All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 13, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
38:58
The COVID Dossier - Exposing Truth of COVID - Sasha Latypova and Debbie Lehrman
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
the host and guests in this show are not necessarily the views of children's health defense.
Good morning, children's health defense, wherever you are.
Great to see you.
It's my pleasure and honor to have with us here today Sasha Latipova and Debbie Luhrmann, both very important writers on Substack, people who've been speaking out for several years around the COVID debacle.
And I'm pleased to have them join us right now.
Thanks for having us.
Thank you.
Hi, Mary.
I'm delighted to see you.
So we wanted today specifically to talk about the COVID dossier that you both prepared together back in February 2025 on the fifth anniversary of the Declaration of Emergency about COVID.
And I should read also the subtitle to the COVID dossier, A Record of Military and Intelligence Coordination of the Global COVID Event.
So maybe why don't you start by telling us a little bit about the dossier and why it was so important to bring out on this fifth anniversary?
Sasha, do you want to start?
And then it was actually Debbie's idea to compile this dossier, and she contacted me.
We've collaborated on it for a while.
And we gathered information, both the documentation that we had and also solicited from our readers.
And so now we've assembled a dossier that covers pretty much every region of the world, and especially the Western countries, the US, obviously, UK, EU, but we also have information for Latin America, for Asia, and countries of the non-EU, for example, Switzerland, all demonstrating the same pattern.
And so you continue to update it and it's there on your respective substacks and on the brownstone.
Great.
Yes.
Great.
So the updated versions are on our substacks.
So that would be where I see.
Great.
Yeah.
So I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but the implication, so I think you explained that the basis for this emergency declaration in the United States and elsewhere is really that there was some kind of chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological event.
And so in some sense, this is a tacit recognition that there was a biological agent, a biological weapon.
Is that how you would see this, or how would you explain this shutdown on the basis of this virus?
Well, I just want to say in terms of the declaration, it actually was, so February 5th was not any kind of, February 4th was not any kind of public declaration.
Nobody in the world anywhere thought that this was a extremely dangerous war pandemic or national security or anything on February 4th, 2020.
Nobody in the United States had died.
There were very few cases.
There were a few hundred people who had died in China.
That's it.
And so the declaration that happened on that day was a secret, secret in the sense, I mean, it was in the public record, but nobody reported on it and nobody knew about it.
And it was the declaration of emergency for the emergency use authorization and the PrEP Act, which are the two laws that negate all regulatory oversight and all legal responsibility for anyone who makes military countermeasures in the case of a CBRN attack.
And so, what you're saying, Mary, is true.
The laws that were invoked and the emergency declarations that were made in order to invoke those laws that were not told to anybody except the pharmaceutical companies and the biowarfare industrial complex,
those are dependent on, well, the EUA specifically is dependent on there being a declaration that there is an emergency or a potential emergency involving a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear attack.
And so, you could take it to mean that those declarations were a tacit statement, you know, that yes, there was such an attack.
You could take it to mean that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that.
It means that they use those laws in order to reach that sort of non-legal, extra-legal, extra-constitutional state, which is a state of emergency, in which, as I said, none of the laws or regulations apply.
They might have done that because there was an actual biological agent that was involved, or they could have done that because they just wanted to be in that state where there was no oversight and where there was no legal recourse, no legal responsibility.
Yeah, actually, I wanted to add to that that it is, I agree with Debbie.
It doesn't necessarily mean that there was a biological agent or chemical or radiological or you know, seaburn.
They're the cold seaburn agents.
So, it doesn't mean that.
It just means that the government and whoever made those announcements wanted to be in the state where no regulations apply and no liability applies for their actions.
And in fact, we currently are in the nine versions of that state, according to the exist now existing PrEP Act declarations for various emergencies involving, for example, smallpox is the longest one running.
It was announced in 2008 and it's running until now, it's extended until 2032.
So, are we in a smallpox epidemic or a national emergency of any sort?
No, it's just the producers of the smallpox agents want to sell them to government and get paid for shipping regulation-free and liability-free smallpox, whatever they're shipping.
Okay.
So, in other words, this EUA, although it seems to be related by statute to a CBRN event, it's been used since 2008 for what are considered to be bacterial or viral infections.
Is that correct, Sasha?
Right, the infections meaning the products.
So, the product, so the military-industrial complex, their suppliers, pharmaceutical companies, and other contractors want to produce products which are unregulated and are liability-free for whatever reason, and want to ship them to the government and get taxpayers' money in return.
