federal government before the Great Depression and then FDR, Great New Deal.
That's your way of establishing more government.
And more and more and more and more government eventually resolves in a totalitarian regime.
So this is another iteration of this.
Crash everything.
Drive total poverty on both sides.
Because if you are laying off a lot of government workers, if you have healthy private sector, the private sector can absorb them and you have no problem.
Now you have net good effect.
You have smaller government, bigger thriving private sector, more competition and more wealth created.
But no, we have government workers getting laid off.
They have nowhere to go because private sector is now freezing employment immediately.
That's the first move everyone does.
They freeze investment, freeze hiring.
Until you figure out what's going on.
So now we have on both sides, we have huge attack and people have nowhere to go other than to poverty.
And that's what they want.
And then they want Great Depression.
And then they want to bring in, oh, now we're going to save everyone by universal basic income.
We're just going to help.
We're going to make a great new deal.
It's going to be a new world order where you're going to own nothing and be happy.
That's what they told you, right?
That's what I see right now.
Starting, we started off at a very heavy note.
Okay, Catherine, give us your background.
Your background is in the legal arena, correct?
Yes.
I went to Penn State.
I got a degree in 1996 in philosophy with a minor in natural sciences.
And then I worked as a reporter.
And then I got a paralegal certificate, not from Penn State, from a community college.
And then I worked for lawyers.
Doing constitutional law, family law, environmental law.
The most relevant piece of that is that I got involved in 2005 with an organization called the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which worked on environmental issues and had put together an organizing framework around challenging the preemption doctrine,
which is a doctrine in law that higher levels like the federal to the state or the state to the local can come in and block or supersede or otherwise throw out the lower level.
I had worked on that kind of stuff between 2005 and the end of 2019.
And the fact that I had done that is why I Absolutely.
And we're going to be talking about the PREP Act today, which makes your previous work very relevant.
Before we get to that, let me ask.
Given your background in the legal community, why do you think so few lawyers were willing to represent individuals and organizations like Feds for Freedom who are trying to fight the COVID mandates and actually ask that their constitutional rights be respected?
So I wondered about that for a really long time, especially after I had read the PrEP Act, which I read in, I think, March of 2022.
And I have the copy that I printed out and I have my margin notes with all kinds of exclamation points.
I'm like, what the hell is going on?
Anyone who read that or has read it takes probably about 15 minutes and has any understanding of law and especially any understanding of preemption doctrine could see immediately that that was a huge problem because what it had basically done is use a statute to overthrow the Constitution.
And claim that the organization doing that was a constitutionally legitimate organization, namely Congress and the President.
So I wondered, between 2022, as I kept working on it, I kept writing about it.
In April of 2022, I sent the information, because a reader suggested that I send it, I sent it to Aaron Seary.
I got no response from him.
I got a cursory response from Elizabeth Frame, who is one of his colleagues.
Then I didn't hear anything else.
And by the middle of 2023, I came to the conclusion that they weren't talking about it, either because they were totally in support of the overthrow and they just want to get their piece of the financial, whatever money is to be made in the process of continuing to fool people into thinking that the Constitution is still operative.
They wanted to get their piece.
Or they were so terrified by the implications of To
to whatever extent you can think of it as a monolithic thing, most of the ones who are most prominent do not talk about this.
And I think that's why.
Thank you.
Yeah, and in addition to that, most high-profile law firms, or pretty much any large corporate law firm or even midsize and so forth, they're all conflicted.
They all work for the federal government, and most of them work for the Department of Defense, too.
They will not take these cases because the Department of Defense is behind this operation.
And also, besides being conflicted, even the individual practitioners, well, for the small individual practitioners, access to money and funding these cases is the first thing that comes to mind to prevent them from taking them because they see it and they're like,
there's no way I can raise so much money.
This takes hundreds of thousands of dollars and some of the cases might take millions of dollars to prosecute.
So they just look at it and it's like, no way.
Large ones that have resources are conflicted.
And finally, everyone is incentivized to ignore PrEP Act.
On both sides.
I just published an article this morning about 25 states or 23 states, two governors, suing HHS and Kennedy for clawbacks of the COVID pandemic fronts.
And that lawsuit with 25 states' legal eagles mentions PrEP Act.
Not once.
Not once.
So they're incentivized to ignore it, even though it would have strengthened their case to say, because they're claiming that these pandemic dollars are, you know, are not pandemic and not emergency dollars anymore.
They were meant to be after pandemic because pandemic is over.
So they were meant as permanent public health funding from federal government now, right?
