Feb. 9, 2023 Children's Health Defense Q&A, transcript
Part 2 of this post:
Transcript - Feb. 9, 2023 Q&A. (Video)
Ray Flores, questions:
Thank you, Katherine. We're going to open it up for questions...I want to talk about this prototype agreement, and if there's any further information on that. To me that's really a problem. I put the Motion to Dismiss in the chat that has that language, and it cites that they do not, that they're above the law. They're above regulation, and this is extremely helpful to us. Could you please elaborate just a little bit more on this idea of prototype? Briefly, before I open it up for questions…Just a little bit more on the Brook Jackson Motion to Dismiss and what it means to you.
Katherine Watt
Okay. Brook Jackson filed a False Claims Act case, saying, "I, Brook Jackson, as a whistleblower, was working at Ventavia. As soon as I got there in August 2020, I saw that all this stuff was happening that should not happen. It was not safe. There was no informed consent, they weren't handling the product properly. I reported this to FDA. I reported it to Ventavia. I reported it to Pfizer. I reported it to FDA. They didn't do anything. Why not?" is essentially the question.
And the answer that Pfizer gave is, they didn't have to do anything, because these were not biological products, these were not drugs, these were not medications. These were prototypes and prototypes, under the Other Transactions Authority, can be produced by a contractor for the US Government without going through any of those regulatory hoops that would apply otherwise to a pharmaceutical product.
And it was just a way of saying it didn't matter. It never mattered. Nothing that we [Pfizer] did in what we called clinical trials, nothing that FDA did in looking at the data, such as it was, was ever relevant to whether the DoD was going to pay us, because, under the terms of the contract, the only condition for payment was that FDA would do this sham authorization. Which the DoD could control under the terms of the contract, because the DoD set itself up as mediator or supervisor for every communication that would happen between the manufacturers, the contractors, and the FDA regulators.
And so they were in the room all the time, and everybody knew from long before any of it started that the FDA was just going to rubber stamp without any reference to what were called clinical trials, and what were called regulatory procedures.
Ray Flores
Then do you think it's odd that they make a prototype? They make 100 million doses in 4 months of a prototype? You think that's odd?
Katherine Watt
Well, I don't think it's odd now that I know it was a weapons program that was planned a long time in advance. They've been setting up to do this for at least two decades.
Meryl Nass, questions
If I can break in, two questions. One is that the EUA requires that there be no available product, licensed product that works for the condition. Well, although early on they could make the argument that hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin didn't work, they really can't make that argument. I mean they can, I guess. But there are over 300 papers on hydroxychloroquine now, and over a 100 on Ivermectin. Do you see that that may be an opportunity to attack legally?
And my second question is, do you see any other opportunities for legal attack? In addition, they did not disclose significant adverse events as the EUA law, the PREP requires them to. And yet, to my knowledge, no one has brought lawsuits about those specific things.
Katherine Watt
My understanding on both of those questions. Well, on the question of other available treatments, things like that, is that they have built in enough redundancy throughout all of these different statutory sections and guidance documents that that is not, none of that is going to be relevant, because my view is, the whole project is going on under the 50 USC Chapter 32 chemical and biological weapons program.
And the FDA, EUA, all of that is just for show.
What I don't know — one of many things I don't know — is what happens if they get pushed into that corner and have to respond to that challenge.
The challenge of:
"You said, this is an FDA-authorized, reviewed product. And yet we now have tons of evidence that it never went through any of the appropriate regulatory pathways. So either you lied to everyone in the world about this having gone through an FDA program, and we can demonstrate that it never did. Or you lied about it ever being required to go through the FDA processes because it never was a pharmaceutical or a drug. It was always a weapon, and it was always completely under a military legal status."
[Note February 2024: The liars lied in making both statements. The truth is that none of the EUA products ever went through any FDA drug, device or biological product regulatory pathway, and none of the EUA products were ever required to go through any FDA regulatory pathway.]
And so, when I'm thinking about legal strategies, mostly I'm thinking about that, getting them pushed into a corner to the point where they have to admit that it's not a drug, it's not a pharmaceutical, it's not an FDA-regulated product, the entire FDA aspect, all the EUA, everything was a sham. It's just a weapon, and they're just killing people on purpose. And that was their intent from long before they started in 2020.