And so, that's what's been going on.
But there's some pretext, no, that there is smallpox in circulation or Ebola or Zika or COVID, right?
Not anymore, not anymore.
Because so, the way the law does the law that they're using, PrEP Act, was written is that it required some sort of state of emergency being in place.
But the minute it was put on the books, it started being used as simply: we declare that there may be, and some in the future, somebody may attack us with smallpox.
And that's just an opinion of one unelected bureaucrat, which is HHS secretary at the time.
And so the HHS Secretary writes a memo to Federal Register saying, I think there may be an attack of answer X or smallpox in the future.
And that creates this window, this state of lawlessness that now can be utilized for profit.
And can that declaration, is that HHS secretary declaration reviewable?
How is that reviewable?
Right.
So it is non-reviewable and there are no stopping conditions.
That's how the law is written.
So it's not judicially reviewable.
It's not reviewable by Congress.
Nobody can sort of contract it or compel him to do anything about it about this opinion or change it in any way.
It doesn't require any data.
It doesn't require any justification.
It's just an opinion of one person.
And he can either issue it or revoke it.
Or the president potentially can override it or the Congress can get together and repeal PrEP Act.
But that's, you know.
Yeah, very.
And I just want to add that when they passed it, it was passed in a midnight sneak attack in a giant bill on Christmas.
So and the people and the senators at the time who were objecting to it, it happened to be the Democrats who were objecting to it at the time, including Hillary Clinton, including Joe Biden.
They all said this is extremely unconstitutional because it gives one person the power to declare a state of emergency.
And basically, it gives the license to kill to the pharmaceutical companies or whoever is producing the countermeasures that now are under this state of emergency where they have no regulation and they have no legal responsibility for anything.
So they all said that.
They all said it was a terrible, terrible law that was going to that was going to allow, potentially allow pharmaceutical companies to kill with impunity.
But then they voted for it, Debbie.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
They then voted for it.
Well, they voted for the entire bill because the bill was a defense bill and it had to do with Katrina funding.
And, you know, that's why they put it in that bill.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, it's shockingly unconstitutional.
And we were, we at Children's Health Defense are very happy to see that Congressman Tom Massey has a bill now in Congress to repeal the PrEP Act.
But I hear you, Sasha, that it's a tall order to repeal anything by Congress.
Once it's in place, it's very hard to turn back.
But it is outrageous that we have these ongoing states of emergencies that create these military countermeasures that de facto have no liability.
So there's an ongoing declaration regarding COVID.
So tell us, what does that actually cover today?
What is that doing today?
Can I, I just wanted to add one more thing, Mary, if that's okay.
All of those declarations for the PrEP Act that Sasha mentioned, including the one for COVID, which has been extended to 2029, can be repealed by HHS Secretary Kennedy.
Yeah.
According to the law, he can just go and say it's over.
So that's an important point to notice.
Absolutely.
We've been asking him if he could please do that.
Yeah, of course.
Of course.
Yeah, so exactly.
So the existing COVID declaration, it was started.
So it was made actually in March, but then was made retroactive to February 1st, 2020, which we'll discuss exactly why.
So Debbie's right, this date, February 4th, 2020, was deliberately held.
These declarations were kind of held confusing and secret from the public.
Then it was extended about a dozen times and most recently extended by Javier Becerra, outgoing HHS Secretary in 24, and it was extended to last until December 31st, 2029.
The Secretary Kennedy is fully aware of the fact that he can revoke it by himself according to the law.
I personally spoke to him about this fact.
He knows that that's what we want him to do.
I wrote an open letter to him about it because what, in effect, this does, this open declaration, it basically allows pharmaceutical companies to continue shipping regulation-free and liability-free, very dangerous products onto the public and lie about them.
So, the important part about countermeasures that's written into the PrEP Act itself is that they can be legally adulterated or misbranded.
Adulterated means that any contaminant, any poison can be in them legally.
Any material can be in them legally.
They do not have to comply with anything that says on the label.
They do not have to comply with anything that pharmaceutical companies are advertising about them.
In fact, safety and efficacy are wholly inapplicable to these products.
They cannot be found safe or efficacious because there is no legal process to do so.
They can only be labeled as EUA countermeasures.
Labeling them as commerity or safe and effective vaccine for COVID is legal, but they're lying.
So, the companies are lying about the labels of these products.
FDA is lying about the labels of these products, but nobody is violating the law here.