So we can't claw them back.
And while the PREP Act remains extended, like the declaration remains in place, meaning it's not over, so it would have strengths in their case to say, hey, we're still in their emergency, you should pay us.
But they're not.
They're ignoring it.
And so will HHS.
So that's my prediction.
HHS will also ignore it because it's inconvenient to point to it because that will unravel the whole scam.
Okay, so...
Let's go back just a little bit, and we're going to continue talking about the PREP Act.
So, the PREP Act is the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act.
It was enacted in 2005 under George W. Bush that gave liability protections to pharmaceutical industries and healthcare providers during public health emergencies.
It kind of seems like a good idea, kind of, but maybe not.
What is particularly of interest in our discussion today is that the ability Is the ability this act gives to rapidly produce and distribute medical countermeasures with no liability and with no need to provide informed consent.
And this was the justification that was given that the military gave to their EUA emergency use authorized vaccine campaign.
This is what was pointed to when federal employees pushed back against the COVID measures.
So how does this usurp?
The U.S. Constitution and state constitutions.
So, Kathy, there are three sections of it that are where the core of the treason sits.
And the overall section is 42 U.S.C.
247D-6D.
And the three sections are B7, B8, and B9.
And B7 is the one that precludes...
All judicial review of an HHS secretary declaration or determination.
They have a couple different names for a couple different types of things that they do.
One is the determination that an emergency exists, which they can do without any evidence.
There's no requirement for any evidence.
There's no standard of evidence.
They just say that it exists, and that is taken as a presumption.
If they say it exists, then it does.
Then there's declarations which are built on that.
And the declarations pertain to the products.
And that's them saying that given I, the HHS Secretary, have said this threat exists, I am also declaring, also unilaterally, also without any evidence, that I recommend the manufacture, testing,
development, distribution, administration, and use of covered countermeasures.
So it covers the products and it covers the event that is the pretext for the products.
There can be no judicial review of either of those things under this B7 section.
Then there's the B8 section, which is the preemption of state law.
And that says to all of the states, nothing
have in your laws or your constitutions or any other legal instrument in your state can be different or can impose different standards or can do different review type things for the things that the HHS secretary has said
about the
And then the third piece is B9, which is a report to Congress, and it basically says the HHS secretary should report to Congress within 30 days why he has done this, but it doesn't say anything about, again,
evidence.
He doesn't have to produce any evidence, and Congress has no authority.
They don't explain or provide or have any provision for them to overrule or override or review what the HHS secretary has said exists, which may not exist at all, and in this case it did not,
and they have no ability to override what he says about the recommendation for these countermeasures to be produced and used.
What was going on in 2005 that...
They were traumatized into compliance by 9-11 and the so-called anthrax attacks of 2001.
And those also were orchestrated, but they were used as the pretext to put into place these laws and many other laws that had been written long before.
The events actually happened because they had been building up.
That's how they do it.
They do piece by piece by piece, adding on more and more layers.
So I think that's what the states were told starting in 2001.
Now there is this huge bioterrorism threat.
You must prepare your states for it, and you must submit your states to federal jurisdiction and authority in the event that these things happen.
And they were plainly just paid off.
So as I said, this money, the spigot of money that comes from the federal government, the federal government said, you know, we're going to put this law and then you're going to get all this funding for all these preparedness measures and so forth.
And actually, you know, Catherine found that Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Edward Kennedy and Byrd were objecting, objecting very correctly.
On very good grounds to the passage of this 2005 Act.
And so those quotes, she published those quotes, and I have used them in presentations.
They're terrific.
And then, yes.
To these people.
What happened to them?
And then they voted yes.
After saying it's unconstitutional, it violates like five amendments of the Constitution, those same people turned around and voted yes.
So that's treason.
And that's how you know the deep state is alive and well.
Sorry, go ahead, Catherine.
Part of that is that the Republicans slipped it into an appropriations bill on December 18th of 2005, which I think was a Sunday night.
So the other senators found out about it that night or later the next day.
They were pretty quick about getting a legal opinion from Edwin Chemerinsky, who's a legal scholar.
I think he's now at Berkeley.
He entered that information, their objections, based on his very good constitutional analysis.
He wrote his letter to them December 20th.
December 21st, they had the only, as far as I know, debate or discussion of this provision at all, because it had only been added three days before.
So that's when Kennedy and Clinton and these other Democrats did their speeches on December 21st.
Then they had a vote on a motion to remove that section from the appropriations bill.
And that vote was actually kind of a party line vote.
And the Democrats did vote to remove it from the
defense appropriations bill.
