TOP LINE
In this 45-minute-long video essay JP and Julie Collins summarize the many federal crimes that have taken place in order to allow for the rollout of the COVID-19 “vaccines.” Based largely on the work of pharma insider Sasha Latypova and researcher Katherine Watt, the video essay reveals the enormous—and unconstitutional—authority that the HHS Secretary wields over the American public (specifically to proclaim and maintain “public health emergencies” and “EUAs”), how the DoD and National Security Council have treated this public health emergency as a wartime effort, how the public was brainwashed into accepting the COVID injections, and the concrete evidence showing that Pfizer never performed any real clinical trials for its novel “vaccines.”
Although it’s exceptionally difficult to develop a “big picture” sense of the narrative underpinning the rollout of the COVID-19 “vaccines,” two women—independent journalist and paralegal Katherine Watt and pharma industry veteran Sasha Latypova—have been able to assemble perhaps the best story of what has happened and what continues to happen. In a new video essay by JP and Julie Collins, a summation of the COVID “vaccine” narrative is offered based largely on Latypova and Watt’s work—driving home the point that the novel injections are nothing more than a DoD bioweapon in disguise.
In their video essay—immediately above—JP and Julie encapsulate the research Latypova and Watt have conducted (largely independently, it seems) delving into everything surrounding the COVID “vaccines.” Including the legal framework that allowed for their rollout, how they’re actually produced, who’s in charge of making them, and what materials they truly consist of—a far harder task than it should, but is thanks to “trade secrets,” redacted ingredient lists, and the literal illegality of independent analysis of what’s in the COVID vaccine vials available on the market.
The duo’s video essay, drawing on Watt’s research, shows how the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) wields enormous power once he or she decides to—unilaterally—declare a “public health emergency.” Namely, the ability to grant a (at least ostensible) medical product as necessary for public health—regardless of whether or not there is any data to back up the product’s safety or efficacy.
As Latypova has described in her now-viral “intent to harm” presentation—available via the post embedded immediately above—congressional amendments to the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the 1944 Public Health Services Act eliminated federal regulatory standards for products “designated by the FDA for ’emergency use’ during an HHS-declared, HHS-maintained ‘public health emergency.'” Thanks to these amendments, the HHS Secretary can choose to deploy “medical countermeasures” that aren’t required to meet any standards of safety or efficacy.
Furthermore, the decision to declare an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a given medical product or countermeasure is based solely on the HHS Secretary’s own discretion upon review of “the totality of scientific evidence available.” (See exact law here.) Even if the product “may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing” the disease causing the public health emergency. The key word there being “may,” as it means no scientific evidence is required to show the product or countermeasure actually works.
On January 31, 2020, then HHS Secretary Alexander Azar announced in front of the press that he had declared a public health emergency, which officially went into effect on February 4, 2020. Then, on March 27, 2020, Azar “declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use drugs and biological products during the COVID-19 pandemic… .” Opening the door, of course, for the COVID-19 “vaccines.”
Interestingly, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is an agency under the HHS, announced on March 16, 2020—11 days prior to Azar’s authorizing emergency use of drugs and biological products—that “A Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating an investigational vaccine designed to protect against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has begun at Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (KPWHRI) in Seattle.”
The National Institutes of Allergies and Infectious Diseases—then headed up by “Dr.” Anthony Fauci—funded the trial. The NIH announcement also noted that the vaccine candidate, mRNA-1273, “was developed by NIAID scientists and their collaborators at the biotechnology company Moderna, Inc., based in Cambridge, Massachusetts,” and that “The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) supported the manufacturing of the vaccine candidate for the Phase 1 clinical trial.”
For those unfamiliar, CEPI was conceived in 2015 and formally launched in 2017 at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. It was co-funded with $460 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the governments of India and Norway.
