And the DOD-DOJ-HHS complex has replaced federal legislatures and courts.
For awhile, I thought the World Health Organization Constitution was the governing document that superseded the US Constitution and other rule-of-law charters governing other formerly sovereign nation-states when the WHO Director-General declared a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) and the federal public health officials in each country implemented the globalist overthrow by issuing federal declarations that a public health emergency (PHE) exists.
More recently, I speculated that perhaps there are secret UN Rules of Engagement that came into play once the nation-states fell to the foreign occupation forces.
I now think that the contracts between governments, pharmaceutical corporations (mostly Pfizer and Moderna) and the US Department of Defense are the legal turnkeys.
As a recap, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared Covid-19 outbreak a “public health emergency of international concern,” (PHEIC) on Jan. 30, 2020.
This triggered the legal obligations of WHO member states under the 2005 International Health Regulations, to suspend national sovereignty, WHO-conflicting federal laws, and all constitutional rights of citizens using the implementing domestic statutes and regulations they had previously adopted in compliance with the WHO IHR.
In compliance with these obligations, US Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar declared Covid-19 a “public health emergency” on Jan. 31, 2020, effective Jan. 27, 2020.
So Jan. 27, 2020 is the date that Americans began living under foreign occupation.
And because the PHE declaration has been renewed by the sitting HHS secretary every few months since then, we are still living under foreign occupation today.
Last week, I was in an email discussion that began with PREP Act provisions found in Department of Defense contracts with subcontractors who produce the lethal injections marketed as “Covid-19 vaccines,” and moved on to address supply contracts signed between Pfizer and at least 110 national governments around the world.
It reminded me of Ehden Bibet’s excellent July 2021 reporting on the Brazil contract.
Bibet is a London-based cybersecurity expert turned independent investigator.
Bibet’s reporting on the Pfizer contracts can be found at his Substack Sense of Awareness in posts published July 28-31, 2021, plus a few follow-up reports published between August 2021 and January 2022.
Below is an edited version of some of the email exchange, with quotes from Bibet’s reporting and excerpts from the Brazil and Albania Pfizer contracts.
During a recent Zoom meeting, Sasha Latypova, pharma/regulatory clinicial trials professional turned independent investigator, shared a website she recently found, which compiles Covid-related contracts.
[The site was founded in 2006 and is funded by Soros, Ford, Rockefeller, McArthur and other genocidal zealots, which is odd. Use at your own risk.]
Latypova said she had started reviewing some of the vaxx contracts and discovered multiple subcontracts. She concluded that the products are manufactured by DOD, BigPharma is just a front, and the actual production happens at a network of small suppliers including Emergent Biosolutions (formerly BioPort), National Resilience, and academic institutions including Texas A&M.
Latypova found contract language indicating that BARDA (DOD Biological Advanced Research and Development Authority) micromanages the projects. For example, some provisions require that DOD agents accompany contractor representatives during meetings with FDA officials. Some contracts list FDA as “chief science officer” for the subcontractor companies.
In other words, DOD has overtaken the entire pharmaceutical sector.
Another person on the call noted that the DOD direct control of the manufacturing through the subcontractors is the reason why there’s no public access to vials for testing and verification of contents and no access to the US Attorney General for enforcement of manufacturing and other legal standards. DOD directs DOJ attorneys to refuse to respond to crime and civil tort reports, citing military security and secrecy.
Latypova also recapped work compiling the results of 26 different groups around the world that have analyzed a few thousand smuggled vials, referring to What is in the so-called COVID-19 “Vaccines”? Part 1: Evidence of a Global Crime Against Humanity, published Sept. 3, 2022 in the International Journal of Vaccine, Theory and Practice:
Between July 2021 and August 2022, evidence of undisclosed ingredients in the COVID-19 “vaccines” was published by at least 26 researchers/research teams in 16 different countries across five continents using spectroscopic and microscopic analysis.
Despite operating largely independently of one another, their findings are remarkably similar and highlight the clear and present danger that the world’s population has been lied to regarding the contents of the COVID-19 “vaccines”…
Surprise findings include sharp-edged geometric structures, fibrous or tube-like structures, crystalline formations, “microbubbles,” and possible self-assembling nanotechnology.
The blood of people who have received one or more COVID-19 “vaccines”appears, in case after case, to contain foreign bodies and to be seriously degraded, with red blood cells typically in Rouleaux formation.
“Not a single vial conforms to the manufacturing label,” Latypova said.
After the meeting, Latypova circulated additional information by email, citing a PREP Act clause from a June 15, 2021 Moderna-DOD contract for $8 billion in product, noting that Pfizer and other contracts have the same clauses:
H.8. Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act:
In accordance with the PREP Act, P.L. 109-148, Division C, Section 2, as amended (codified at 42 USC 247d-6d and 42 USC 247d-6e, as well as the Secretary of HHS’s Declaration Under the PREP Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19, 85 Federal Register 15198 (Mar. 17, 2020, effective Feb. 4, 2020) and amended on April 15, 2020, 85 Federal Register 21012…
(i) This Agreement is being entered into for purposes of facilitating the manufacture, testing,d evelopment, 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;
(ii) Contractor’s performance of this Agreement falls within the scope of the ‘Recommended Activities”‘ for responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency, to the extent it is in accordance with Section III of the PREP Act Declaration; and
(iii) Contractor is a “Covered Person” to the extent it is a person defined in Section V of the PREP Act Declaration.