And that's why I wrote that letter and I'm asking the HHS at this point, not just well, I see that they are not planning to terminate the declaration anytime soon.
But what I'm asking them about is to make public disclosure about what I just said, because PrEP Act also requires them to explain to the recipients all known risks about these products.
And what I've just described, the major unconstitutionality of it, the fact that they can be adulterated or misbranded, are known risks which they're not disclosing.
I think, as you point out in the dossier, the justification for that, such as it is, is that these EUAs were only intended in the event of a mass destruction or mass weaponization, mass attack on everybody.
And so, anything almost would seem less dangerous than what they were allegedly fighting against.
Is that right, Debbie?
Yeah, that's how they structured the laws.
I mean, we don't know what the intent was when they passed them, but the declared intent was exactly what you said, Mary.
It's well, let's say there's an anthrax attack on New York.
So, we have to shut it down, close it off, quarantine the whole city, and then we have to rush countermeasures, especially to the first responders.
So, there was a lot of talk about first responders because these people are endangering themselves.
They're going into this zone that has a weapon of mass destruction in it potentially.
And so, we're just going to inject them with whatever that we have that might work.
Doesn't matter, like Sasha, when she says the adulteration or the labels don't matter in that situation, right?
It really doesn't matter because they're going to expose themselves to terrible danger, and we just want to get them whatever we possibly can really fast.
Right, it's an emergency, it's an emergency, emergency, emergency, right?
Which is which is why using those laws in the situation now is what we call illegal laws.
Yeah, no, for sure, pseudo-legal regime.
So, tell us about this backdating, this retroactive to February 4th.
I think that would be interesting for us to understand.
Right.
So, when they made that declaration in March and then backdated it to February 4th, we didn't know why that the backdating happened.
But then later on, it became evident why.
I received a whistleblower tape.
It was recorded from an internal meeting at AstraZeneca at the end of 2020 when AstraZeneca, remember, they didn't get their vaccine approved in the US, but they did get monoclonal antibody approved.
And this was an internal executive meeting with participation of their CEO, Pascal Soro, and Mark Esser, VP of monoclonal antibodies.
And they were discussing their success, celebrating their success of approving monoclonal antibody.
We were very happy.
And in that tape, about six minutes, Mark Esser says, we can actually play the clip, but he says that they had been approached by DARPA DOD, Department of Defense, in 2017 to participate in this consortium where DARPA would be identifying pandemic potential viruses and farmers would be making vaccines and therapeutics for them within 60 days.
To which Mark Esser says, I thought it was science fiction at first, because that's a proper reaction for anybody familiar with how drugs are made.
It's a total science fiction.
First of all, there's no method to identify pandemic potential viruses a priori.
And it's written into all sorts of scientific literature, including large textbooks co-authored by Ralph Barrick, who says there is definitely no scientific method today to figure out how a virus would behave as far as potential for pandemic until you have an actual experience.
And here, DARPA in 2017 says, oh, no, we're just going to predict the future.
We have a magic crystal ball.
And you guys will cook up chemicals for us within 60 days so we can ship them and inject in everybody.
You know, Mark Esser had reservations about it, but AstraZeneca liked the DOD money and, of course, signed up to the consortium.
Now, in 2020, he says, and then it was not surprised for us when we received a phone call from DARPA on February 4th saying that COVID has been declared a national security threat.
So, you know, thinking back to February 4th, what kind of national security and based on what?
And we still don't know how that decision was made, who made the decision, based on what data and information.
It still is a classified national security secret.
So I think your dossier makes very clear that this is not really about public health, that this is a military operation that was globally coordinated.
So tell us a little bit more about what you make of that global coordination and what was obvious, as you're saying right now, Sasha, the pre-planning of government reaching out to the pharmaceutical industry, reaching out probably to other agencies and institutions to get them ready for whenever this call was going to be made.
So it's really important.
That's an important question because the reason why the dossier is still very important now, it's not, and COVID is also still very important, even though people don't want to talk about it anymore.
It was very traumatic and it's understandable why people don't want to talk about it, but it's extremely important to understand that it is just a part of a continuum of trends that are on a global level in terms of public-private partnerships between global corporations, the global military-industrial complex, tech companies, and the banking, the international banking industry.
So, those are what the person who popularized the term deep state, that's what he meant.
He didn't mean a bunch of bureaucrats.
He didn't mean the administrative state.
He didn't mean firing some people at CDC as in solving this problem.
The problem is a problem of a huge conglomerate that's working outside of national governments and outside of the legal restrictions and constraints that you might have in a democratic system.
