Discover more from Bailiwick News
Globalist predator-parasites' interest in substitutes for war.
Also Bailiwick PDF compilations and transcript of Nov. 2, 2022 Latypova-Watt bioweapons discussion.
I got curious about what might have happened in 1967 to cause the Luciferians’ concern that their mass murder, mass enslavement and mass theft plans might be exposed and/or derailed, as they wrote in 1979 in Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars.
Side note: reader provided a link to a report that the document is “a work of political fiction written by a man named Hartford Van Dyke.” My view: I've seen persuasive arguments that people who are attempting to reveal true information to the public often pretend to be crackpots and fiction writers to protect themselves from being arrested, tortured and/or killed by those they expose. David Icke and Malachi Martin spring to mind as examples. What's more interesting to me is the plausibility of the content of the document, when reviewed alongside the government acts directly observable in the last three years.
So I looked on my hard drive for records from 1966 and 1967 and found these three:
Iron Mountain Special Study Group report at p. 19:
The Report which follows summarizes the results of a two-and-a-half-year study of the broad problems to be anticipated in the event of general transformation of American society to a condition lacking its most critical current characteristics: its capability and readiness to make war when doing so is judged necessary or desirable by its political leadership…
It is surely no exaggeration to say that a condition of general world peace would lead to changes in the social structures of the nations of the world of unparalleled and revolutionary magnitude. The economic impact of general disarmament, to name only the most obvious consequence of peace, would revise the production and distribution patterns of the globe to a degree that would make changes of the past fifty years seem insignificant. Political, sociological, cultural, and ecological changes would be equally far-reaching. What has motivated our study of these contingencies has been the growing sense of thoughtful men in and out of government that the world is totally unprepared to meet the demands of such a situation.
At p. 33:
SECTION 5 - THE FUNCTIONS OF WAR
As we have indicated, the preeminence of the concept of war as the principal organizing force in most societies has been insufficiently appreciated. This is also true of its extensive effects throughout the many nonmilitary activities of society. These effects are less apparent in complex industrial societies like our own than in primitive cultures, the activities of which can be more easily and fully comprehended.
We propose in this section to examine these nonmilitary, implied, and usually invisible functions of war, to the extent that they bear on the problems of transition to peace for our society. The military, or ostensible, function of the war system requires no elaboration; it serves simply to defend or advance the "national interest" by means of organized violence. It is often necessary for a national military establishment to create a need for its unique powers--to maintain the franchise, so to speak. And a healthy military apparatus requires "exercise," by whatever rationale seems expedient, to prevent its atrophy.
The nonmilitary functions of the war system are more basic. They exist not merely to justify themselves but to serve broader social purposes. If and when war is eliminated, the military functions it has served will end with it. But its nonmilitary functions will not. It is essential, therefore, that we understand their significance before we can reasonably expect to evaluate whatever institutions may be proposed to replace them.
The production of weapons of mass destruction has always been associated with economic "waste." The term is pejorative, since it implies a failure of function. But no human activity can properly be considered wasteful if it achieves its contextual objective. The phrase "wasteful but necessary," applied not only to war expenditures but to most of the "unproductive" commercial activities of our society, is a contradiction in terms. "...The attacks that have since the time of Samuel's criticism of King Saul been leveled against military expenditures as waste may well have concealed or misunderstood the point that some kinds of waste may have a larger social utility."
In the case of military "waste," there is indeed a larger social utility. It derives from the fact that the "wastefulness" of war production is exercised entirely outside the framework of the economy of supply and demand. As such, it provides the only critically large segment of the total economy that is subject to complete and arbitrary central control. If modern industrial societies can be defined as those which have developed the capacity to produce more than is required for their economic survival (regardless of the equities of distribution of goods within them), military spending can be said to furnish the only balance wheel with sufficient inertia to stabilize the advance of their economies. The fact that war is "wasteful" is what enables it to serve this function. And the faster the economy advances, the heavier this balance wheel must be.
This function is often viewed, oversimply, as a device for the control of surpluses. One writer on the subject puts it this way: "Why is war so wonderful? Because it creates artificial demand...the only kind of artificial demand, moreover, that does not raise any political issues: war, and only war, solves the problem of inventory." The reference here is to shooting war, but it applies equally to the general war economy as well. "It is generally agreed," concludes, more cautiously, the report of a panel set up by the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, "that the greatly expanded public sector since World War II, resulting from heavy defense expenditures, has provided additional protection against depressions, since this sector is not responsive to con- traction in the private sector and has provided a sort of buffer or balance wheel in the economy."
The principal economic function of war, in our view, is that it provides just such a flywheel. It is not to be confused in function with the various forms of fiscal control, none of which directly engages vast numbers of control, none of which directly engages vast numbers of men and units of production. It is not to be confused with massive government expenditures in social welfare programs; once initiated, such programs normally become integral parts of the general economy and are no longer subject to arbitrary control.
