💉THE POISON NEEDLE AND THE LEGAL SHIELD🛡️ -Here’s How Illegal "Pseudo-Laws" Have Allowed the U.S. Gov’t to Deploy the C-19-Injection Bioweapons on Americans, and Given Legal Immunity to Those Who Administer The Kill Shots (Tweet 1/9)
Although many prominent voices in the “health freedom movement” espouse the idea that the C19 injections are pharmaceutical products, they are not. This is unequivocal. Therefore, they are beholden to no FDA regulations, and cannot be regulated by the FDA.
In a pair of videos released earlier this year, retired pharmaceutical industry R&D executive Sasha Latypova (@sasha_latypova) describes, in detail—with all “the receipts”—how the C19 injections are, in fact, in a class of their own, so to speak; one NOT REGULATED BY THE FDA.
In this first clip from a conversation between Latypova and writer and paralegal Katherine Watt, Latypova explains how there are three regulatory pathways for pharmaceutical drugs, which are “normal regulatory pathways, where we don’t have [an] emergency announcement.” Latypova notes that these pathways include investigational use of the product; FDA-approved drugs; investigational drugs (if you want to introduce a new drug, then you need to clinical trial it across state lines); and drugs made available under “expanded access use.”
Expanded access use, Latypova notes, is “a more recent evolution” of regulatory law, which was put into place in 1997. Since then, expanded access use has allowed for the use of experimental drugs in “desperate situations.”
The fourth regulatory pathway is the one used for the C19 injections: “EUA countermeasures under [a] public health emergency.” Latypova notes that for an “EUA under public health emergency, none of these normal [FDA regulations] apply [in an enforceable manner].” This is why Latypova and Watt refer to the supposed FDA regulation and approval of the C19 injections as “performance art.”
The injections are EUA countermeasures deployed under a public health emergency. Per the law, they cannot be regulated as pharmaceutical drugs.
Specifically, Latypova notes that there is “no requirement for [an] IRB [an institutional review board] or informed consent…” She adds, “investigational new drug regulations don’t apply, [and] clinical trial data is not required.”
Latypova notes that this is why when clinical trial investigator Brook Jackson (@IamBrookJackson) observed fraud at Pfizer’s C19-injection clinical trial sites in Texas, reported it, and started litigating, the judge dismissed her case—because any fraud that existed was “immaterial.”
Although many prominent voices in the “health freedom movement” espouse the idea that the C19 injections are pharmaceutical products, they are not. This is unequivocal. Therefore, they are beholden to no FDA regulations, and cannot be regulated by the FDA.
In a pair of videos released earlier this year, retired pharmaceutical industry R&D executive Sasha Latypova (@sasha_latypova) describes, in detail—with all “the receipts”—how the C19 injections are, in fact, in a class of their own, so to speak; one NOT REGULATED BY THE FDA.
In this first clip from a conversation between Latypova and writer and paralegal Katherine Watt, Latypova explains how there are three regulatory pathways for pharmaceutical drugs, which are “normal regulatory pathways, where we don’t have [an] emergency announcement.” Latypova notes that these pathways include investigational use of the product; FDA-approved drugs; investigational drugs (if you want to introduce a new drug, then you need to clinical trial it across state lines); and drugs made available under “expanded access use.”
Expanded access use, Latypova notes, is “a more recent evolution” of regulatory law, which was put into place in 1997. Since then, expanded access use has allowed for the use of experimental drugs in “desperate situations.”
The fourth regulatory pathway is the one used for the C19 injections: “EUA countermeasures under [a] public health emergency.” Latypova notes that for an “EUA under public health emergency, none of these normal [FDA regulations] apply [in an enforceable manner].” This is why Latypova and Watt refer to the supposed FDA regulation and approval of the C19 injections as “performance art.”
The injections are EUA countermeasures deployed under a public health emergency. Per the law, they cannot be regulated as pharmaceutical drugs.
Specifically, Latypova notes that there is “no requirement for [an] IRB [an institutional review board] or informed consent…” She adds, “investigational new drug regulations don’t apply, [and] clinical trial data is not required.”