The clinical trials conducted for Moderna’s candidate “vaccine,” as well as Pfizer-BioNTech’s “vaccine” were not real clinical trials, however. As JP and Julie’s video essay explains beginning around the 6:40 mark in the video, on September 25, 2020, the FDA received a complaint from Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who’d been working for Ventavia Research Group—a Texas based company hired to run clinical trials for Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. As outlined in an investigative article published in The British Medical Journal on November 16, 2022—available via the post embedded immediately above—Jackson, a regional director for Ventavia at the time, said, according to The BMJ, that she’d “witnessed problems at three trial sites she was overseeing and complained to an FDA inspector about a range of problems including falsified data, unblinded patients, and inadequately trained vaccinators who were slow to follow up on adverse events.”
“I thought that the FDA was going to swoop in and take care of everything. What I was reporting was so important,” Jackson told The BMJ. The journal noted that the FDA did not, however, inspect the trial sites in question.
On the contrary, when Jackson reported Pfizer’s COVID “vaccine” clinical sites to the FDA, she was soon thereafter fired by Ventavia. (In just a matter of hours after filing her complaint.) When Jackson then sued Pfizer, claiming that it had breached its contract with the U.S. government to trial its “vaccines” according to Good Clinical Practices (GCP), the pharmaceutical giant claimed in a motion to dismiss that it did not have to obey any GCP as it was only tasked with performing a “demonstration” of a clinical trial.
Indeed, in Pfizer’s contract with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the pharma giant proposes a “COVID-19 Pandemic – Large Scale Vaccine Manufacturing Demonstration.” The DoD notes in the agreement that it requested “prototype proposals.” I.e. not the actual “vaccine” candidate, but only a “prototype” of the actual vaccine candidate.
The DoD goes on to use the word “demonstration” another 15 times throughout the contract with Pfizer, and specifically refers to its vaccine “prototype” as a “promising medical countermeasure.” The contract also stipulates that the agreement was entered into “for purposes of facilitating the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, and use of ‘Covered Countermeasures’ for responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency, in accordance with Section VI of the PREP Act Declaration.”
Notably, in Pfizer’s motion to dismiss Jackson’s federal False Claims Act lawsuit, Pfizer explicitly noted that the FDA was aware of Jackson’s complaints prior to their EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech “vaccine.” Jackson, for the record, complained that Pfizer “failed to maintain clinical trial documentation in a blinded way,” “injected clinical trial participants prior to obtaining informed consent,” “neglected to report adverse events in a timely manner,” and “in certain instances, ‘fabricat[ed] new numbers’ in clinical trial documents.”
As the video essayists note, Pfizer is impervious to any accusation of poor regulatory compliance or malfeasance because its COVID-19 “vaccine” contract is specifically an Other Transactions Authority (OTA) contract.
As Cornell’s Legal Information Institute describes 10 U.S. Code § 4021, commonly referred to as OTA, gives “The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of each military department [the ability to] enter into transactions (other than contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants) [in order to carry] out basic, applied, and advanced research projects.” Cornell’s Institute adds “The authority under this subsection is in addition to the authority provided in section 4001 of this title to use contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants in carrying out such projects.”
In other words, 10 U.S. Code § 4021, an amendment to the law implemented under the Obama Administration in 2015, allows the DoD to order “undisclosed military prototypes” from private manufacturers, such as pharmaceutical companies. Not only that, but it allows the private contractors making the DoD’s military prototypes to completely avoid any kind of manufacturing, safety, or efficacy disclosures.
Interestingly, although this is not mentioned in the video essay, an IBM Center for the Business of Government report from 2021 notes that “OTAs [have] provided the funding vehicle for RNA research since at least 2003” for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA. The IBM report notes that DARPA, the DoD’s research and development agency, used the public sentiment shift after the 9/11 attacks and anthrax scare “to conduct early stage research into how DNA and RNA could help to create vaccines. One of DARPA’s earliest awards in this field was an Other Transaction for a prototype using an RNA synthesis method for gene sequence assembly.”
Meaning, it seems, that all of the research the DoD has performed regarding the technology relevant to the COVID “vaccines” has been performed under OTA contracts. I.e. performed without necessarily obeying standard industry regulations.