Meryl Nass
Okay. But the thing is that they're not, even though that might be a winning legal strategy, they're not going to use it, because that opens them up to all these other things. And a judge is not going to accept that as the reason. You know, they should get off if they've ignored the PREP Act. So I mean, I agree with you. I think there may, they may well have built in the legal structures to be able to make that claim, but it's not a claim that, you know. I mean, people will attack the courtroom if they try to make those claims in public...
James Roguski, comment:
…This is a screen grab of page 61 of the International Health Regulations. It is a reservation from the United States. It's the US understanding that any notification that would undermine the ability of US armed forces to operate effectively in pursuit of US national security interests would not be considered practical for purposes of this article. And so that was in regards to reporting on any kind of outbreak or problem anywhere in the world. And they basically said, you know, if it affects our military, to heck with the IHR. I just want to pass that on as more corroborating evidence...
Catherine Austin Fitts, comment
So I did just want to make a brief comment. The financial coup started in 1995. There was a budget deal that busted and I was told by a variety of people that quote "They have given up on the country and are moving all the money out starting in the fall."
The money really started disappearing at the beginning of October 1997. But that would have taken, you know. It would have taken that long to put the planning in place.
But what is interesting is the month after the bust-up of the budget deal you had the FDA approve oxycontin. And the HUD, and some of the other agencies, approved predatory lending practices for poor neighborhoods.
And suddenly those neighborhoods were being targeted by three things: by oxycontin and the pill mills; by unbelievable predatory lending which was driving people out; and finally by SWAT teams that were rounding up and stuffing people into slave labor camps is the only way I can describe it, and I describe some of that in my online book, Dillon Reed.
And a series of things started. I call it the Great Poisoning, that we're bringing down life expectancy.
So the parallel to what Katherine is describing is all sorts of things. We're going to intentionally bring down life expectancy, because if you cannot get the retirement system on a sound financial footing, and there's no political support for that, then your only other way of balancing the budget is to either bring down life expectancy, and or take the money and run, which is what I think has happened.
But if you look at the idea that they've been working on this for decades, they absolutely have and can be, because they've been working on bringing down life expectancy for decades. And when you see it on an integrated basis with what's been going on the financial coup side, a lot of this makes a lot more sense.
It's just a matter of figuring out the precise train tracks that would have, you know, been happening behind the scenes with the judges, and that's part of what we're all trying to figure out anyway. But I, Katherine, I can't tell you how much I appreciate your work. It's hard to fathom this has been going on for decades, but it has.
[Speaker A, question 1]
My question is, based on your research when you say, you know, this was amended, and Congress did this in Congress. Is it your understanding that Congress actually knows what they're doing when they're passing certain things? And you reference the PATRIOT Act at one point. We know they didn't read it, that they get hoodwinked into it. Oh, it's 9-11. We need this. Oh, it's COVID-19. We need this. But every baby step that they've taken over the years. Do you think Congress really knew the contents of what they were signing?
Katherine Watt
I think a very small group of Congressional leaders knew. I don't think that most of the general members who just churn in and out have any idea. I think they're starting. Some of them are starting to figure it out. And I also think that as soon as they do figure it out, someone higher up quickly says to them, "Keep your mouth shut because we can't, we can't resist this in any way because of the relationship of the Federal Reserve Bank to the US Treasury and the financial coercion piece."
But to your bigger point, No, I don't think most of them understood the big picture or understand it yet.
I do think some of them are starting to wake up and think about what they might be able to do to throw some wrenches in it.
[Speaker A, question 2]
Just to follow up on the NDAA that you referenced as well. I put it in the chat, and you also mentioned to 2012 at one point, and that sort of connected two dots for me, because in 2012 that's when Obama amended the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, and that was where the propaganda, it bubbled up to the surface and became legal, right? So I was just wondering if you had made any connections with that and 2012 and how they ramped up all that fear and the propaganda and everything.
Katherine Watt
Yes, I have that Smith-Mundt amendment in my larger, main American Domestic Bioterrorism Program timeline. I just didn't put it into this particular slide show. But yes, that was crucial. It was absolutely crucial to make to make the lying sustainable for them.
[Speaker B, question]
...I have a question...Why should a much realistically-inclined banker make a plan that ranges over several hundred years, and they can never write the profit from it? There must be some kind of spiritual dimension in this evil. That is my conclusion. But please comment.
Katherine Watt
I absolutely agree. That's my comment. That's how it's sustained over centuries.
...Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, comment and questions:
...Quick comment to the people...that are doing work into the ingredients of the vials, makes so much sense within the context of what people like Katherine are sharing with us.
A question regarding the FOIA applications, Katherine, that you either drafted or filed to HHS, and DoD if you can give us an update on that...