Therefore, in accordance with Sections IV and VII of the PREP Act Declaration as well as the PREP Act, the Department of Defense contracting via assisted acquisition on behalf of the HHS, expressly acknowledges and agrees that the HHS Declaration cited above, specifically its language providing immunity from suit and liability is applicable to this acquisition as long as Contractors activities fall within the terms and conditions of the PREP Act and the PREP Act Declaration.
The Government may not use, or authorize the use of, any products or materials provided under this contract, unless such use occurs in the United States (or a U.S. terroritory where U.S. law applies such as embassies, miltary and NATO installations) and is protected fro liability under a declaration issued under the PREP Act, or a successor COVID-19 PREP Act Declaration of equal or greater scope. Any use where the application of the PREP Act is in question will be discussed with Moderna prior to use and, if the parties disagree on such use, the dispute will be resolved according to the “Disputes Clause.” (52.233-1)
The items and technology covered by this Contract are being developed for both civil and military applications.”
Latypova commented:
“One obvious thing – statement that this technology is dual use, i.e. both civilian and military applications at the end of this clause. Meaning this is a weapon.”
“Given this text, how are they selling this product internationally? They are saying that the PREP Act only absolves them if the product is sold in the US?”
I replied:
I don’t know the answer to your question about selling internationally. Two possibilities that come to mind:
- Maybe the pharma corps have parallel contracts in place with other countries/other countries’ militaries, and the other countries have their versions of the PREP Act, which would be in line with the WHO IHR 2005 provisions requiring each signatory to adopt implementing legislation at the nation-state level.
- Maybe the pharma corp contracts with other countries stipulate that the sales are conducted under US law, and US law provides the only remedies, superseding any domestic law of the other country and any international law, and the contracts provide citations back to the US PREP Act. That would be in line with the various Intellectual Property and international trade laws and agreements from the last couple of decades that explicitly supersede domestic environmental and labor laws, under the World Trade Organization and GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) frameworks
Then I dug up the January 2021 Albania contract on my hard-drive and did keyword searches for ‘PREP’ and ‘liabilit,’ and located an indemnification section that covers a lot of potential losses.
8.1 Indemnification by Purchaser [Government of Albania].
Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer, BioNTech, each of their Affiliates, contractors, sub-contractors, licensors, licensees, sub-licensees, distributors, contract manufacturers, services providers, clinical trial researchers, third parties to whom Pfizer or BioNTech or any of their respective Affiliates may directly or indirectly owe an indemnity based on the research, development, manufacture, distribution, commercialization or use of the Vaccine, and each of the officers, directors, employees and other agents and representatives, and the respective predecessors, successors and assigns of any of the foregoing (“Indemnitees”), from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses of an investigation or litigation), whether sounding in contract, tort, intellectual property, or any other theory, and whether legal, statutory, equitable or otherwise (collectively, “Losses”) arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the Vaccine, including but not limited to any stage of design, development, investigation, formulation, testing, clinical testing, manufacture, labeling, packaging, transport, storage, distribution, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, licensing, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, provision, or use of the Vaccine.
8.2 Assumption of Defense by Purchaser.
The Indemnitee(s) shall notify Purchaser of Losses for which it is seeking indemnification pursuant hereto (“Indemnified Claims”). Upon such notification, Purchaser shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of the Indemnitee with counsel acceptable to Indemnitee(s), whether or not the Indemnified Claim is rightfully brought; provided, however, that Purchaser shall provide advance notice in writing of any proposed compromise or settlement of any Indemnified Claim and in no event may Purchaser compromise or settle any Indemnified Claim without Indemnitee(s)’s prior written consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. Indemnitee(s) shall reasonably cooperate with Purchaser in the defense of the Indemnified Claims.
The same language is in the contract the Brazilian government signed in Spring 2021, described by Ehden Bibet in July 2021. [I haven’t been able to find a PDF of the Brazil contract Bibet used; he used screenshots and alternated the screenshots with interpretive text.]
Bibet found that the Brazil contract imposed no requirements for certified Good Manufacturing Practices, and required the Brazilian government to “grant or obtain on Pfizer’s behalf, all exemptions, exceptions and waivers of country specific requirements for the Product…including but not limited to serialization, applicable laboratory or quality testing and/or marketing information form submission and approval…” and required that the contracts be kept from the public for 10 years.