And so during COVID, what happened was that the biodefense industrial complex or the public-private partnerships, which are the pharmaceutical companies and the military intelligence alliances and the banks that finance them and that benefit from them and all of the institutions that got sucked into that,
which are all the academic institutions and the research institutions and the NGOs like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust, which were two of the biggest ones.
So those are all the bodies and entities that benefit from disasters like pandemics.
They've been planning for it for decades and they have planning exercises and they tell us what they're going to do, which is they want to lock everything down and wait for a vaccine.
Because by doing that, they also wanted to shift the economy into what they think is the 21st century economy, which is we need to wreck all the small businesses.
We need to go pretty much online with everything.
We need to have vaccine passports, which is a segue to digital ID.
We need to segue to digital currency.
All of those things, all of those things, the foundation was laid or a major step was taken during COVID.
And that's why it's extremely important to understand the military intelligence aspect of it, because that's how it was run.
It was not run as a public health event.
It had nothing to do with public health at all, really.
It was an anti-public health response because a public health response is the opposite.
You tell people not to panic.
You tell people to live their lives as normally as possible.
And you treat people if they're sick.
That's the public health response.
Sorry, go ahead.
No.
And so that's why I think Sasha and I continue to talk about this because it's happening.
It's continuing.
All of this is still happening and it's accelerating.
And it's not just about pandemics.
It's also about artificial intelligence and it's also about climate and Agenda 2030, which is all of the global governance plans that sort of manifested during COVID.
Yes, that COVID sort of brought to the fore, the fourth industrial revolution, right?
The sort of Klaus Schwab World Economic Forum.
And I think, Sasha, you've been very clear that everything that happened with pharma and the clinical trials and the FDA, that that was all essentially theater and window dressing.
Is that right?
Yeah, that's correct.
So again, using the legal framework, one of my large points of frustration is the whole health freedom movement.
You know, 90% of it, over 90% of it, is people just talk about safety and efficacy of these vaccines.
And in my opinion, it's a dead end.
And it was set up as a dead end for everyone to walk in and march in place until they continue constructing digital cage and everything else that Debbie was talking about.
The safety and efficacy discussion, as I said, is inapplicable to EUA countermeasures.
It is not possible to even conduct clinical trials for EUA countermeasures because according to the law, these products are non-investigational.
This is a very, very important categorization of substance of these products.
If it's non-investigational, it's not possible to clinical trial it because clinical trial in humans is an investigation.
So that's how the law treats it.
Since it's non-investigational, and in addition to being non-investigational chemical substance, the chemical substance can be freely adulterated with any poison.
And it is also okay to lie about it if you're a covered person using it as a covered countermeasure, meaning you're following HHS and DOID orders when using it.
Then, as Debbie said, it's a license to kill.
You can kill as many people as you want or don't want as many as they tell you and be fully absolved from liability.
And the whole sovereign immunity of the state will be applied to absolve you from liability.
So I just explained to you that these products are weapons.
There is only one conclusion that arises from it.
If it's a non-investigational, can be adulterated as poison.
Anybody who is injuring or killing people with them absolved from liability, they are weapons.
There's no other space into which all of this falls other than it's a weapon and it's used as a weapon.
And the people who are using it as a weapon are absolved from liability, just like the soldiers in the combat field, if they kill or injure anyone.
Right.
And I think, Sasha, I've heard you talk about how this information has been very much suppressed, but sort of inklings of it started to come out in two different lawsuits.
One, the Brooke Jackson case, and the other, the case against Kirk Moore.
Maybe you could speak to how this information started to emerge in a public realm and was effectively shut down.
Exactly.
So those two cases, in my opinion, are the most critical cases out of the whole five years of what's been going on.
And there may be 20 to 40,000 different lawsuits that have been filed on this matter.
But these two are the critical ones.
Brooke Jackson's was filed very early on, I believe in 2021, I think.
And she's been litigating since.
It's been dismissed numerous times.
I think they're still trying to appeal.
But that's what's called False Claims Act process, where the legal theory is that the pharma company is defrauding the government and shipping defective product.
That's what False Claims Act typically is used for.
But over these years of litigation, it became abundantly clear that False Claims Act is a wrong theory for what's going on because the government is in on it.
And that became clear actually quite early.
In about 2022, Pfizer was forced to produce in their motion to dismiss the military contracts that they signed with the Department of Defense for shipping these COVID countermeasures.