At p. 46:
SECTION 6 - SUBSTITUTES FOR THE FUNCTIONS OF WAR
By now it should be clear that the most detailed and comprehensive master plan for a transition to world peace will remain academic if it fails to deal forthrightly with the problem of the critical nonmilitary functions of war. The social needs they serve are essential; if the war system no longer exists to meet them, substitute institutions will have to be established for the purpose. These surrogates must be "realistic," which is to say of a scope and nature that can be conceived and implemented in the context of present-day social capabilities. This is not the truism it may appear to be; the requirements of radical social change often reveal the distinction between a most conservative projection and a wildly utopian scheme to be fine indeed.
In this section we will consider some possible substitutes for these functions. Only in rare instances have they been put forth for the purposes which concern us here, but we see no reason to limit ourselves to proposals that address themselves explicitly to the problem as we have outlined it. We will disregard the ostensible, or military, functions of war; it is a premise of this study that the transition to peace implies absolutely that they will no longer exist in any relevant sense. We will also disregard the noncritical functions exemplified at the end of the preceding section.
Economic surrogates for war must meet two principal criteria. They must be "wasteful," in the common sense of the word, and they must operate outside the normal supply-demand system. A corollary that should be obvious is that the magnitude of the waste must be sufficient to meet the needs of a particular society. An economy as advanced and complex as our own requires the planned average annual destruction of not less than 10 percent of gross national product if it is effectively to fulfill its stabilizing function…
Bailiwick PDF Compilations.
I started focusing on Covid-19 legal issues at the end of January 2022. I collate my reporting into PDFs for readers who prefer to read printed material and for those who want to save the information offline. I archive them at my Wordpress site: Bailiwick News Archives.
February 2022 Bailiwick News (60 pages)
March 2022 Bailiwick News (51 pages)
April 2022 Bailiwick News (50 pages)
May 2022 Bailiwick News (55 pages)
June 2022 Bailiwick News (48 pages)
July 2022 Bailiwick News (41 pages)
August 2022 Bailiwick News (43 pages)
September 2022 Bailiwick News (30 pages)
October 2022 Bailiwick News (59 pages)
November 2022 Bailiwick News (54 pages)
American Domestic Bioterrorism Program (Sept. 20, 2022 version, 67 pages)
Statutory History Orientation Memo (Nov. 21, 2022, 45 pages)
Thank you to Dave Ratcliffe at Ratical.org, who made a transcript of the discussion Sasha Latypova and I had on Nov. 2, 2022.
Transcript with links added by Ratcliffe, unless otherwise noted.
Sasha Latypova: Hello everyone. This is Sasha Latypova for Trial Site News. This is my show Due Diligence. Today I have a very important guest and very experienced legal researcher, Katherine Watt and I highly recommend everyone to read her Substack, which is called Bailiwick News. Katherine has compiled an an encyclopedia of knowledge of how our rights, constitutional rights have been subverted. And really if you want to understand what’s going on today with the Covid so-called pandemic, I highly recommend reading the substack and understanding the legal deception and structure behind it. Welcome Katherine. Would you like to introduce yourself and give some background?
Katherine Watt: Yes, I should have prepared for that. I have a philosophy degree from Penn State. I worked as a reporter for a while for small newspapers. Then I got a paralegal certificate, and I worked for small law firms, mostly sole practitioners doing constitutional law and civil rights law, and a lot of other types of things. Then because of the way the media landscape changed in the mid-nineties, when blogs came along I opened a first blog in 2005, and I’ve been doing independent reporting online since then. Then I started looking at the legal stuff for Covid when the lockdowns started in 2020.
SL: When I found your substack I was blown away by the depths of the research, by the writing, the quality of everything and the meticulous references that you’ve compiled. It’s a huge resource, very useful for everyone. But I stumbled on it. You have a post, and I think it’s an overarching post that’s called American Domestic Bioterrorism Program. I wanted to, as an introduction, would you explain to people why you call it that, and how you arrived at that conclusion?
KW: I call it that because from the beginning of 2020 onward, I was trying to figure out what was going on, especially at the local level and the state level why the constitutional rights were not being protected by federal judges. There were some very early cases. There was one in Pennsylvania in, I think it was filed in May of 2020. And there was a good decision from a Federal Judge in September saying, You can’t do these shutdowns of people’s businesses. You can’t do these things at schools. You can’t, whatever. And then that was immediately stopped by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. And that was confusing.