The Republicans voted for it, but it failed.
And then they had the vote on the overall appropriations bill to which this had been attached, and they all voted for it.
Wow.
So, what was this act used for between 2005 and COVID?
Mostly, I would say the 2009 H1N1.
But they did not use all of the features of it.
And the main thing they didn't use was the sort of shock and awe national campaign to get everyone to take it.
With employer mandates and the other kinds of pressure tactics.
They made the same bad products from the same bad companies, but they were more gentle about saying, we think it's a good idea.
And a lot of people did take it and a lot of people didn't, and they didn't really push that a whole lot harder.
Yeah, so up until 2020, it's correct.
So it's never been used as a national.
As a national strategy or national application of this thing nationally.
So it's important.
So they were using it essentially as mostly as a kind of like a money laundering mechanism.
So they would order these poisonous concoctions and things from their chronic companies.
The government is the sole buyer.
It goes into the stockpile.
They used it on service members.
So they used it on military, the answer acts, all that.
So they used it, but they never applied it nationally.
I think those were kind of like practice runs and get everyone accustomed for 20 years that, well, we're just buying things for national stockpile.
Maybe sometime we'll need it.
And then, yeah, it was the whole show in combination with the Stafford Duck Declaration done in all 50 states, which has never been done before.
And, you know, all this...
Enormous campaign and then forcing everyone, all the civilian population, and then also lying.
So the feature in this law is that you can lie about countermeasures legally.
So countermeasures, they are not regulated, no consumer protections apply to them, and you can lie about them.
So misbranding is legal under this law.
So lying about the fact that these are fully approved medications, that they're safe and effective, all of this is legal.
So that has never been used for good reason, because it would have been caught and terminated, right?
So they wanted to use it, but only when it mattered, which is now.
And how do they say the line, we can lie about it?
How is that phrased in the PrEP Act?
It says specifically that...
Regardless of anything that happens, these products, EUA countermeasures, shall not be considered adulterated, meaning anything goes, they're not regulated, can contain any ingredients, or misbranded, which means lying is okay.
They're not regulated for honesty in marketing or honesty in claims and safety claims, efficacy claims.
None of it is applicable.
It's okay to lie about them.
And the other piece of that is that they don't.
It's things that are missing from the law.
There is no provision that requires anything to be pure or demonstrated pure or unadulterated or demonstrated unadulterated or accurately labeled and demonstrably accurately labeled.
So they don't have those provisions, which means you can't be found in violation of a provision that doesn't exist.
And also what Sasha said.
And do you have records of the money given to the states under the PREP Act?
Yes, I have some examples of they were intergovernmental contracts.
And yeah, so there is a huge amount.
So the original appropriation was like $2 trillion, but I think it was more like $4 trillion spent on this.
And mostly I focused on contracts for countermeasures, of which there are hundreds.
Like, 400 or so that have been FOIA'd.
And that's not all.
It's just a sampling.
So I mostly was focusing on that.
But there were also intergovernmental agreements and contracts going to, essentially, not just the state, the states, and then directly to the municipalities, directly to the school districts, directly to large employers.
So all of that exists.
I haven't, like, reviewed all of it.
I have some samples of them.
Yeah.
And what money through things like the CARES Act?
And it related those early congressional acts to funnel funds quickly to, like, small businesses and school districts and states.
That's where the money...
What was that money to be used as?
Well, they were saying it's a relief.
It's emergency relief funding.
So, of course, everybody loves it, you know, free money.
But it also came with provisions such as you have to sign a suspect for these municipal ones that I've seen.
You have to sign off to follow all HHS and CDC guidelines now and in the future.
So you're like blank signing away that you're going to, otherwise you'll have to return this money, right?
It's a mafia tactic, right?
So they're giving you money now and now you have to sign off and you're going to agree with everything that they're asking you to do and we'll do it.
Yes.
So up through January, I was homeschooling my children.
I have put them into a private Christian school.
It's amazing, this school.
The school did not follow any of the COVID measures.
They refused to shut down.
They refused to mask the kids.
They refused the money that they were offered to mask the kids.
And I was stunned at the measures that the state would take or the district would take.
To try to bribe the schools into masking their children.
Yes, yes.
It's disgusting.
It's like this everywhere.
So we were talking to a friend of ours, another sub stacker.
She had children who were in the homeschooling co-op.
It was like 25 kids, right?
So 25 kids, like it's a tiny, tiny thing.
They were offered bribes.
It was very aggressive.
So they were going direct to the, you know, final frontier.