The PREP Act is also highlighted as a key piece of law that had to be in place to allow for the unimpeded rollout of the COVID injections. Watt notes in a Substack post titled “American Domestic Bioterrorism Program” that in 2005 former President Bush passed the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which, as Watt points out in her post, allows the head of the HHS to “unilaterally issue declarations recommending ‘manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, or use of one or more covered countermeasures.’” Watt also notes in her post that the PREP Act “Added more detail on liability shields for pandemic and epidemic products and security countermeasures [and] Set pre-suit hurdle requiring HHS to first bring claims against defendants, and bar private claims until after HHS claims resolved, if and only if defendant found liable.” Overall, Watt says, the Act “Set liability standard at willful misconduct… .”
While the HHS Secretary wields the power to issue declarations of public emergencies and issue EUAs for drugs, biologics, diagnostics (think PCR tests), etc., in reality it’s the DoD pulling the strings. As the video essay highlights, the way the contracts between pharmaceutical companies and the DoD work is by putting the latter partner in the driver’s seat. Overwhelmingly.
“The Department of Defense controls the production of the prototype—or the countermeasure—from the very beginning,” Julie says in the video essay. “They have to be a part of every correspondence and on every phone call, CC’d on every email with every pharmaceutical company, their subcontractors, and any FDA regulators when it comes to the delivery of the COVID-19 injectable.” Immediately above we see the DoD’s own schedule outlining the “COVID-19 Vaccine Plan” from “Pre-Vaccine” up until “Routine Operations.” (Even after FDA approval!)
Julie goes on to note in the video that “As long as the DoD is in communication with these agencies, these agencies are given immunity—protection from freedom of information act requests, and possibly even signed non-disclosure agreements in order to protect themselves legally.” As a result, the video essayist says that the “DoD is dictating to the FDA what the FDA must disclose to the public about the authorization of these allegedly safe vaccines.” Language in their contracts specifically says that “no third party or testing site can be done on the prototypes.”
“This means no one really knows what’s actually in the prototype vials,” Julie adds. “Nothing in the vials corresponds to what is on the labels. The only way we can find out what the properties are is by looking at the contents of the vials under a microscope, which no one is allowed to do.”
Indeed, the complete list of ingredients and manufacturing processes for the COVID injections is hidden by “trade secret” protections. (See the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action excerpts immediately above.) This means that while employers continue to coerce their employees into getting injected with the experimental COVID countermeasures, they are literally not allowed to know what’s inside of the “vaccine” vials.
At around the 24:30 mark, the video essayists speculate that rather than a novel viral pathogen, whatever caused the disease dubbed COVID-19 was actually “a poison.” A poison that they claim was not released through the air nor water nor sprayed on food, but rather released on a select handful of populations in different countries; perhaps, they speculate, through flu shots distributed in 2019. Interestingly, in support of their claim, they bring up former CDC Director Robert Redfield’s claim that SARS-CoV-2 was likely produced in a biolab, even though that proposition seems to conflict with theirs.
While Redfield has never claimed COVID-19 is caused by some kind of manipulated poison, med-legal advisor Karen Kingston has, and she has numerous “receipts” to back up her claim. Although the proposition still seems to be far from rock solid.
In an interview with Reiner Fuellmich from July of 2022, Kingston outlined how she believes that lipid nanoparticles were used to deliver “weaponized, stabilized” spike proteins into certain populations in several countries. More specifically, Kingston said “the global population maybe have been exposed to aerosol weapon attacks of lipid nanoparticle encapsulated chimeric gain-of-function weaponized viruses.” Kingston went on to say that the spike proteins from the viruses could’ve been put in the lipid nanoparticles “independently,” on their own.
In the interview with Fuellmich, Kingston outlined several pieces of information that informed her theory describing the release of a non-viral bioweapon in early 2020 (or somewheres about that that time). She notes, for example, that Ralph Baric—a scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who was a key point man for NIAID-funded gain-of-function research—had trouble getting his weaponized virus to replicate and spread in vivo. (See PNAS study excerpt above.)