Then in January, 2022, that’s this year, I heard a podcast with Todd Callender on Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet’s show Truth for Health, where he talked about the 2005 International Health Regulations put together by—it was an updated version that it turned out that the World Health Organization had put together—International Health Regulations. Sometimes they called them International Sanitary Regulations. They changed the name, but they started it in the fifties, and then they’ve updated it since. In the 2005 version, they added in a whole lot more surveillance power and forced treatment powers and other things that the World Health Organization wanted the national governments to put into place through their own statutes and their own regulations, and through their state level statutes and regulations. After I heard the podcast, I went looking for the sources of what he had talked about, and then I started pulling on the threads and unraveled how they put it together from, well—they started long before 2005. But things really ramped up in the two thousands. And then it got rolled out its fullest form so far in January, 2020.
SL: Right. I also was stunned by the long history of this. What was the earliest relevant piece of law that you can trace that was changed in particular for this plandemic to occur?
KW: I think the earliest one was the 1983 establishment of the Public Health Emergencies Program under the rubric of the Public Health Services Act, which was a 1944 law. But when Reagan and the Congress at the time put in the Public Health Emergencies section, that was the beginning of concentrating much, much more power in the hands of the Health and Human Services Secretary, whenever a public health emergency has been declared by the HHS Secretary. So it’s a completely closed loop of once they declare it, they have all the power, and they are the only one who can suspend their power because of the way they wrote the laws, to the extent—let’s say—to the extent that federal judges and Congress accept the premise that the executive branch can shut them out of everything after the announcement has been made.
SL: So this unconstitutional, I would say, law was put in place in the eighties—
SL: —saying that this branch of government can usurp power—
SL: —pretty much at their own discretion. So what is a public health emergency and how—does it have to have some sort of concrete set of rules, data, any threshold that needs to be reached for a public health emergency to be declared? Or is it just something that they describe as one?
KW: So far? I think it’s just one that they describe as one. There may have been at the beginning—no, it just said, public health emergencies is a thing. It’s basically like a parallel version of a national emergency. So if they declare a national emergency because of a war or because of a natural disaster, that has all these cascade effects on other laws and other constitutional rights. This just added another version of that to be public health emergencies as part of medicalizing it. And I think probably as part of making it harder for people to see that it was a government usurpation or a government tyranny effort because people think, Oh, it’s about public health. It’s about protecting us.
SL: Yes. So now looking at this in retrospect—and of course I’m familiar with your writing in this particular piece, that’s why I’m spending so much time on this particular question—it becomes clearer now why with all this massive propaganda campaign, even up in years to this so-called Covid pandemic, was focused on these public health issues. But more, they wanted to propagandize specifically, viral pandemics.
SL: Through media, through Hollywood, Netflix shows, books publications.
KW: And through test runs, like SARS1 in 2003, H1N1 in 2009. Yeah.
SL: Exactly. And then they would have these old stories about Ebola in Africa—
SL: —constantly barraging people with that idea. So they wanted that image of scary, scary virus that causes pandemic, that kills half of the world’s population. Which is total nonsense, scientifically, I can assure you. But it’s a figment of science fiction; plays on a lot of fears, of people’s imagination, lots of productions in color.
SL: And then, because they needed that to justify this—because at least in a national emergency, you can point to something concrete, a big earthquake, a big [unintelligible], maybe somebody did attack us and a bomb exploded. You can point to concrete things. With this, it’s more playing on imagination, on fears, on something invisible, an invisible threat that you can’t identify. But it’s so deadly and so stealthy. So that’s how it all ties together with the long history of this.
KW: Yes. And it’s way less destructive of infrastructure. It can destroy social structures and economic structures without actually taking out buildings and railroad tracks and factories with bombs. For the people who want to do the takeover, they can keep all of the productive facilities and get rid of the people who might otherwise want a share in the products produced there. They did it with board games too. I don’t know if you mentioned that in your list. But my kids have a board game called, I think it’s called Pandemia or something [“Pandemic” - originally released in 2008 —editor]. The whole premise of the game is you start off with rolling the dice or whatever, and it says that the pandemic has started in this country. The board is a map of the world. And then the goal of the people playing is to control it with medications and various things. It’s Yeah.
SL: Incredible. I also recently watched—and I think they also played into people’s beliefs and religious beliefs in particular. For example, I recently stumbled on a production by History Channel, which was talking about, the book of Revelation, apocalypse, and they specifically used disease and the plagues and the disease part of it to fear monger like crazy. They got all these experts, I don’t know where they got them from, to interview in this very overdramatic fashion saying that there can be—and this was a few years before 2020.
SL: Saying that there could be this stealthy virus that, imagine you’re walking around without symptoms.
SL: And it spreads and then 500 million people dead. And overdramatizing this nonsense, [that] it exist like this in nature. But they’re making this up and they’re pretending like this is a big deal, real deal. Very stealthy, very dangerous. So that the government needs to protect you from this.