And the second, your comment on the contracts, the Pfizer contracts, which in certain countries possibly all hold as security military embassies and reserve banks. In your view, does that constitute a coup d'etat to military corporate imperialism, targeting the 99%?
Katherine Watt
The answer to number 2 is Yes.
...the FOIAs have been submitted, and then a separate one was submitted, specifically asking for delegation of authority letters that would have been or might have been written to delegate authority from the HHS secretary to someone else within FDA to sign the EUA documents. And there was a very rapid response to that second, smaller request...They said, we're going to look for it. But it's probable that that will be exempted under — I don't know the actual provision of the FOIA law exemption, but it was something to do with "foreseeable risk of harm."
Which the guy who filed it at Judicial Watch had never seen that exemption cited before, and so he forwarded it to the rest of us, and I looked at it, and I looked it up, and it seems to be a way of saying national security without saying national security, because the "foreseeable risk of harm" is something about, [harm] to any interest that would be compromised by releasing this document. I don't know what's the status right now. We're waiting. I think they have 20 days, and if they deny it in 20 days, then we can file a lawsuit to pursue it further, like what Aaron Siri did for the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency case.
[Speaker C, question]
I have a question on this court case of...did you just mention that there was a verdict, judgment, or something that the judge also agreed with Pfizer?
Katherine Watt
No, not the judge, the US Government. So there's has not been a decision yet on the motion to dismiss. It's the, it's temporarily right now in a postponement where discovery is supposed to start, March the fifteenth [2023]. Unless he actually does dismiss the case before March fifteenth, and he might do that, I don't know, but it has not been dismissed yet.
[Note February 2024 - The judge subsequently dismissed the case by order dated March 31, 2023]
[Speaker C, comments]
Some things that may complement your presentation. First I wanted to mention the Spanish flu of 1918. So I happen to have done a research in a video about this incident, and what's struck me as very interesting is that back then, in 1918, there was not yet any of these institutions. They did not exist. There was not even the League of Nations yet which preceded the United Nations and all these.
A group of high-level individuals such as, let's say, I wouldn't name the person. I will name the institute. It was called the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, and they took advantage that there was the Great War, later renamed World War I, going on, and they're starting in injecting toxic liquids into soldiers.
Well, it's amazing, is that when soldiers started dying, they started shipping these injections worldwide. And so the Spanish flu erupted globally, apart from some countries that did not receive the shipments of the injections, and no-- Congress, I think the US President was already captured then, nobody disturbed them.
There was no, you know, European Commission or Fed. Nothing, and they just did it, and they murdered, I think the number is still debated. It's between 50 and a 150 million people.
And also I want to suggest that you add to your list of kill box weapons: storms, earthquakes, and fires.
And then briefly, 2015, all the nations in the world signed the UN agreement that was known then as Agenda 2030, now rebranded as Sustainable Development Goals. So they have a deadline, which is 2030.
I want to mention murdered Presidents and Prime Ministers. Let's try to stand up to this. And finally I'm happy to see that you're optimistic about the courts and legal system. I just have my doubts. I think that courts and judges have been captured. But I hope that you are right and I'm wrong...
[Speaker D, comments]
My thoughts were drifting back to the beginning, and I guess that we can understand these people.
It goes back to the idea that if you're in the military, for example, it's all right to kill people. You have to psychologically adjust to the idea that you need these, this or that that set of people dead. And that is, I suppose...
Of course, the other thing is, this is the opposite of law. Because if you say well, this is or that group can simply be destroyed. And that is our objective. And then obviously, the concept of laws and constitutions which protect all people, lie outside what interests you. As far as you're concerned it's a war. All these people are a nuisance and it's all right to get rid of them, and it's perfectly justified outside the rein of law.
Mary Holland, questions
Two questions. You know that there are two select committees that have just been set up in the House of Representatives. That would seem to be very close to this one, the Covid response one, the weaponization of government. Are you in touch with them? Is there any hope of that?
And in terms of, I agree with you, the turning point will be real criminal prosecutions which we haven't, which you know there's still some grand jury efforts. But there hasn't really yet been prosecutorial movement for criminal charges. Do you have any inkling of where that's really moving forward the fastest?
Katherine Watt
Yes, we are in contact with some of the people on some of those committees. They are painfully slow to absorb and process the information, and get themselves to the point of being willing to talk about it publicly. But we are in touch with them.
[Note Feb. 2024 - We lost contact with them by March 2023. They stopped responding to communications.]