And in the military contracts, as part of their defense, they were pointing to the fact that the scope of the contract was to ship demonstrations and prototypes, meaning fakes.
And so that was very clear declaration from Pfizer that they didn't defraud the government.
They shipped the fraud that the government ordered.
And, you know, and that the government and Pfizer were in on it.
It's a public-private partnership.
So nobody's defrauding each other.
They're not defrauding each other.
They're defrauding the public together.
And then in Kirk Moore's case, which also he was being prosecuted by the federal government in the state of Utah, he's a surgeon who was giving people fake vaccine passports because people didn't want to get the shots, especially the children, but had no choice.
They had to go to school.
They had to have jobs.
So he was helping people out to avoid poisoning themselves and their children.
The federal government zealously prosecuted him for years.
He spent about a million dollars defending himself.
They went through a whole week of trial this past July.
And on Saturday of that week, Pam Bondi dropped the case.
Well, what happened on Thursday of that week, they had two testimonies from CDC and Barda, from Chris Duggar and Gary Disbrow, who both testified that vaccines were essentially they used language like vaccines were bullets or military supplies of some sort, that they did not,
they also used language like we, our plans go out of the window when we encounter the enemy when speaking about the 25% refusal rate for the vaccine that they did not expect.
So they talked about the public as the enemy that they've encountered, and those who refused were treated as enemy combatants.
Kirk Moore was also treated as a military, essentially enemy combatant, because he's one of the medical professionals who refused to follow HHS and DOD orders.
So that testimony was a bombshell, which of course nobody reported on except a colleague who was in the room and I wouldn't know about it if he didn't write up about it.
And then I went and bought the transcript from the court.
So nobody reported on it.
The case was dismissed, but the case was dismissed.
I assert that it was dismissed exactly because of this testimony.
Yeah.
Let me come back to the dossier.
One of the things you mentioned, thank you, Sasa.
One of the things you mentioned in the dossier is that in early March, all the states simultaneously adopted the Stafford Act.
Tell us what that means.
Why was that significant?
So what happened was the authority over the pandemic response was from the beginning, the policy-making body for the pandemic was the National Security Council, which is the advisory council to the president that advises the president on wars and terrorism.
Now they've added a lot of stuff into that definition, but that was the definition at the time.
And so that means that it was not CDC, it was not NIH or HHS who was making the policy.
But it was still HHS that was the lead federal agency, because according to the law, HHS is supposed to be the lead federal agency when there is a public health emergency.
But when President Trump made the Stafford Declaration, that is a declaration of emergency that normally it applies to FEMA.
And so it normally applies to a particular location where there's been a disaster, an earthquake, a flood, something like that, where FEMA needs to get funds flowing quickly and needs to send help to the area.
And it has never ever in the history of the United States been declared in all 50 states simultaneously because there's never a FEMA emergency in all 50 states.
That doesn't happen.
That doesn't exist.
And at the time that it was made, which was March 13th, 2020, I believe.
I hope I'm not getting that date wrong.
It might be a few days.
It might be a few days.
Yeah.
There was no emergency in any state in the United States, really, and certainly not in all 50 states.
But what that did was then transfer after that, HHS was no longer the lead federal agency for COVID.
And FEMA, that had never had anything to do with public health at all, and all of their documents show that they were like dear in headlights.
They had no idea what was going on.
They had no idea this was coming.
They didn't know what they were doing or why.
And the reason I would say is that FEMA is under the Department of Homeland Security.
So what that effectively did was it put the entire COVID response, the policy was the National Security Council, and then the implementation was Department of Homeland Security.
So it effectively removed any public health agency from any lead role, leadership role in the response.
And that includes very importantly communications.
So everything that was said by Anthony Fauci, by Deborah Burks, by anyone who was a public-facing so-called public health official was not a public health.
It was not determined by the public health agencies.
All of the messaging had to go through the National Security Council and FEMA slash DHS.
So whenever people say, well, CDC, we have to reform CDC because they messed up during the pandemic.
They didn't mess up at all, actually.
They actually conveyed to the public the messages that they were told to convey.
And they were actually forbidden in March and April and probably May also of 2020 from even holding their own press conferences.
They couldn't talk to the public at all unless the messaging had already been approved by the National Security Council.
And we know that from FOIA documents, from FOIA emails and stuff like that.
So that's the significance of the Stafford Act is that this was a FEMA.
It was supposed, it wasn't supposed to be done in all 50 states.
It had nothing to do with pandemics normally.
But it basically was used to transfer the authority to the Department of Homeland Security.