You know, 25 kids over here.
We have to get them.
It was that important.
Was this done to any...
Now, I know that there's separation between church and state, but was there any of the bribery to churches?
Of course, yes, because there is no separation of church and state.
Right?
Most of the churches are 503C corporations, so they're not separate from the government.
They're part of the government.
The church, to be completely separate, and because of this corporate status, now...
The government has all kinds of controls over the church.
And that's why most of the churches shut down.
Only the ones that were not incorporated like that, you know why they were so set on masking.
They were so, you know, that masking was like one of the most important pillars of this whole thing.
Because we're just now finding out from another collaborator who's working on identifying all these PCR tests and so forth.
So masking induces acidosis because you're re...
Inhaling your own CO2.
In fact, it induces acidosis within like 30 minutes of masking.
You re-inhale your own CO2 and depending on your own health status and vulnerability, age and so forth, and it's more prevalent in children and in elderly, you're going to get dehydrated and you're going to get acidified and your mouth and nose are going to get acidified and that triggers positives for PCR.
That's the thing that PCR measures is acidity levels.
So that's how they were getting the, you know, that was their mechanism too.
And it also can trigger, you know, in a vulnerable state in the winter, for some people, it can trigger the cold.
So actually, it is the mechanism to induce common cold and also to undo it, is to deacidify quickly.
So that's demonstrated in clinical studies.
And so they knew it, and that was the mechanism to make people sick and also trigger false positives for those people who were not sick.
There was a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling just in late March 2025, ruling that the PREP Act does not preempt state constitutional claims for violations of fundamental rights.
So the case involved a boy who was administered an mRNA shot without the parent's approval.
And the court held that the claims related to the parent's right to control the upbringing of their children and the individual's right to bodily integrity.
Under North Carolina, under the North Carolina Constitution, are not usurped by the PREP Act.
I mean, this is kind of a big deal.
What were your all's initial thoughts?
And I'll start with you, Catherine.
What was your initial thoughts on the significance of this court decision and trying to get rid of the PREP Act?
I read Sasha's analysis of it, and I read a couple other people's, but I had not read the case until this morning when I got your outline for the interview.
So I did go through it really quickly, and I tend to think that the dissenting opinion, which said the opposite of what you just said, it said the dissenter judges think that under the circumstances the PREP Act preemption does apply,
even to the state of North Carolina's constitution.
I think he, or they, I think it's two judges, are probably legally correct, because they...
I mentioned this section B8 that I mentioned earlier about preemption of all state law, whether it's your tort laws or your constitution or any other legal instrument at the state level.
And the dissenting judges seem to believe that makes sense because they're attributing to Congress the intent.
To make the PREP Act so broad because they're attributing to Congress the benevolent goal of getting medical countermeasures developed and distributed and in use as soon as possible.
The majority opinion has to sort of jump through a lot of hoops to try to pretend that that's not the case.
And I can understand my sense on reading it again.
I read it today was.
They're kind of in shock because.
The implications of the PrEP Act, as it's written, may have dawned on them through this case.
And what they're trying to do is express how horrified they are that Congress is doing this and leave an out by saying that can't possibly be what Congress meant, when in fact it is exactly what Congress meant.
So I think it's a good case because...
Like you pointed out in the outline and other people pointed out, it sets up a conflict between the Maine state decision and the North Carolina state decision, which sets up an opportunity for it to go to the Supreme Court because they will need to resolve the discrepancies.
I tend to think the Supreme Court is going to come down on the side of, yes, Congress intended, with the PREP Act, to void the Constitution, to shut down all of the state legal instruments that might have gotten in the way.
Or might in the future get in the way of getting these poisons into as many people as quickly as possible.
And that will be like another ratification layer.
But I do think it's a good case and I do think it sets up a good opportunity to clarify the disaster that the PREP Act is for a lot more people.
Yeah, one of the majority decision judges wrote a note, a concurring note.
Which was very good because it's a very layman-terms explanation of what exactly transpires with PrEP Act.
So she said that, you know, if you're standing in a coffee line at Starbucks and somebody comes in, injects everyone with poison, and, you know, people die and get injured, and then they say, well, we were here from the government preventing the next pandemic.
But, you know, you can't do anything about us.
So it's a license to kill.
PrEP Act is a license to kill.
The license to deceive and the license to kill.
It's deceived.
So majority of this, obviously, if you want to run a deception like this, you know that by force, you're not going to get very far.
You're going to get stalked.
So you need to deceive people into voluntarily submitting to those injections.