On criminal prosecutions, what do I think is the fastest path? I think Brook Jackson's case has gotten us the furthest so far and there are still possibilities for using that to make a bridge from the civil to the criminal, and then from the criminal to the treason. I don't know how likely that is, but that's one possibility.
And then I think the other fastest possibility is going to be with state attorney generals, for example, in Florida, or maybe even in Wyoming, now that it looks like Wyoming has at least some people in its government who are alert to these things. I think there could be some state cases, because most of the states have analogous laws about terrorism and about bioweapons and chemical weapons that they could [use]. They could prosecute, in their state based on those laws, the people who are conducting the same, the things from the federal level.
[Speaker E, comment and question]
...I like the way that you basically linked the issue pertaining to the health regulations at the local level, the health regulations at an international level, and the aspect of exiting the WHO. To what extent, looking at the aspect that you made mention of, which basically spoke to the nature of the compromise of our judiciary, do you think that our courts could be used successfully in any of these three levels, which is the local health regulations, the international IHR, and the exiting of the WHO?
Katherine Watt
The courts in the United States or the courts in other countries?
[Speaker E]
Well, basically all over, because from what we are seeing, the compromise, in as far as the judiciary is concerned, is across the board. What you are lamenting about the judges in the US being compromised is the same thing that we are going through here... We are finding that to get a matter through the courts, as long as it has to do with this general agenda, is quite a feat in itself. You have to go through all sorts of hoops before you can even get the right of audience, and as far as getting your case heard. So I'm just wondering what your thoughts are, as far as addressing these particular issues, using the legal system as we have with structured and the compromise judiciary across the world?
Katherine Watt
I think the focus now, and for a long time already has been on the public education piece to build up enough social and political pressure to push the individual consciences of the judges who are compromised, or compliant, to switch sides.
Which depends on the belief, which I hold, that human beings are not programmable or hackable animals. They have free will. They learn from other human beings. They change their minds, they change their actions.
It takes a very long time. But that's the working model that I use to think about doing, continuing to do as much public education and explanation in as many different ways as possible.
On the belief that there are judges already, sitting already on the bench in these countries all over the world, who are aware already on some level of what's going on, but do not feel like they have the political or the social support or pressure, or whatever it is they need to act on what they are starting to understand, and that over time they can be brought to act on what they understand better if we put together the political and social pressure to make it happen.
[Speaker F, question]
Did you detect any kind of pathway or link or paper trail to the medical licensing organizations that are going after people like Meryl Nass? And you know, for speaking out in disrupting this plan, or the American Academy of Pediatrics, or the Internal Medicine Organization.
Katherine Watt
I haven't. That's not a paper trail I've looked for. I've come across things in passing. I think that it's the same money mechanism. They will get bonuses if they get a certain percentage of people to get injected. They will not get those bonuses if they don't. They will lose their license if they object. They will keep their license if they go along with it.
And so that that has a lot to do with ObamaCare of 2012 or 2013, I can't remember, maybe that was 2009. Anyway, Obamacare is an important turnkey for the connections between the International Classification of Disease, ICD-10 codes and the health insurance databases which, through the way that ObamaCare made it required for people to have health insurance coverage, and then you have to fill out this IRS form every year.
They now have all the linkages they need between what happens to you in your doctor's office, which gets submitted through the IRS and the ICD-10 to the health, and the financial things. And that's connected to your bank account, so through all those things that's how I think they primarily control the doctors and nurses at the clinic, patient level, and the patients themselves.
[Speaker F, comment]
If I could just do a follow up on that. I recently did the math on my own practice, because I do a very modified vaccine schedule, and never meet the criteria for having every kid to have every vaccine by the age of two, and then just my small sole practice, it's cost me somewhere between $500,000 and $700,000, to make that choice. And so, you know, there aren't a lot of doctors that are going to be willing to give all that up.
Katherine Watt
That's another reason why I think that the movement among doctors like you to set up these independent, I don't know what they're called, but it's like a practice that's operated, or collection of practices that are operated outside the licensing, the professional associations. I think there's going to be more and more patient interest in having nothing to do with the insurance companies or the government.
The problem is because of Obamacare. If you do try to just get rid of your insurance coverage, then you have to pay the penalties as a family, or whatever. I didn't put that piece together until a few days ago, when I was looking at the ICD-10 thing about your up-to-dateness of your Covid vaccines, and how that could connect with the HIPAA and the ObamaCare stuff...