KW: Yes. And that piece about, before you even have symptoms is super, super important. Because they came up with the term asymptomatic. And they also—I just found the other day in a Health and Human Services regulation, “precommunicable”, That’s even more than asymptomatic. It’s before communicable. And they put that in [U.S.C Title 42, Part G—Quarantine and Inspection, §264. Regulations to control communicable diseases] as this is a thing that we’re going try to keep track of, so that if it’s even in just the precommunicable stage, we can still quarantine people.
SL: It’s absolutely incredible. They can quarantine you. So the government can take you away from your family, your children from your family, based on an unidentifiable pathogen of which you are not symptomatic and you have no ability to transmit it to anyone. So basically just take you away—
KW: For no reason. Yeah.
SL: For no reason whatsoever. So that’s what I want people to clearly understand. The second question I had is about this other transactional authority. I think you covered it really, really well. I will attach the document that you gave me to this video. But I want people to understand, because not a lot of people are familiar with this at all.
KW: Right. I came across it because of Brook Jackson’s case. Brook Jackson is the whistleblower who was working for Ventavia, who was a subcontracted to Pfizer under the contract Pfizer had with the Department of the Defense to produce a hundred million doses of what they call a vaccine and distribute it through the DOD to all the people in the United States. Brook Jackson, as soon as she got to her trial site—she had three—in Texas, she noticed there were terrible problems with the clinical trials. She reported it first to her bosses at Ventavia, then to people at Pfizer. Then she tried to file, I think an anonymous hotline report, to the FDA and within hours of the FDA report, she was fired. Then she filed a False Claims Act case because her theory at that time was that Pfizer was defrauding the U.S. government by falsely saying they were doing good clinical trials, and that the U.S. government would want to know this because they would want to not spend money on a fraudulently produced product.
It turned out that that is not the case. The U.S. government was in on the fraudulent clinical trials and in on the whole fraud entirely. That came out in Pfizer’s April 2022 motion to dismiss. Because Brook, when she filed her False Claims Act, she attached the Statement of Work, which was a contract that was supposed to govern how the clinical trials were done. And in its motion to dismiss Pfizer attached another contract called an Other Transaction Authority—OTA contract—saying in effect, no, we had no obligation to conduct valid clinical trials because the only goods and services we were providing to the U.S. government, according to this contract are a large scale manufacturing demonstration for a prototype. So they split off the clinical trials from the manufacturing and production side. I looked at that contract and had already come to the conclusion that it was a joint fraud between Pfizer and the DOD. And this corroborated that in Pfizer’s own words.
So the OTA is a separate contracting, purchasing framework that U.S. government agencies can enter into with private companies. And the report that I sent you is from KEI. The title of it is Other Transaction Agreements: Government Contracts that Eliminate Protections for the Public on Pricing, Access and Competition, Including in Connection with COVID 19 Vaccines and Treatments [KEI Briefing Note 2020: 3 Other Transaction Agreements: Government Contracts that May Eliminate Protections for the Public on Pricing, Access and Competition, Including in Connection with COVID-19; local PDF].
It started in 1958, according to that report through NASA. But it’s since been expanded to, I think they said, 11 agencies have it now, have this special authority that Congress has given them to enter into these contracts. And it suspends all kinds of oversight.
That’s the bottom line of what an OTA does. In my view, Pfizer is probably correct that under the terms of the OTA, they had no obligation to ever conduct a valid clinical trial. They could make the entire thing a fraud. They could make the entire thing seem to be real and said that actual data, but it didn’t have to be good data. It didn’t have to be in compliance with any of the regulations that otherwise govern clinical trials. That’s why in the one piece I’ve done on it, I compared it to the Emergency Use Authorization because OTA did for the financial contracting side, what EUA did to the drug regulation side: they both just took them out of the normal.
SL: So this is a structure by which the government can essentially wave for themselves all the normal rules and regulations for development approval of otherwise regulated products such as pharmaceuticals.
SL: And order that thing that now has no regulations attached to it.
SL: From the private manufacturer who otherwise would be regulated by those rules.
SL: So, that’s, again, that needs to be understood very clearly. And when you said they order prototypes, Is prototype defined? What is prototype?
KW: Prototype is one of, I think it’s one of the keywords that makes it clearer that it’s a bioweapon and not a drug, or it’s a drug that is a bioweapon, basically. But prototype just has to do with, it’s... I don’t even know how they explain it. It’s a product that doesn’t have other regulatory meanings. It’s ...I can—I should look into that more, ... like where in the, in the statutes prototype is defined. But what it boils down to is it’s a military product as part of a military project. It’s not a pharmaceutical project as part of a public health project. [KW: Legal definitions of prototype.]
SL: I’ve been talking a lot about the fact that the DOD ordered all these prototypes and all these countermeasures.
KW: And that they control it from, from the very beginning of the ...
SL: Yes. That’s why a lot of people ask me what is the proof that DOD controls it? How would you answer that question? What does need to exist to show people the proof? Well—other than the documents that we’re all pointing out to—but really, how do they control this whole production?