So as you mentioned, Debbie, earlier, you know, many people are saying, you know, COVID's over.
I don't want to deal with that.
It was sort of traumatic.
I'm done with this.
Why are you both continuing to focus on this?
What should we be taking away right now about this continuing emergency?
Well, one thing is let's end the state of emergency.
So if the entire health freedom movement got together and said, let's really put some pressure on our guys who are now in positions of power who actually have the authority to do that, supposedly, right, in the law, but we don't know who's actually in charge, right?
Otherwise, we think they probably would have done it.
Let's put pressure on them to please repeal all the states of emergencies for all of the pathogens.
That's number one.
Number two, let's stop talking about firing people from the CDC.
If you want to get rid of government bureaucrats, that's fine.
That has nothing to do with the pandemic.
It has nothing to do with public health or preventing another COVID situation.
Let's talk about what we really need to do, which is look at the biodefense industrial complex, which is what nobody wants to do.
Sasha and I in the dossier named the people, some people, there were many, many people who were involved who were in intelligence and in military top positions in the pandemic.
There has yet to be an investigation that has called any of these people at all or questioned them at all about what happened.
And their name is not Fauci.
And their name is not Redfield.
And their name is not Burks, even though Deborah Burks was the public-facing agent of the National Security Council.
So we name a lot of names in the dossier, not just in the United States, but in every country.
If anybody wants to do a real investigation of COVID, you can start with those names.
You can also start with the documentation that we've presented, which talks about how the military and intelligence agencies were in charge.
That would be something to investigate, not the CDC, not the NIH.
That's not what it's about.
And so we're very, very, I get emotional and adamant about it because it's been five years and we can't get the so-called medical freedom movement to focus on what actually happened.
And so the medical freedom movement is actually either intentionally, some of them, or unintentionally, I believe a lot of them, walking right into the propaganda trap and the censorship trap that has been set for them, which is now we're only going to talk about, was it a lab leak or was it not a lab leak?
You know, are the vaccines safe and effective?
Are they not safe and effective?
Let's take a step back and say, wait a minute, what actually happened?
Who was in charge?
How did they run this global operation?
And how can we protect ourselves from this global operation, which is ongoing, just ongoing, and which we should be focusing on every day.
There are things happening every day that are the consequences or the sequelae, which is the continuation of what happened during COVID in terms of digital IDs, propaganda, and censorship, not just in Europe.
We're not in a golden age in the United States.
I hate to tell the audience this, but we're not in a golden age of free speech and, you know, the censorship is over.
No, I'm still censored.
Sasha's censored massively on all social media.
And we think that probably it's happening on Substack as well.
So, and many people who write about things that are not partisan, this is not a partisan issue.
That's another thing I really, really want to emphasize.
If you start talking about COVID in a partisan way, you are a part of the problem.
So if you say it's the Biden administration did the censorship, the Biden administration did the lockdowns.
The Biden administration is the one that did the vaccine mandates.
Actually, the Trump administration and the Biden administration and now the Trump administration all did those things in a continuum and in tandem and in coordination.
And they use the partisan thing in order to distract and divide.
And I appeal to everyone who's listening to please, please, please go beyond the partisan and look at what's actually happening because it's us versus the global conglomerate cartel.
We call it the global criminal cartel that is running things.
It's not Democrats and Republicans.
It's not Trump and Biden.
And that's just being used to distract us.
So that's why Sasha and I are still very passionate about it.
Thanks, Debbie.
Sasha, do you want to add anything before we close?
Yeah, my number one goal today is to give public the informed consent disclosure required by PrEP Act that they have never received and they haven't received with the current administration either.
The current administration, unfortunately, continues to lie about it just the way the Biden administration lied about it and the previous administration lied about it.
And the disclosure about countermeasures is that they are not vaccines, they're not medical products, they're intentional weapons and they're full of poisons and everybody's lying about them, but nobody's violating the law.
So we need to focus on that.
Once the public has that information, then we can have a groundswell to help Congress repeal it or help whoever wants to repeal it repeal it.
Like Thomas Massey, I'm full on behind his effort.
But he's, you know, he's one person.
We need help.
We need understanding from the public that this is not a matter of science.
It's not a matter of gold standard science of any other kind of science.
It's not a matter of data.
It's a matter of law and misuse and abuse of the law that was never designed for the purpose it's being used for.
Thank you both so much.
Really appreciate your coming today and explicating this for us.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mary.
▲
Export Selection