Bibet also found that the Brazil contract put the Brazilian government on the hook for damages, waived the sovereign immunity of the Brazilian government, referred all claims to New York, USA courts or other “court of competent jurisdiction” and prohibited Brazil’s government from changing its own national laws to change liability, in language identical to the Albanian Pfizer contract at 9.5:
Purchaser represents that it has and will continue to have adequate statutory or regulatory authority and adequate funding appropriation to undertake and completely fulfil the indemnification obligations and provide adequate protection to Pfizer and all Indemnitees from liability for claims and all Losses arising out of or in connection with the Vaccine or its use.
Purchaser hereby covenants and acknowledges and agrees that a condition precedent for the supply of the Product hereunder requires that Purchaser shall implement and maintain in effect such statutory or regulatory requirements or funding appropriation sufficient to meet its obligations in this Agreement prior to supply of the Product by Pfizer and thereafter shall maintain such statutory and regulatory requirement and funding appropriation, each as applicable, for so long as necessary to meet all of Purchaser’s obligations under this Agreement…
Bibet later reported that Carlos Murillo, who was the head of Pfizer Brazil in 2020 when the contract negotiations started, and was head of Pfizer Latin America as of January 2022, testified in May 2021:
“The conditions that Pfizer sought for Brazil are exactly the same conditions that Pfizer has negotiated and signed, at this moment, with more than 110 countries in the world.[…] From the point of view of our international consistency, given the pandemic situation, given our vaccine development process, these were the conditions negotiated and accepted by 110 countries with whom Pfizer has signed the contract today.”
Bibet’s Aug. 2021 take on what to do: What if the Pfizer contracts were declared illegal? and his request to the British government from Jan. 2022: Leaked: Our Government’s Secret Contract That Endangers Our Democracy.
Latypova asked: “Can this be viewed as invasion, i.e. takeover of legislature of sovereign states by the DOD-Pharma cartel? Are the buyers effectively signing away their rights to make laws in their own countries?”
I replied:
Yes. But also, there are many, many precedents for that signing away of sovereignty over the last few decades, especially through the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (1947) as updated and institutionalized in the World Trade Organization (1995) to override laws protecting domestic industrial production rights, labor and environmental standards and intellectual property rights held by in formerly-sovereign nations and people.
It can and has been viewed as invasion, mostly by people like the 1999 Battle for Seattle, anti-WEF, anti-WTO organizers and demonstrators and those who still try to demonstrate at Davos every year.
But the Soros team captured and marginalized most of those groups, especially by infiltrating and weakening the Occupy Wall Street movement just at the point OWS on the left was starting to make common cause with the Tea Party on the right through their shared critique of the corporate-state.
And then most of the public intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein, who were supporting those pro-sovereignty/anti-globalist street-level fighters, collapsed under the Covid propaganda and lined up to call for starvation of vaxx refusers. (Klein wrote a 2007 book about how the Shock Doctrine works in every country around the world, and then couldn’t see it when it happened to her in her own country in real time: she condemned the Canadian truckers for fighting for humans to be free from corporate-government oppression.)
So the opposition has been weakened a lot, and corralled, while the 1996 Telecom Act and its progeny have narrowed the public communications space available for educating and mobilizing resistance. Intensifying through things like the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act.
Subsequent comment posted at Sage Hana’s recent, related report about trends in biotech investment.
I think the entire pharma/DOD industrial-state sector is preparing to focus on gene therapy/bioweapons almost exclusively for the foreseeable future.
There’s no other growth area of products in R&D, their older drugs are moving off-patent, and Covid has been the prototype of forced medical treatment on a captive population with routine (ie quarterly) updates/boosters, which has been extremely good for the money laundering pipeline from taxpayers to government to DOD to pharma back to government-officials in their pharma-shareholder positions.
The Biden Executive Order from September 12 supports this theory of the totalitarian business model built on mandated biotech: Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy, as does Biden’s appointment of Renee Wegrzyn, former DARPA official with bioengineering and gene editing background, as the first director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), which was established and funded by Congress and President Biden in March.
As does the whole Global Health Security Act apparatus and the PREP Act/BioShield bit about classifying new products as medical countermeasures so as to unlock the government money to produce the strategic stockpile and then have government mandates that people undergo the treatments so manufactured…
Evidence from the contracts makes it super-clear that Pfizer and Moderna are acting as front companies for US-DOD/BARDA, while DOD controls the manufacturing and distribution contracts, controls FDA and CDC regulatory systems, and coordinates with DOJ to block all accountability efforts through the courts.
Conclusion:
The business contract has, after centuries of effort, almost-fully eclipsed the social contract, almost-fully converting the legal status of human beings from unique created souls to soul-less commodities.
Stopping the biotech genocide-and-enslavement-of-humanity project — the Arian heresy of our day — probably includes reading and understanding the biotech manufacturing and supply contracts, and voiding them through individual noncompliance (don’t accept any government-sponsored medical treatments or pharmaceutical products and keep resisting right up until the killers kill you against your will) and new political leadership invoking higher laws than the international trade agreements and domestic commerce laws that underpin the current genocidal regime.
Source – https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/biotech-idolatry-dod-pfizer-contracts