KW: I mean, I think they control it because they control the—well, there’s the things that you’ve pointed out in the contract about that DOD has to be a participant on every single phone call, every single email, every single meeting that happens between Pfizer or its subcontractors or any of the pharmaceutical subcontractors and the FDA regulators. Which means that DOD is in there directly controlling the decisions that FDA makes and the announcements that FDA makes, and the material that FDA is allowed to review or not review. That plays into another piece of the puzzle that showed up through Brook Jackson’s case, which is under the law, the HHS secretary is supposed to make his or her decisions about EUA products, about medical countermeasures, about security countermeasures, all these terms they came up with, which basically just mean bioweapons. But bioweapons packaged so that they look like medicine.
They’re supposed to make it on the basis of scientific data and evidence, “if available”. And that if available is very, very important because the DOD was in a position to make sure that no valid data would ever be made available to the FDA regulators. And to ensure that even without it, they would produce the authorizations and the approvals that the DOD required under the terms of the contract with Pfizer in order to go ahead with the manufacturing and the contracts and the hundreds of millions of dollars that they funneled to these companies. So the availability of data is a key part of how DOD controls not just the product itself, but also the information available to the regulators and to the HHS secretary. I don’t think that gets them off the hook morally because I think that the FDA and HHS officials were willing and knowing participants in it. And I think that can be shown. But it does explain the mechanism by which it was done—is done.
SL: So yes. We need to spend a little more time on this. So the decision to—what is it legally called? Is it authorization, licensing or is it just deployment of the countermeasures?—is up to the sole authority of HHS secretary who under Trump was Alex Azar, and now it’s Xavier Becerra. So those two individuals, sequentially, made decisions about deployment of these counter measures, prototypes, bioweapons, to the American public and the world. And that decision was based on available data, if available.
KW: Yes. It was based on available data about the products. And it was also based on available data about the known and potential risks of the actual thing that they were deploying the product against. So they got to decide, unilaterally, basically as dictators, what is the level of threat that this SARS-CoV-2 poses to the population, and what are the acceptable risks and benefits calculations of the countermeasure deployed against that first SARS-CoV-2 thing. It was, it is multilayered.
SL: The enormity of this, I just, I can’t emphasize enough, is one person, Alex Azar or Xavier Becerra, decides for 300 million people in the United States, unilaterally, how much threat Covid poses to them today and in the future.
SL: And how safe, efficacious this product is for them, specifically individual and for their children, their babies, their elderly, now and in the future.
SL: How insane that is, it just blows my mind. But it is written in the U.S. law,
KW: Right. It’s massive and it’s very hard to wrap your head around how massive it is.
SL: Yes. And I will put citations that Katherine provided under this video as well, so that people can check for themselves and read that language that we just cited. Another question I had, before we go into the information management of this. Let’s just play back the scenario. Alex Azar is HHS. This thing starts unfolding. They’re claiming it’s super lethal, next plague. Okay. He decides—somebody shoves these things in front of him and says they’re okay. Pfizer said so. FDA said so. DOD says so. He thinks, Okay, they may be effective and so let’s deploy them.
SL: But that’s early, let’s say early 2020. Now, two years later, we have two years worth of data on both the transmission, local transmission of Covid, which is near zero everywhere.
KW: Effective other treatments is another thing.
SL: Effective other treatments. The deadliness of the injections. There’s a lot of adverse events. And now they’re even admitting officially myocarditis is a thing. A bunch of states such as Florida said that we’re not going to recommend it to children. Is this the available information that now Xavier Becerra has to take into account? Or is it just, he can pretend he never heard these things?
KW: I think he can pretend he never heard these things. He can definitely pretend he never heard these things because he’s been pretending that for two years now. And that’s where it gets into the amazing structural features Congress built into these things where Congress not only put all the power into the HHS secretary’s hand. They also eliminated their own oversight power. They eliminated, or they claimed to—this is written in the laws—they claimed that they have no power to overrule or review his emergency declarations about their existing emergency. They can’t overrule his 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 and 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.
There’s sections in these laws—I have it in my head, but I can’t think of the name of it [KW: 42 USC 247d-6d(b)(7), 42 USC 247d-6d(b)(8) and 42 USC 247d-6d(b)(9)]—that make it so that there is no state authority to overrule HHS secretary, there is no congressional authority to overrule HHS secretary, and there is no judicial authority. And Congress did that. Which raises the interesting, super interesting philosophical question of — with horrible implications — how did they give away a power that they didn’t have the power to give away? 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.
SL: I guess, well, you know, you gave our power away,
KW: I guess the Constitution’s gone now, so whatever.
SL: So whatever. We’ll just continue collecting pensions and have a nice life and, hope it will blow over. Right?