Kingston also noted in her interview a proposal by EcoHealth Alliance—which was used as a funding conduit for the NIAID for research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology—given to DARPA dubbed Project DEFUSE. In the proposal (excerpts of which are immediately above), EcoHealth outlined how it intended to use “recombinant chimeric spike-proteins” to “assess delivery vehicles” including “transdermally applied nanoparticles,” “sticky edible gels,” and “aerosolization via prototype sprayers.”
The video essayists also explain how, three months after HHS Secretary Azar announced a public health emergency, then-President Donald Trump declared a national emergency due to COVID-19. (See excerpts immediately above and below.) “It was at this point the Department of Defense, Department of State, FEMA, and the HHS set to work conditioning the public to react to the terrorist labeled as SARS-CoV-2,” Julie notes.
Julie goes on to say in the video that Trump used the Defense Production Act (DPA)—previously only used during wartime—“to support the idea that we all had to do our part to fight the enemy terrorist—the virus.” She adds that the government deployed “billions of dollars out to commercials, entertainment, late night talk shows, schools, marketing materials, public transportation posters, and every imaginable media corner in the United States[ which became] dedicated to the propaganda initiative to keep us all safe from a virus.” Julie notes this method is meant for a “war time state” and was deployed as the “conditioning phase” of the public.
Indeed, as outlets like NY1 and The New York Times have reported, the White House recruited an “influencer army” to push the COVID injections. NY1 reported in August of 2021 that “Dozens of Twitch streamers, YouTubers and TikTokers are helping the White House as it tries drum up vaccination numbers and combat the scourge of vaccine misinformation being spread on social media.” In the same vein, the CDC announced in April of 2021 that it planned to spend $3 billion “for innovative partnerships with community-based organizations to increase vaccine uptake… .”
In December of 2020, CBS News also reported that the HHS was spending $250 million on a “marketing blitz to build trust in the coronavirus vaccines’ safety says the campaign… .” On March 15, 2021, STAT News reported that The White House was soon to unveil “a wide-reaching public relations campaign aimed at boosting vaccine confidence and uptake across the U.S.,” which had a budget of $1.5 billion.
The video essayists also discuss the so-called “Great Resignation,” and claim that it has, in fact, been a cover story for the enormous number of working-age people who’ve been maimed or killed by the COVID injection “countermeasures” leaving the workforce.
“These employees weren’t quitting,” Julie says in the video. “They, in fact, were dying off after imbibing the countermeasure. Or they were becoming permanently disabled after imbibing the countermeasure.”
Indeed, as the video essay briefly eludes to, former BlackRock fund manager Edward Dowd has brought to light a publicly available actuarial report from the Society of Actuaries Research Institute evincing a massive increase in all-cause mortality amongst the age groups spanning 25 through 64 in Q3 of 2021. More specifically, a 78% increase in ages 25-34; a 100% increase in ages 35-44; an 80% increase in ages 45-54; and an increase of 53% in ages 55-64. Perhaps not incidentally, there was also a 31% increase for ages 65-74, and a 19% for ages 75-84. (Read more about Dowd and that report via the post embedded immediately below.)
The video essayists dedicate the last portion of the video to speculating on the idea that, because “the public has [now] been sufficiently gaslit and conditioned, or tenderized into a behavioral change, there will be no need for multibillion dollar marketing or ad campaigns in the future.” Especially in the case of whatever the next “public health emergency” may be.
“It’s expected that the population’s been trained into obedience and will simply comply with more lockdown, quarantine, isolating, masking, testing, and even vaccinating when a public health crisis is announced,” the video essayists say. Rather than deploying the “soft power” techniques used during COVID, JP and Julie speculate the techniques deployed during the next supposed health emergency “won’t be so nice.“
Toward the close of the video, the essayist quote Watt, who’s summarized this entire crime against the American public by noting that: “Congress and US Presidents legalized and funded the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. government and the American people, through a massive domestic bioterrorism program relabeled as a public health program, conducted by the HHS Secretary and Secretary of Defense on behalf of the World Health Organization and its financial backers.”