And then with all this fake theater and COVID pandemic fear mongering and all these, you know, Johns Hopkins tracker of COVID bulls all over the place, you know, so...
That's what they were doing so that people voluntarily run in and, you know, get those injections.
So if destruction of the PrEP Act will not happen through the courts, how can it happen?
Well, so this is what we're focusing on right now with a number of colleagues, including Catherine and some other collaborators.
So there are a couple of things that need to happen.
So the PREP Act must be repealed.
Now, this is a difficult uphill battle, which the current administration so far has expressed no interest in even acknowledging that that's the problem.
But that's the ultimate objective, is to get rid of this bad, evil law.
It's illegal law.
It's unconstitutional law.
Now, in the...
In the meantime, what can be done is the public and professionals, especially healthcare professionals and legal professionals and any person who has interest in it and the future of their children, doesn't matter which side they're on, even on the evil side.
As I said, I'm happy to talk to anyone.
Their children and their grandchildren are going to be subject to this, ultimately.
And so they need to be educated about the monstrous illegality of all these EUA countermeasures being pushed as safe and effective approved FDA vaccines.
So another thing that happened, Peter Marks, who is head of CBER, just resigned.
He is the key guy who needs to be in jail, who needs to be on trial for his life for committing mass murder because he was the one who fronted that bait-and-switch scheme.
He was the one who went on record, even in court declarations, and I've published that.
In court declarations, in other venues, he fronted this bait-and-switch.
He went and said, even though, so EUA countermeasures are all these products under PrEP Act and the current PrEP Act declaration, they can push out medicines or activities or whatever, rules, masking, vaccines, and they are not regulated,
as we discussed.
You can lie about them and they are not regulated.
So then Peter Marks and his position of authority as head of CBER-FDA, when a couple of his colleagues resigned because they wouldn't sign off on approval of these vaccines, he took it on, this whole thing, instead, took their jobs.
And then he went and played this FDA approval.
Well, there was no approval.
There's no legal approval applicable to this.
And then he...
He validated the fraud.
He signed off on the fraud, issuing these approval letters in August 2021 so that all of these things could be mandated.
Under BRAP Act, EUA countermeasures cannot be mandated.
That's very clear.
He did the bait and switch.
He went on record, said, you know, these are fully FDA approved, and then all the mandate.
I would add a couple things to that.
Marion Gruber is another person who should be in that same...
Batch of criminal prosecutions, if that ever happens, because she's the person who signed off on the EUA in December of 2020.
The other thing I would say, probably building on what Sasha said, is it would be useful if people had a look back at the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr., because his analysis was largely based on the idea that the laws were illegal themselves.
And therefore, the only appropriate way to respond to them is to refuse to obey them because they are immoral.
And so civil disobedience, in this case, takes the form of not ever taking another vaccine in your life, not ever advocating that anyone else take the vaccine, not vaccinating your children ever, not advocating that anyone else ever vaccinate their children,
and talking about why.
I think that has...
Enormous potential because what we were talking about earlier, to the extent they can deceive people into thinking that there are threats and thinking that vaccines are remedies for those, they get people to voluntarily comply.
And if people don't voluntarily comply, which means you just don't go to the pharmacy, you just don't go to the pediatrician or your doctor, and if anybody there asks you, you say, no thanks, walking away, that stuff is poison.
Their system doesn't work very well because they really don't want to have to do that scenario that Sasha was talking about where they just walk into a coffee shop and start jabbing people.
Yeah.
And another thing, so there are three.
So the repeal of the FRAP Act, education about EUA countermeasures and lying about full approved status by Peter Marks and FDA and everybody else.
The third one is we all need to call an RFK junior, our current HHS secretary, to terminate current PREP Act declaration for COVID emergency, which was extended by Javier Becerra, outgoing HHS secretary, to last until December
31st of 2029.
Nobody knows about this, and this is by design.
They want you to think that COVID emergency is over.
It's not.
It's fully extended.
It's fully operational.
And the law, the PREP Act, says that HHS Secretary, it's only his opinion.
Nothing else matters.
He doesn't have to take into account any data, any science, nothing.
So it's only his opinion that there is a current emergency of COVID.
So right now, we are supposed to interpret this as it's personal RFK Jr.'s opinion that we have a COVID emergency and we need to have those EUA countermeasure biologics shots on baby's vaccination schedule.
So that's his opinion now.
Until he terminates that.
All it takes is a memo into Federal Register.
Ah, just a memo.
Just a memo.
Just him saying, I don't think so anymore.
Thank you.
You know?
