Pharma Insider and Journalist Break Down the Ruling Against Pfizer Whistleblower Brook Jackson, Who Brought to Light Fraud in the Pharma Giant’s COVID-19 ‘Vaccine’ Trial


In this interview with TrialSite News’ Shabnam Palesa Mohamed pharma industry veteran Sasha Latypova and writer/paralegal Katherine Watt offer an overview of why Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson’s False Claims Act complaint against the pharma giant, which pertained to its fraudulent COVID-19 “vaccine” trial, was dismissed by a US district judge. While Latypova notes that the “truth won” despite the ruling, Watt says there is “no rule of law anymore, [but] just a criminal enterprise presenting itself as the U.S. government…”

Bringing an end to her complaint against Pfizer in its current form, US District Judge Michael J. Truncale has ruled against whistleblower Brook Jackson, who brought a False Claims Act complaint against the pharma giant for conducting an unsafe, incomplete, and even outright fraudulent clinical trial for its COVID-19 “vaccine.” In the video below pharma industry veteran Sasha Latypova and journalist and paralegal Katherine Watt discuss the dismissal “with prejudice”—meaning the complaint can’t be filed again—noting that while the “truth won,” there is still “no rule of law anymore, [but] just a criminal enterprise presenting itself as the U.S. government…”

Jackson’s case “gave the world the first window into… the military control of the whole [COVID-19 injection] project,” Watt tells TrialSite News’ Shabnam Palesa Mohamed. “And if Brook had not filed her case at all, then Pfizer would not have had to do a motion to dismiss and we would not have known at that time that it was a military program under military contracting provisions and other military laws.

Watt goes on to say that “right now, now that I’ve seen the [judge’s] order, it’s giving us another little bit of a window.” She says the situation still “sucks,” however, as “we have to keep doing all this stuff by reverse engineering because they’ve been lying from the beginning about what they are doing and that it is a chemical and biological warfare program, not a pharmaceutical project.”

Indeed, Watt says that it’s clear from the dismissal of Brook’s complaint that “the rule of law is not functioning anymore.” The paralegal and writer even says that “Contract law is not applicable to this program, and drug regulation is not applicable to this program [either].”

Critically, Watt also highlights the profound problem posed by the fact that people—by law—are not allowed to know what’s in the contents of the COVID injection vials. She says that “in a lot of other federal cases about this particular project, people have to speculate because we don’t know what it’s in the [COVID injection] vials [and] we don’t know exactly when and how the intellectual property has been transferred from the DOD to the manufacturing plants.” Here, it seems Watt is referring to “the DOD black box” that Latypova has described in a previous interview, wherein the U.S. military is responsible for distributing the COVID injections and has “contracts with vaccinators explicitly [stating] that [the injections are]… Department of Defense property… until [they get] injected into [recipients].” (Hear that interview via the post embedded immediately above.)

Link to Pfizer’s motion to dismiss

For her part in the interview with Mohamed, Latypova highlights the fact that Pfizer’s motion to dismiss Jackson’s complaint stated that its contract with the U.S. government only required it to produce a “prototype demonstration” of a COVID vaccine, not the real thing. This is something Latypova has discussed in another one of her interviews, which can be watched via the post embedded immediately below, and is plainly comprehensible in the excerpt from Pfizer’s motion to dismiss immediately above.

“I think they [Brook and her legal team] are going to appeal, but it [the ruling] wasn’t surprising, because we knew that Pfizer was doing what the government told them to do,” Latypova says. “In fact in the motion to dismiss they [Pfizer] were claiming… we didn’t do anything wrong, the government ordered us to produce prototypes and demonstrations, meaning fake. And so we produced fakes. Just like [the] government told us to do. And that was their defense. And it was in fact [a] valid defense. And it wasn’t surprising that these perverted legal structures were upheld by this court… and so the result was as we expected it to be.”

Latypova also says that when she read the contracts between Pfizer and the U.S. government pertaining to the COVID injections, they were “written in a very deceitful way.” She says the contracts “use a lot of language to confuse and to write internally… seemingly contradictory clauses.” Specifically, the pharma industry veteran highlights the fact that “When you come to the things that are potentially enforceable, such as, for example, [a] specific clause about the scope of the contract, then, in that clause, it says explicitly that clinical trials and… good manufacturing practice compliance are out of the scope of this project.”

The pharma industry veteran adds that Truncale pointed to this fact in order to dismiss Jackson’s complaint against Pfizer. “So while a lot of people were saying ‘Pfizer’s liable, Pfizer’s liable, look there’s all this language about good manufacturing compliance,’ in fact what played out in court is [the] judge pointed to that clause and said ‘Oh look, it’s out of scope. The government was not supposed to pay for this. [S]o you can’t say the government was defrauded.”

In regard to future legal strategies, Latypova says “subsequent cases or appeals or any other legal actions should take [the findings uncovered from Jackson’s complaint] into account.” She says that she and Watt now know, for example, that “contract law doesn’t apply” in the context of these COVID injections. She adds “pharmaceutical laws don’t apply” as “They all got subverted.”

Feature image: Jernej Furman

(Visited 191 times, 2 visits today)

Accessibility Toolbar