KW: I don’t know if they hope it’ll blow over. I think they’re planning to make it more of them doing less and more of—I mean, because I think their goal is to turn it all over to the World Health Organization and [unintelligible] and stuff. That’s the game that they’re playing, but if they never had—you can’t give away a power that wasn’t yours to give away to begin with. And the power in our country is supposed to be in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. There’s supposed to be nobody that’s above it. So to have Congress say, Well, you know, never mind, is just super bizarre.
SL: It’s absolutely, it’s absolutely incredible. And I hope more people see this and understand what’s happened. But before we go into, what’s the next steps, this just puts into perspective all the information warfare that was associated with this. Because again, the key thing is available information if available to one person.
KW: And if that person doesn’t wanna look at it, it’s not available to him.
SL: Yes. If the person doesn’t want to look at it—but at least somebody can challenge this was available through HHS. That’s why I’ve seen a lot of—I’ve read now a lot of web productions including emails of FDA officials, including emails between CDC and now we also know about the White House was colluding with the tech platforms. In fact internally, while this was going on, I had a bet with my husband because I come from the Soviet Union. So I saw how—and this was even before the pandemic—I saw how quickly somebody would be would be banned from all platforms simultaneously, Facebook and Twitter and everything. And I kept telling him there is a Central Committee. Because, that’s where I’m coming from.
KW: (Laughter) You’re like, I’ve seen this movie. Yes.
SL: And he was like, No, no. They just make phone calls to each other. These are companies, they’re private companies, they’re, they just—sometimes they coordinate this stuff and I’m like, No, no, there’s this. And lo and behold, there’s —
KW: There’s sure enough, there it is.
SL: But my point is that they’re actively—all these emails, when I see them between the FDA officials, they are actively trying to prevent any information that contradicts this statement that Covid is the plague. It’s going to kill billions of people and we need these poorly designed, hastily made products on the market to prevent it. So whatever subverts that narrative, they’re desperately managing fires to suppress that. And that becomes very, very obvious in these productions.
KW: Yes. I was just thinking this morning, because there are so many fronts on the war. I think the information one is the very, very, very primary one because they need absolute control of the information to maintain the fear levels at the levels the fear has to be at, to maintain all the other controls. As soon as people have information about who is doing what and what it is that they’re doing, they get less afraid because they understand it as like, Oh, we’re just being attacked. That’s what this is. Instead of the confusion and disorientation and social disconnection that they’ve been pulling off for a couple years. So yes, the information part is, the top of the control pyramid in my view. And then they have that reinforced with all of these other things with the regulations and keeping the checks and balances and separation of powers from actually functioning. But to make all of that work, they have to keep everybody afraid and to make everybody afraid, they have to keep control of the information.
SL: Yes. But it’s not working very well for them, is it? I think because the alternative media expanded and people became fed up and after you’ve been lied to for a while, it becomes obvious and so people become fed up. And I think the message is spread because we see the steep drop off in the vaccinations and very low uptake in the new boosters and things of that nature. So I think as far as people becoming aware of their being lied to, that’s a good trend. I think we need to, obviously, explain more how the problem is being committed.
And another question I had is let’s come back a little bit to the clinical trials, documentations, manufacturing documentation, any documentation that so far has been produced through FOIA. I know some firms have been very successful in doing that, like Aaron Siri’s ICAN. They’ve produced a lot of materials and especially the Pfizer clinical trial documents that I have been reviewing with a number of colleagues myself. How do we think about it? If they never had to produce them or produce them to quality of the clinical trial—if it’s not even a clinical trial, what do we think of them as?
KW: I think of them as a performance art. They had to do them only insofar as they had to make people believe that real ones were happening. And they only had to make people believe that—if they had been as successful as they wanted to be, they would’ve done this short, sharp, panic campaign, which is what they did in early 2020. They would’ve done these clinical trials in the shoddy, fraudulent way that they did them. But a lot of the people I think, like at the level of Brook Jackson and down, did not know that what they were participating in was fake. They actually were getting injections. They actually were having symptoms or not having symptoms. They actually were reporting some of them to the clinical trial sites. The clinical trial sites were actually reporting some of the things that happened to the collection like the sponsors. Because they needed to maintain that part of the fraud too.
If people had known very early on, Well, there’s not really clinical trials at all, then many more people would not have taken it. The problem for them is that a lot of people didn’t take it anyway, because a lot of people thought—first of all, people figured out, some of them, that the actual underlying SARS-CoV-2 was not as big of a threat as what they wanted everybody to believe. A lot of people had it or what they believed it was. And then they were like, I have natural immunity. So then they had to knock down, Well there is no such thing as natural immunity anymore. There’s no such thing as herd immunity anymore. A vaccine doesn’t have to prevent you from getting something anymore. They had to change all of these definitions and keep the thing going.