Latypova notes that this is why when clinical trial investigator Brook Jackson (@IamBrookJackson) observed fraud at Pfizer’s C19-injection clinical trial sites in Texas, reported it, and started litigating, the judge dismissed her case—because any fraud that existed was “immaterial.”
“Now we have this evolution, from expanded access use… where they said, ‘We can now have a non-investigational substance and use it in [a] non-medical and non-investigational way… That makes it [an] illicit drug.”
In this clip from the same interview, Latypova describes how, by shirking all regular FDA regulations, the C19 injections effectively become illicit drugs. “Just like fentanyl,” the retired pharma executive adds.
Latypova adds, “You can easily poison somebody with a substance you can’t evaluate yourself… you don’t know whether it’s going to be efficacious or safe.”
In this clip from the same interview, Latypova describes how, by shirking all regular FDA regulations, the C19 injections effectively become illicit drugs. “Just like fentanyl,” the retired pharma executive adds.
Latypova adds, “You can easily poison somebody with a substance you can’t evaluate yourself… you don’t know whether it’s going to be efficacious or safe.”
The “first time the emergency use authorized thing came in was November 2003 through the National Defense Authorization Act, not through a bill that had to do with the FDA, or NIH, or public health, or anything like that.”
Watt, in the same interview with Latypova, says that she believes that the perpetrators of the C19 injection crime against humanity looked at data from the mid-’90s regarding “what the mRNA/LNP stuff was doing and how good it was as a weapon that was hard to detect as being a weapon” and decided that’s what they’d deploy on the population. “Because you could get people to take it under desperate circumstances and then they would die and the families would say, ‘Well, they were terminally ill, of course they died.”
Watt gives a brief history of how the EUA countermeasure under public health emergency legal loophole (i.e. “illegal law”) was put into place, noting that the “first time the emergency use authorized thing came in was November, 2003 through the National Defense Authorization Act, not through a bill that had to do with the FDA, or NIH, or public health, or anything like that.”
The writer and paralegal adds that the 2004 Project Bioshield Act “put flesh on [the] skeleton]” laid out by the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act, and that the 2005 PREP Act generated the “liability shield” for anything deployed under the umbrella of “expanded access use.”
The perpetrators of the C19-injection crime against humanity were “Setting up the conditions so that to produce these things nobody would have to follow any of the rules that apply to other drugs,” Watt adds. She notes that they also “[set] up the legal conditions for actual use of the things that had been produced once you’ve declared an emergency.”
Watt, in the same interview with Latypova, says that she believes that the perpetrators of the C19 injection crime against humanity looked at data from the mid-’90s regarding “what the mRNA/LNP stuff was doing and how good it was as a weapon that was hard to detect as being a weapon” and decided that’s what they’d deploy on the population. “Because you could get people to take it under desperate circumstances and then they would die and the families would say, ‘Well, they were terminally ill, of course they died.”
Watt gives a brief history of how the EUA countermeasure under public health emergency legal loophole (i.e. “illegal law”) was put into place, noting that the “first time the emergency use authorized thing came in was November, 2003 through the National Defense Authorization Act, not through a bill that had to do with the FDA, or NIH, or public health, or anything like that.”
The writer and paralegal adds that the 2004 Project Bioshield Act “put flesh on [the] skeleton]” laid out by the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act, and that the 2005 PREP Act generated the “liability shield” for anything deployed under the umbrella of “expanded access use.”
The perpetrators of the C19-injection crime against humanity were “Setting up the conditions so that to produce these things nobody would have to follow any of the rules that apply to other drugs,” Watt adds. She notes that they also “[set] up the legal conditions for actual use of the things that had been produced once you’ve declared an emergency.”
“Use of… [an EUA countermeasure under a public health emergency]… shall not be considered to constitute a clinical investigation.”
In a second interview, with Willem Engel (@dancalegria), Latypova describes how the law (U.S. code 360bbb*) outlines how “Use of… [an EUA countermeasure under a public health emergency]… shall not be considered to constitute a clinical investigation.”