Indeed, Watt has told Latypova in a previous interview—which you can watch via the post embedded immediately above—that with the legal architecture now in place in the U.S. surrounding public health emergencies, “Congress [has] not only put all the power into the HHS Secretary’s hands, [but] also eliminated their own oversight power.” Watt added “[Congress claims] that they have no power to overrule or… review [HHS Secretary] emergency declarations… [and] they can’t overrule [those] EUA declarations. They also put provisions that no federal judge can review those declarations. Once they’re made, they’re considered solely within agency discretion—so there’s no judicial review.”
On top of that, Watt says Congress “eliminated states’ power to take any course of action different from what the HHS Secretary has said that they should do, which is called preemption.” In all, Watt clarifies that this means there is no state, congressional, or judicial authority that now exists to overrule the HHS Secretary’s authority to declare, unilaterally, a national health emergency. Nor to rule that a medical product is sufficiently safe and effective for use in the general public during a national health emergency.
“This raises the super-interesting philosophical question with horrible implications,” Watt added in her interview with Latypova, of “how did [Congress] give away a power that [it] didn’t have the power to give away?” She adds “Congress does not have the power to dissolve itself; Congress does not have the power to dissolve the federal judiciary under the U.S. Constitution. But they did it to the extent that the federal judges are deferring to them and Congress is deferring to the HHS Secretary and the states—for the most part, with exceptions like Florida—are deferring and not challenging these things; they’re just saying whoop!, that happened!”
The video essayists say that these “structural congressional features” mean that there is simply “no judicial review” of the HHS Secretary’s dictates, even at the state level. They also say that “apparently, people aren’t aware of these structural features that Congress built into the law around public health” because lawsuits have been filed anyway. However, they have all either been dismissed, or resulted in a defendant appeal.
The video essayists highlight one instance evincing a lack of judicial review of the HHS Secretary’s dictates, with the case of New York State Senator George Borrello, et al. versus Governor Hochul. While the judge ruled in favor of Borrello, claiming that Hochul does not have the right to put New Yorkers in quarantine camps, JP notes the governor did not have that—obviously unconstitutional—right in the first place. Based on the laws surrounding public health emergencies, JP says “the judge didn’t have the right to make that ruling either,” but only because the power to do so was made available by the HHS Secretary’s public health emergency declaration.
In fact, the video essayists say that Hochul’s legislation surrounding quarantining of New Yorkers can only be reversed by the HHS Secretary because “all power around public health law, which includes quarantining and isolating the public, has been handed over to the HHS Secretary.” (In the video immediately above lead attorney for Borrello et al. describes her case against Hochul, as well as the appeal of the judge’s ruling by New York Attorney General Letitia James. It’s unclear where the appeal stands as of this writing.)
As for Watt’s highlighting the WHO’s role in this grand crime against humanity, it was the organization’s declaration of a “public health emergency of international concern” or PHEIC (literally pronounced “fake”) that inspired former HHS Secretary Azar to declare a public health emergency in the U.S. In the future, the WHO’s control over America may grow infinitely worse if new amendments to its International Health Regulations (IHR) are passed by its so-called World Health Assembly (WHA).
As researcher and activist James Roguski explained to Reiner Fuellmich, et al. in May of 2022, the truly disconcerting “needle in the haystack” he found in IHR amendments published January 20, 2022 altered the wording of several of the regulations’ articles. Roguski focused on Article 12, which—if the amendments are ratified in the future—will say the WHO Director-General would be able to declare PHEIC emergencies unilaterally.
“Currently the WHO does not have the authority to override a sovereign country’s decision to tell them to just shove off,” Roguski told Fuellmich, et al. But “[the WHO] doesn’t like that… so if you remove [that] limitation on power… this creates an absolute, single dictator… [and] The Director-General can declare an emergency any time he wants.”
In summary, the video essayists say that what we are witnessing is a “reversal of the Nuremberg trials.” Julie explains by saying that what authorities have done in the case of the crimes against humanity described here, is drafted legislation, crafted scenarios, and cemented contracts “to protect war criminals from ever having to face the gallows… .” Indeed, in a just and reasonable world, the perpetrators of these crimes would have to stand trial for falsely imprisoning, coercing, and maiming and killing their fellow Americans.
Feature image: Office of NIH Director
Related News