And the longer they tried to do that, the more evidence came out through like you said these other alternative media channels or people just knowing people who got sicker after they took it or whatever. But yeah, I think the whole point of it that, and I don’t—I say that partially because that’s how I understand the framework, but also I do think there’s useful data in those things. It’s just not complete. It’s not up to the standards that it would need to be, to actually like, you know far better than I do. It doesn’t meet any of the things that a normal pharmaceutical regulatory process would have done. But it still is data. And that’s why people like Naomi Wolf and Aaron Siri and Del Bigtree are able to have these crowdsourced analysis of the data and come up with information about what these things cause. Which then helps other people try to reverse engineer what’s actually in them to be causing this enormous range of neurological and reproductive and respiratory [injury] and all of the things that the injections cause. But yeah, the overarching purpose of them was to make it look like a valid pharmaceutical regulatory process had taken place when it had not.
SL: By law, do they have an obligation to people to disclose, if you are issuing authorization for emergency use of the product, and you are issuing it under this Other Transaction Authority, under Public Health Emergency, where it’s a declaration by Alex Azar, do they have legal obligation to tell people that? Or is it okay under the law to lie and pretend that clinical trials are required for this?
KW: I think that they’ve set it up so that it’s okay because they’ve split them apart. They’ve split it apart as this is a prototype, this is not a clinical trial. And then they said in the contracts, the clinical trials are actually being done by—they’re not taxpayer funded—they’re done by Pfizer itself as the sponsor. I don’t know where—I think there are other contracts that would cover that. I have not seen them.
SL: I haven’t seen them either. I don’t think they actually exist from the government.
KW: I don’t think they actually exist from the government either. And I don’t know where they would exist. But I don’t think they have—because they folded it under the EUA, because they folded it under the Other Transaction Authority, I don’t think they have any obligation to do anything as far as—
SL: Exactly. So now that you said that it became even clearer in my head that I’ve seen those contracts and it was very puzzling—I’ve seen the DOD contracts—and it was a very puzzling way that they have carved out the clinical trial and anything that has to do with regulatory process from the money that was being paid, ostensibly for the large scale demonstration. And now it makes full sense because, literally they’re saying this clinical trial stuff and regulatory theater, this is a voluntary activity by Pfizer and FDA. They’re just playing, play acting together because they feel like it.
SL: [What] we’re paying for is this other thing: other transactional authority, prototype, military prototype. So I think that that’s how they actually separated it. So that now these guys are performing theater here. But you’re correct. This data, the data that that’s been produced, is extremely important and valuable and we’ve been able to get at this fraud through these productions. So that’s extremely important for all of us.
KW: Right. And also important, I think we touched on it, but you were asking about how do we know it’s a bioweapon? How do we know DOD has complete control? Part of it is the fact that the people who have been able to actually get the vials either before injection or after, just using the residue, had to smuggle them from the chain of custody. Because like you said, you talked about some of the documents that Warner Mendenhall found, and other people, where it shows it’s considered a federal theft if you divert the product anywhere in the chain of custody before it goes into the person’s arm. And the fact that those diversions have happened anyway, they also have produced important data about what’s in them, which you’ve written about like way more than I have.
SL: Yes. The the contract that Warner was mentioning, that’s the contract between CDC and the vaccination centers. It’s actually—people can read it that specifies this whole language about federal property until it’s injected. Oh—and this whole diversion language. Which I found ridiculous. I think ostensibly they wrote it because, Oh my god, these are in such short supply we need to vaccinate, as you said, they needed this blitz as fast as possible. Inject everyone because because people will realize sooner or later they’re being lied to. And so they were, Okay, they’re in such a short supply, you cannot divert them because every little vial counts. But here we are, couple years later, there are hundreds of millions of unused vials, hundreds of millions. So there’s no shortage of them.
And by the way, anything approved for market, formally approved by the FDA for market, and they come in fully approved, is—I worked in clinical trials. You can order it through licensed provider and do experiments with it, do studies with it as a third party independent researcher. It’s totally valid and okay. And everybody does it for competitive reasons and other things. So that was always positive. When I told my colleagues about it, they were like, What? No, we do this all the time but with approved products we do research. And I said, No, you can’t. This is a federal property.
KW: And also the international—two things about that. One is, you also have written about, and I have written about the international contracts, which specifically put in there that no third party independent testing of the contents can be done. But the bigger picture of the combination of the adverse effect from the fraudulent trial that are helping people understand somewhat of what’s in them and the analysis of the smuggled vials before injection, which is also helping people figure out, gets to your bigger point that you make all the time, that nothing in the vials corresponds to what’s on the label. So we actually have literally no idea what is in any of these things. The only way we can get back to and reverse engineer and find out is by looking at how does it damage people and what does it, what are the properties of it when you look at it under a microscope or whatever.... That’s such a big aspect of the thing that people think that they know what they’ve taken and they actually don’t even know what they’ve taken.
