Will We Fall For the Latest Expert Psyop Protecting Pfizer from Criminal Liability?
Misrepresenting EUA Law and DOD Contracts: How Experts Continue to Convince Americans that Pfizer Has Immunity
Have you noticed that the ongoing ‘breaking patriot news’ from our trusted experts on the regulatory scandals for the FDA approval of Pfizer’s mRNA injections all protect Pfizer? The latest story is from Sasha Latypova claiming that the FDA-authorization and approval was ‘political theatre’ done under a secret military operation and therefore didn’t really happen. Remember when Dr. Malone told us the FDA-approval for Pfizer was actually for BioNTech, not Pfizer, and that was why it didn’t really happen?
The FDA-approved Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines on August 23, 2021, breaking Pfizer’s emergency use authorization immunity shield. I broke this news with Stew Peters on August 25, 2021, but other experts strongly disagreed and defended Pfizer, specifically Dr. Robert Malone. You can read about Dr. Malone’s coverage of Pfizer’s immunity regardless of FDA-approval and engagement in post-marketing activities here and here.
The Kingston Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Due to constant tagging, I watched two interviews with Sasha Latypova claiming that because EUA products are medical countermeasure (MCM), such as the COVID-19 vaccines, as medical countermeasures they can not go through the FDA-approval process or FDA-authorization process at all, and that the FDA authorization, initial new drug application and approval processes for the COVID-19 vaccines were all ‘just for show’. These claims are false and misleading propaganda to try and convince us that Pfizer and the FDA have iron-clad immunity to intentionally inflict disease, disabilities and death with a bioweapon, and there is nothing the American people can do about it.
This is the key take away from the spin Sasha has put on the documents I have previously shared on Stew Peters (January 2021 interview reviewing of DoD contracts) and in my Substack.
But don’t take my word for it, listen to Clayton Morris introduce his summary of Sasha’s ‘bombshell newly obtained documents’.
“Bombshell new report shows the DOD Pentagon controlled the COVID-19 program from the beginning and everything we were told was politically theatre, basically to cover it up, right down to the FDA vaccine approval process. It was all theatre, that means that human beings were used as props, essentially. According to newly obtained documents, the Pentagon used a combination of shady approval authorizations that are still in use, including the PREP Act, EUA Law, shielded Big pharma, agencies, medical participants that delivered unregulated vaccines from any liability and protected them and they are not on the hook for any of this, liability, these new documents are from the former executive of a contract research organization – Sasha Latypova” - Clayton Morris
SASHA: These are not vaccines, these are medical countermeasures. They can use a lot of secrecy. They don’t have to run clinical trials. They are not required because these products cannot be investigational products. That’s what the law says. If they cannot be investigational products then we don’t have any investigation. We don’t have any clinical trial subjects. So that’s how they are pulling this off.
These statements are deceptive from the perspective of a legal argument. Per the law and contracts, the medical counter measure is a vaccine that is subject to FDA EUA laws and/or initial new drug application(IND)/FDA-approval laws. To say that the clinical trials don’t exist because they can’t for a product that was authorized as a medical countermeasure is either intentionally deceptive and reckless or just completely ignorant.
Per the FDA, the EUA is not a substitute for receiving FDA-approval under regulated clinical trials and regulated clinical trials to prove safety and efficacy can be run in a parallel while an EUA is issued.
“As stated in section III.C with regard to pre-EUA activities, an EUA is not a substitute for sponsor efforts to develop the product toward approval, including conducting clinical trials designed to determine whether the product is safe and effective for its intended use. When appropriate, FDA encourages sponsors to design and propose appropriately controlled clinical trials that could be conducted during the emergency response either to run in parallel with an EUA or instead of an EUA.”
Per Pfizer’s July 21, 2020, manufacturing agreement with the Department of Defense (DOD), the manufacturing and deployment of 100 million doses of a ‘candidate vaccine’ is subject to, “technical, clinical and regulatory (FDA) success.”
The DOD contract clearly states that, “Pfizer will meet the necessary FDA requirements for conducting clinical trials in collaboration with BioNTech,” and that these trials, “are regulated by the FDA and HHS, there is no need for separate regulation by the US Army Medical Research.”
This means that while Pfizer was contracted to manufacturer the 100 million vials, completion of the contract and deployment of those vials on the US population was contingent on FDA requirements separate from any processes or authority of the US military.
While PFIZER had 100% iron-clad immunity against any harm caused by their EUA mRNA vaccine, that iron-clad immunity shield is ‘separate and distinct’ from an FDA-approved mRNA product.
The FDA-approved mRNA products are subject to the laws of the Food and Drug Consumer Protection Act and are not protected by the immunity clauses in PFIZER’s contract with the US military.
Verbatim from FDA Industry Guidance document;
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to The Kingston Report to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.