Latypova notes that “[with an] EUA countermeasure, in principle, you cannot have legally defined clinical trials and you cannot have legally defined approval, because you can never compile the data in a process that requires it for the approval.”
*Source:
In a second interview, with Willem Engel (@dancalegria), Latypova describes how the law (U.S. code 360bbb*) outlines how “Use of… [an EUA countermeasure under a public health emergency]… shall not be considered to constitute a clinical investigation.”
Latypova notes that “[with an] EUA countermeasure, in principle, you cannot have legally defined clinical trials and you cannot have legally defined approval, because you can never compile the data in a process that requires it for the approval.”
*Source:
The FDA lawyers said, in effect, “We want to violate the law, and we can’t, unless we design this new, extrajudicial pathway for ourselves.”
Latypova describes how FDA lawyers geared up (in effect) for EUA countermeasures under a public health emergency with “legal preparedness documents.” In these documents, Latypova says, “the FDA lawyers discuss the fact that they want to create this new pathway that’s called ‘EUA countermeasure,’ because if they don’t have this new pathway, like [the] other… emergency use authorization… then [they would] be in violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.”
The FDA lawyers said, in effect (according to Latypova), “We want to violate the law, and we can’t, unless we design this new, extrajudicial pathway for ourselves.”
The retired pharma executive refers to the laws that have allowed for this extrajudicial pathway as “Illegal laws.” She notes that “they’re unconstitutional,” because “[the] effect of all of these convoluted things they’ve put in place, the net effect of it is that the government can now legally commit genocide and murder. With… unregulated poisons.”
“Some court needs to take judicial notice of the structure that I’m describing here, and say, ‘This is nonsense,” Latypova adds.
Latypova describes how FDA lawyers geared up (in effect) for EUA countermeasures under a public health emergency with “legal preparedness documents.” In these documents, Latypova says, “the FDA lawyers discuss the fact that they want to create this new pathway that’s called ‘EUA countermeasure,’ because if they don’t have this new pathway, like [the] other… emergency use authorization… then [they would] be in violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.”
The FDA lawyers said, in effect (according to Latypova), “We want to violate the law, and we can’t, unless we design this new, extrajudicial pathway for ourselves.”
The retired pharma executive refers to the laws that have allowed for this extrajudicial pathway as “Illegal laws.” She notes that “they’re unconstitutional,” because “[the] effect of all of these convoluted things they’ve put in place, the net effect of it is that the government can now legally commit genocide and murder. With… unregulated poisons.”
“Some court needs to take judicial notice of the structure that I’m describing here, and say, ‘This is nonsense,” Latypova adds.
“[W]hen you switch the status [of a regulatory pathway for a drug with the FDA]… to the non-investigational one [the EUA countermeasure pathway], the clinical trial becomes not a clinical trial—it’s just a collection of people trying drugs. Just like a recreational party…”
In this clip, Latypova shows a key diagram representing the “Process for EUA Issuance.” The pharma executive notes, “There is no [FDA] approval here.” With EUA countermeasures like the C19 injections, “They don’t get approved, they get issued and deployed…”
Critically, Latypova notes, “It’s all opinion based. It’s based on opinions and declaration of circumstances.”
Outlining how this worked in the context of COVID, Latypova notes there was a “BS declaration of [a] public health emergency” based on 40 cases in China. By April 2020, Latypova says pharma companies like Pfizer and Moderna had opened INDs (Investigational New Drug Applications) with the FDA and that their so-called vaccines “were on a regulated BLA [Biologics Licensing Application] pathway.”
While the companies were originally aimed at obtaining “full approval” for their products, however, by October 2020, in an FDA meeting, Doran Fink*—who was Deputy Director-Clinical at the FDA at the time—was asked why the FDA wasn’t using the expanded access use pathway for the COVID injections.
Latypova notes that Fink responded, in essence, that the FDA switched to the EUA countermeasure pathway because “when you switch the status… to the non-investigational [pathway], the clinical trial becomes not a clinical trial—it’s just a collection of people trying drugs. Just like a recreational party…”
*
In this clip, Latypova shows a key diagram representing the “Process for EUA Issuance.” The pharma executive notes, “There is no [FDA] approval here.” With EUA countermeasures like the C19 injections, “They don’t get approved, they get issued and deployed…”
Critically, Latypova notes, “It’s all opinion based. It’s based on opinions and declaration of circumstances.”