SL: No. Nobody knows what they’ve taken. Also, I try to caution my colleagues who are taking, as you know, face value, what’s written in, let’s say scientific journal about mRNA injections. They assume that it’s produced as it’s described in scientific literature. It couldn’t be farther from the truth. Then they make all kinds of assumptions. Oftentimes they’re very, very well-written papers and very thoroughly researched if you assume that this is the product. Right. But what we’re finding in reality—
KW: —You can’t make that assumption.
SL: It’s a huge problem because I also work with networks of physicians who are trying to understand how to treat patients and without understanding what they got injured by, we can’t really figure out how to treat them properly. I mean, we know certain things. We know that for the most part, it’s poisoning of the blood and there’s particular characteristics that are exhibited in the blood. But that’s also the more convenient way to test people without huge equipment and expensive labs and so on versus a blood draw, right. That’s all we can do so far and try to manage symptoms with various trial and error of simple programs and generic products. But that’s nowhere near where this needs to be. We need full disclosure. We need full understanding of what’s in those vials, who got injured by what, so that we can properly treat the vaccine injured.
KW: Which is made even more complicated by the fact that it probably wasn’t the same stuff in each of the vials. And it goes back to the part where I think, I don’t know if it was CDC or FDA or who, but somewhere in the U.S. government shortly after the rollout said you should not do antibody testing of people who have taken the shots, because that’s not going to show you anything that would be useful to know. And maybe they even put a financial thing, like we will not cover tests. But that, I think that helps reinforce the point that they didn’t want people to be able to do pre- and post-injections of their own blood work to see what was in their blood before and what was in their blood after.
SL: Yes. And there are only a handful of studies that I’ve seen where it just happened that there was a big Italian study, it just happened so that the person was going to the clinic for blood work.
KW: Yes. I saw that.
SL: And there’s only literally like four or five people—
KW: I know, right, yeah. Where they have the pre and post and they can look at them together and be like, Oh, okay,
SL: Uh huh. Yes. But yes, those, those changes are quite characteristic that we’re finding and there’s a lot of research going on there. I will be speaking more about it in the coming days, but yeah. So before we leave off, I just wanted to find—do you have any recommendations for people who are trying to prosecute cases or trying to complain about their vaccine injury or mistreatment or mandates? Do you have any recommendations today?
KW: Yeah, we have put together, it’s still under construction, but there are useful things there called Five Small Stones, five with the number five, and then the word small stones.com.
It’s an allusion to the David and Goliath bible passage about a relatively smaller weaker force using faith in God and five small stones to take out a much larger opponent. So the idea is that millions, hundreds of thousands of people, as many as possible, could be filing all kinds of self filed things because there are not enough attorneys to handle the amount of damage, death, and injury that has been done and is still being done. So we have some sort of one and done things where it’s like a notice to a school district or a local government office or a business owner or whoever, that what they’re doing by enforcing any of these things is participating in war crimes and putting them on notice that you know that what they’re doing is a war crime and that you want them to know that you know and that you are going to continue pursuing this as the months go on.
There’s another one that’s an Affidavit of Noncompliance, which you can take to a county courthouse and file a new civil case called a civil miscellaneous case. It basically puts something into the judicial record that says, I understand what’s happening and I am not complying with it. The idea there is partly just to get it in the public record, partly to get people thinking through, Where is my line? What is it going to take for me to decide that I’m not going to cross the line anymore? But partly to get it closer to the prosecutors at the county level and the sheriffs at the county level who have been completely AWOL. There’s massive, massive crimes going on everywhere and they’re just ignoring it for whatever reason. Probably because they’re afraid. But letting them know that there is a growing number of regular people who understand what’s going on and want them to take action is a useful thing to do.
Then there’s some other more complicated templates there about medical malpractice and wrongful death to file at the state level. We’re working on adding to that collection. Then the highest level of complexity are the federal cases that I write about mostly at my website which get at the biggest crimes of treason and sedition and genocide. So there’s a bunch of different cases in the development stage right now on those. And I keep posting about them as they, as they unfold.
SL: Wow. This is a lot of material. I will link the site Five Small Stones. This is a self-help resource so you can file these complaints and try to communicate with your local county persons.
SL: Everybody. It takes all of us to push back on this and exactly too, because—
KW: And it gets back to the information piece being the primary battle front that there is because that’s the place where the fear meets the population at the information thing. So the more people are putting out information that reduces fear, the better.
SL: Yeah. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Katherine. Thank you for all your work. As one of our colleagues said, doing the most important legal work in the country today.
KW: Thank you.
SL: So yeah, this is definitely worthwhile to go and read about and I’ll post a bunch of links. So this will be on Trial Site News, but I will also post it on my channel and hopefully we’ll speak again and I’ll have another interview with you in the future.
KW: Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you for everything you do.