So, if the COVID emergency is not being rescinded, and we recently had an Idaho medical freedom bill, which was saying...
So prohibiting the force of medical interventions and preventing discrimination or negative actions towards individuals who refuse the interventions.
If we have a medical freedom bill like that that was passed through the state legislator and then vetoed by the governor, what is the state in which our country is in right now?
Exactly.
And that's the only state that even got that far.
And I was involved, you know, I'm still involved very closely with these efforts.
There are several bills there, including this one we've been working on.
We've been testifying, you know, on counties, in state and everywhere.
And I'm enticed with Leslie Mnookin, who's also, you know, involved in this bill.
She recently said that it's moving.
Hopefully, it's getting results.
So what they vetoed, the governor vetoed it in the last minute, and then they wanted to carve out, guess what, the preschool.
So, okay, you have medical freedom, except for up to the age of six or seven, right?
You don't.
You belong to the governor because majority of the poisons go into the human beings before the age of six.
That's why.
That's why they wanted to carve it out.
So she said they may be able to overcome this, but we'll see what happens.
But this is panning by a thread.
I think it would be interesting if the people in Idaho went back and tried to instead amend their criminal codes to add vaccines to things like gun and a knife in assault with a deadly weapon.
Criminal statutes.
Because it gets more at the fact that they do not have a medicinal purpose.
They only have a poisoning purpose.
And the state has an interest in letting the people know what counts as a deadly weapon and adding vaccines to that list.
That is really interesting.
Just even putting that in the ear, like putting that on paper and then testifying, talking about that, which would send shockwaves.
Because it's not a medical, in my view, it's not a medical freedom issue.
It's a self-defense issue because these are not medical products.
These are weapons.
It is a self-difference.
And, you know, the North Carolina case prevailed specifically because they framed some of it as unwanted touching and battery.
And that's how they got the judges to agree with the constitutionality of these claims.
That's an avenue.
I'm going to publish it.
I have a summary.
Actually, I'll send it to you, Catherine.
I have a summary of criminal statutes currently on the books in every state.
Mimi Miller.
Oh, you got that, right?
So from Mimi Miller, an attorney, so she compiled a whole table of every state which criminal statutes can be applied to this.
There are already plenty in every state.
It's interesting because when I first started trying to learn about the unavoidably unsafe phrase, you can pretty quickly get to regular law firm orientation pages that tell you Unavoidably unsafe products are guns,
knives, including kitchen knives, cleaning products, and drugs, including vaccines.
And they're unavoidably unsafe because they cause harm.
They are known to cause harm.
Like, in a regular drug situation, either it's like a lethal injection drug that you're using explicitly to execute someone, or...
It's a drug that may have some benefits to somebody who is sick in a particular way, but you know that it also has other effects that are harmful because it's interfering with the basic body's system.
So it's not even like a radical or difficult to understand concept that unavoidably unsafe means can be used as a weapon or is often used as a weapon.
And that's why you can.
I think, now that people understand better what vaccines are and what's in them and what doesn't have to be disclosed about what's in them, that vaccines should be in that category of deadly weapons.
So if a state would pass something like that, put that into their law, that this is an...
The vaccine is unavoidably safe and it can be used in criminal ways.
What does that mean for the PrEP Act?
It becomes an even bigger license to kill.
Yeah.
Even more explicit license to kill.
Right.
Yes.
This draws it out to make it more clear to people.
Congress is intentionally killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, using drug companies as the intermediary.
To put the poison in the bottles and put the labels that say vaccine and get them distributed.
And when people can see that more clearly, they stop taking vaccines.
Yeah.
We touched a little bit on this before, but Catherine, you highlighted the argument that framing the issue of public health rather than treason and war bolsters support of the PrEP Act.
So just turning the way that we're talking about this away from health.
To more like, this is, we're in a war here.
So would you just really clearly outline to my audience how the people who pushed these COVID measures committed the treason and how many did it knowingly?
I don't know how many did it knowingly, but I tend to think it's a lot more than I used to think since I read that December 20...
One 2005 Senate record, because within two days of it being slipped into that defense appropriations bill, they already had a very good legal analysis that said this is clearly unconstitutional.
This is clearly a violation of the separation of powers between the different branches of the federal government.
And clearly a violation of the Federalist separation of powers between the federal government and the states.
And they voted for it anyway.
So everyone who gave a speech certainly knew that they were committing treason.
Everyone who heard the speech or read the letter that Edwin Chemerinsky wrote also knew that what they were doing was committing treason.
And as for people who have been voting on some of the measures since then...