Outlining how this worked in the context of COVID, Latypova notes there was a “BS declaration of [a] public health emergency” based on 40 cases in China. By April 2020, Latypova says pharma companies like Pfizer and Moderna had opened INDs (Investigational New Drug Applications) with the FDA and that their so-called vaccines “were on a regulated BLA [Biologics Licensing Application] pathway.”
While the companies were originally aimed at obtaining “full approval” for their products, however, by October 2020, in an FDA meeting, Doran Fink*—who was Deputy Director-Clinical at the FDA at the time—was asked why the FDA wasn’t using the expanded access use pathway for the COVID injections.
Latypova notes that Fink responded, in essence, that the FDA switched to the EUA countermeasure pathway because “when you switch the status… to the non-investigational [pathway], the clinical trial becomes not a clinical trial—it’s just a collection of people trying drugs. Just like a recreational party…”
*
A screenshot of Fink’s exact quote is shown here. Note: Fink went from working at the FDA to working at Moderna*.
“The differences between expanded access use and Emergency Use Authorization are that expanded access use is done–or is carried out under FDA’s investigational new drug regulations. So among many other things, those regulations require use of an institutional review board and also OBTAINING INFORMED CONSENT from recipients of the investigational vaccine according to regulations for clinical investigations…”
*
“The differences between expanded access use and Emergency Use Authorization are that expanded access use is done–or is carried out under FDA’s investigational new drug regulations. So among many other things, those regulations require use of an institutional review board and also OBTAINING INFORMED CONSENT from recipients of the investigational vaccine according to regulations for clinical investigations…”
*
“No clinical trials are possible [with EUA countermeasures under a public health emergency]... full approval… is a fake.”
In another clip from her interview with Engel, Latypova goes over how in the case of a “non-investigational product” like the C19 injections, “no clinical trials are possible.” She notes, “full approval… is a fake.”
Put simply, the retired pharma executive says that “These people are just telling you this to fool everyone long enough to take these injections.”
In another clip from her interview with Engel, Latypova goes over how in the case of a “non-investigational product” like the C19 injections, “no clinical trials are possible.” She notes, “full approval… is a fake.”
Put simply, the retired pharma executive says that “These people are just telling you this to fool everyone long enough to take these injections.”
“The PREP Act, that’s what they’re using to cover themselves. To kill as many people as they [want to].”
Finally, in this clip, Latypova describes how the 2005 PREP Act* serves as a “liability shield” by “[removing] liability from covered persons using covered countermeasures… on condition of following orders of health authorities.”
Latypova notes, “So, under [the] PREP Act, if you use [a] covered countermeasure, and follow directions, even if you killed somebody and it can be definitively proven that you caused the death using this countermeasure, it’s not… willful misconduct and you are covered under this liability shield. So it’s absolutely ironclad for them. They can kill as many people as they want using covered countermeasures.”
The retired pharma executive adds that the liability shield was extended through predatory contracts between the injection manufacturers and foreign governments, as the latter were compelled to jettison “all the consumer safety protection laws that exist in relation to this product.”
*Link to PREP Act:
Finally, in this clip, Latypova describes how the 2005 PREP Act* serves as a “liability shield” by “[removing] liability from covered persons using covered countermeasures… on condition of following orders of health authorities.”
Latypova notes, “So, under [the] PREP Act, if you use [a] covered countermeasure, and follow directions, even if you killed somebody and it can be definitively proven that you caused the death using this countermeasure, it’s not… willful misconduct and you are covered under this liability shield. So it’s absolutely ironclad for them. They can kill as many people as they want using covered countermeasures.”
The retired pharma executive adds that the liability shield was extended through predatory contracts between the injection manufacturers and foreign governments, as the latter were compelled to jettison “all the consumer safety protection laws that exist in relation to this product.”
*Link to PREP Act:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