I don't know.
It depends how much they understood and how much they addressed for, like, I'm here in Congress, I do whatever they tell me to do.
I vote when they tell me to vote, and I vote in the way that they tell me to vote.
But yeah, treason is levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies.
I'm looking at it.
Giving them aid and comfort within the United States while owing allegiance to the United States.
To whatever extent people can start to examine the actions of the members of Congress and the president and the cabinet secretaries and the judges as far as who do you owe allegiance to if this is what you think is what you should be doing and watching what they do.
Clearly they are not thinking of themselves as owing allegiance to the United States.
They think they owe allegiance to somebody else and that's why they're making war against the people of the United States.
Yeah, interestingly, a law firm that we've talked to before, they FOIA'd the records of also office for a bunch of high-level officials in the first Trump administration,
in the Biden administration.
So they FOIA'd other records of their properly executed also office.
Most of them did not have it.
Like, Rochelle Walensky didn't have it.
Javier Becerra didn't have it.
There's a bunch of, you know, of these health and related high-level officials did not have those office executed while they were doing this.
And that may be because they knew that they were committing treasonous acts.
There are several laws related to that main treason one.
Like, it is also a crime, if you know of treason, not to disclose it.
It's also a crime to incite rebellion.
Which you can construe what the HHS secretaries have been doing as a form of rebellion or seditious conspiracy.
And then there's another one that prohibits advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government constitution and laws.
And that's...
Congress basically did overthrow the U.S. government constitution and laws by passing the PREP Act and by not repealing it.
Like, every day that goes by that they...
Are sitting in there and they know about this, which they do, and they don't put forward bills to repeal it.
They're adding their own ratification of the treason.
And that's the ones who are there now, even if the ones who were there in 2005 are out of office now.
So what we saw during COVID was that everything was put, all of these records, all of this data was put behind this national security line.
We were said, we can't get this to you because it's national security.
Given the military countermeasures designation and liability shield provided by the PREP Act, do you suspect the justification of national security might be used to mask nefarious intentions of the United States government and the military leadership?
I don't think they're even masking it.
I think they're doing it right out in the open.
They have merged public health with the military.
That's one of the nuances that I'm slightly different perspective on what Sasha and Debbie Lerman put together with the COVID dossier because I think that they say the COVID was not a public health event,
but I think it was a public health event to the extent that public health and military are the same thing.
They have been the same thing for many, many decades.
The public health part of it is the chemical and biological warfare part of the U.S. military.
And so, yes, they're going to keep using it.
They're going to keep pretending that there are threats that don't exist, but they're going to say that they do.
They're going to keep pretending that what they've developed is a remedy in some way.
It's preventative for the threat that does not exist, and the remedy itself is a poison.
And they're going to keep using the whole package.
It's made to be used, and they're going to use it.
Yeah, yeah, I agree with it.
So when we're saying it's not a public health event, in the sense that people expect it, right?
Like normally expect it.
But I did, I recently, and I'll be publishing about it more, I recently read a very detailed account of official...
U.S. government biological warfare program when it was going on before Nixon terminated it.
It went on for 27 years and the scripts developed back then.
So I'm not going to discuss it in detail now, but yeah, all these approaches of fear-mongering about non-existent threats and then coming up with remedies and solutions which only evolve into more power and more money to the people who are...
Implementing these things.
That's been back there.
Nixon terminated official, and then they signed up to Bioweapons Convention, sort of.
It's not enforceable.
And by doing that, they simply moved everything into private sector and academia as infectious disease research.
And into federal government as public health programs.
Yeah, he didn't want it all.
He just renamed it.
Yeah, they just renamed everything.
But it's the same thing.
Even the spraying, like the aerial spraying, they were doing it all the time.
They've perfected those techniques.
And, you know, it's just mind-blowing.
So, what do you suspect is being hidden?
I mean, why are they doing this?
So, well, just briefly also on this national security, like the COVID dossier.
So another colleague, Debbie Lorman and I published recently, it's on my substack, the COVID dossier, compiling all the information we have for U.S. and many, many other countries indicating that this is a military campaign.
This whole COVID thing is a military campaign.
And how I came to know about it, I received a whistleblower tape, which at the beginning I didn't even understand.
What it meant.
So I sat on it for a while.
But then when I, you know, understood what, you know, Catherine was saying and all the rest, I was like, oh, like, light bulb went in my head.
Because when they issued, when the original COVID emergency declaration was issued during Trump administration, it was like March of 2020, March 13th or something of 2020.
But it was made retroactive to February 4th, 2020.
And at the time, I was like, why are they making it retroactive to February 4th?
And so what happened on February 4th, there was a phone call coming from DARPA, DOD, to the pharmaceutical consortium that had been previously established over years, since beginning in 2012, to manufacture these, to create this warm, churning manufacturing base for vaccines.
For pan-influenza vaccines.
And they've been funding it for all this time.
And then they called them on February 4th and told them that COVID has been declared national security threat.
And the person placing the phone call, or at least in charge of this notification, was Colonel Matt Habern of DARPA.
And he's the self-admitted mastermind.
He does TED Talks about it.
He's the mastermind of the pandemic preparedness plan, which was the plan for the DOD to identify pandemic potential viruses based on nonsense like PCR and computer modeling, and for the pharma companies to make vaccines and therapeutics within 60 days.
To which the person on tape, VP of monoclonal antibodies for AstraZeneca, Mark Esser, said, initially I thought it was science fiction.
Because it is science fiction.
You can't make vaccines and therapeutics in 60 days.
And, you know, God knows what DOD identifies as pandemic potential viruses and what those criteria are.
So he knew it was fake.
But then they, you know, money is money.
So they happily went along.
There's hundreds of pharmaceutical companies in this consortium.
And so on February 4th, DOD, DARPA specifically, Matt Harburn, went ahead of the President of the United States declaring this and distributing a humongous amount of money.
Already $50 billion went out of the door before Trump even could blink under all of this.
Jennifer Santos, who was head of purchasing something-something, Did that.
Push the button.
Trump got enraged, fired her.
She was immediately moved to the Navy.
But there was a big drama about this.
So they went ahead.
Screw Trump.
We don't need his approval.
They went ahead, distributed money, gave orders, declared national security threat.
Then at some point, I think Jeffrey Tucker, actually a brownstone, traced this through Trump's tweets.
That at some point on March 10th or 11th, Tucker Carlson went to Mar-a-Lago and convinced Trump somehow, I don't know how, that he needs to go along with all of this.
They brought him on board.
He declared Stafford Act declaration.
And that's why they made it retroactive to February 1st when DOD declared it, not Trump.
So that's why we're saying it's a military campaign.
It's driven from DOD somewhere.
I don't know exactly where.
Probably DOD and CIA together, I would think.
And DARPA and BARDA and all those other acronyms.
So they're running this show and they're running it globally.
And for whom?
Well, we should ask them.
But I suspect it's for the global bankers and whoever owns the global banks.
That would be my suspicion.
This is all really...
It's hard.
It's hard to face.
It's been hard to face for four years.
I mean, you've all been in it.
But what can we do about it?
So if the average American citizen could do one thing to combat this corruption that we see in our country that has not ended, what would it be?
And I recommend praying and meditating and reading the Bible and reading those stories that tell you to do the right thing regardless of the circumstances or outcome.
And I think Christianity is probably the only religion that teaches exactly that.
You know, there is no relativism.
There is only absolute.
Right or wrong.
And you have to think about it and meditate on this and do the right thing every day and do it all the time.
And the right thing includes, yes, absolutely civil disobedience with this illegal, monstrous attack on all of us.
And in addition to vaccines, refuse Real ID, refuse biosecurity measures, refuse digital money, programmable money, refuse all those 15-minute cities and all those acts that they try to implement through public, mostly
through public health measures, you notice, because they have this whole structure.
I agree.
It's a campaign that is using public health to install fascism.
So it touches every aspect of the life.
So where they try to dictate things in schools, try to dictate things to you in civil life and businesses.
You know, you should find those hallmarks of where this is all going in one direction and refuse those and refuse to comply.
And then, obviously, if you have time and resources to spare, you know, help us.
Like, help us do this.
We've worked with networks of people who, like, this whole Idaho legislation was completely ground up.
A nurse, Laura DeMarais, is organizing.
All these meetings and county commissioners, and we even have a whole procedure of how to go and talk to your county commissioners about them and encourage them to issue declarations, you know, supporting this.
So that can be done by activists, by people on the ground, by people who have some resources to contribute to this.
Lawyers, please help us.
You know, so that's what we can do.
We can fight this.
We can, yeah, by personal disobedience and by helping others to do this.
Yeah, I agree.
And I've never been so thankful for Jesus as I have been these past four years.
It's been a lot.
Well, thank you both so much, Catherine and Sasha, for giving us your time today.
It was wonderful to meet you.
Thanks so much for tuning in.
Please like, comment, subscribe to, and share our podcasts.
▲
Export Selection