On civil suits against Pfizer for “contamination” of Covid-19 biochemical weapons.
Related:
A reader sent an email asking for my views on claims that Pfizer is newly vulnerable to civil suits, in the wake of 1) a Michigan state court ruling about the applicability of the PREP Act in cases involving “contaminated” pharmaceutical products and 2) the growing pile of sequencing studies replicating Kevin McKernan’s identification of plasmids, SV-40 promoters and other “contaminants” in the DoD biochemical weapons formerly known as “Covid-19 vaccines.”
Brief recap of events since 2020:
The alleged manufacturers (Pfizer, Moderna, etc.) did not disclose the ingredients now being found by independent researchers, to the alleged regulators (US-FDA, European Medicines Agency, Australian Therapeutic Goods Association, etc.) or to the public.
The alleged regulators did not demand disclosure of ingredients; did not independently evaluate the ingredient claims of the alleged manufacturers; and — even when they noted irregularities (see Latypova memo to Sen. Ron Johnson, Dec. 18, 2022, at p. 4/12, re: EMA Nov. 2020 “rolling review” of Pfizer’s Chemical and Manufacturing (CMC) Controls documentation) — did not enforce purity and non-adulteration regulations.
Instead, the alleged regulators granted “approvals” and “authorizations,” and instructed populations to submit to injection and shun anyone who wouldn’t submit.
Together, the alleged manufacturers and alleged regulators withheld ingredient information and information about regulatory non-regulation, from victims of the DoD’s biowarfare campaign formerly known as the “Covid-19 vaccination program.”
Some thoughts below; it’s a cut-and-paste of my email response.
…The Michigan case has to do with glass shards in remdesivir: Nowacki v. Gilead.
Yes, the whole thing is a coordinated red herring to pull attention and money away from attacks on DoD and WHO.
I need to think it through a bit more, but I think the goal (of the Monster-agents pushing for new “contamination” civil suits against Pfizer) is to make it somewhat clearer that PREP Act coverage not only gives killers a “just following orders” defense if they’re challenged for doing the things HHS/CDC/DoD orders them to do (lethal injections, hospital homicides) but it also forces them to follow those orders by making the only circumstances under which they can be prosecuted, circumstances in which they don’t follow HHS/CDC/DoD orders to the letter.
So, for example, HHS/CDC/DoD orders hospitals and health care workers to use remdesivir, even though in its uncontaminated form, it’s deadly.
Hospitals and health care workers that refuse to use remdesivir are the only ones who are liable under PREP.
That’s why the ones who didn’t want to be killers have all quit the “Covid wards,” and the only ones left are happy to kill. [Excellent interview by Sasha Latypova on this subject, with interviewer Shannon Joy.]
HHS/CDC/DoD also orders Gilead to produce Remdesivir, to specifications that don’t include glass shards. Gilead is only liable to the extent that non-HHS-approved-toxins (ie glass shards) end up in the product.
Same deal with the Saldana v. Glenhaven case.
PREP Act is a legal tunnel to trap health care workers and turn them into criminals.
The Pfizer cases will be slightly different. We know HHS/CDC/DoD has ordered Pfizer to produce a variety of different compounds, with various toxicity levels and mechanisms of action. We also know that they all planned to destroy Pfizer as a front organization, to channel the public anger when people started figuring it out.
If Pfizer just goes bankrupt, and the bankruptcy court starts allocating its assets to creditors, maybe Covid-19 shot victims will be somewhere at the bottom of the list of payees, but more likely not. The money all passed through Pfizer a long time ago, out the back door into the pockets of politicians and bankers. It’s been a DoD front company/shell company for many years.
So the exercise [that people calling for new civil suits against Pfizer] are advocating is more about getting people to waste their time and money for the next 3-4 years than anything else.
However, if some of the civil cases are framed properly, to draw Pfizer into pointing to DoD as the source of the raw materials and contractual obligations to put “contaminants” like SV-40 promoters into the products and not disclose those ingredients to regulators or victims, then the civil cases could be useful to continuing to expose the whole criminal enterprise to the public and mobilize Congress to withdraw the US from WHO and the UN, and repeal PREP Act, the EUA laws and the rest of the “public health emergency” legal structure.
Pfizer may try to use PREP Act in its defenses to civil suits, but will probably lean harder on the Defense Production Act, 50 USC 4558, Voluntary agreements and plans of action for preparedness programs and expansion of production capacity and supply, especially sections (j) and (o).
50 USC 4558(j) Defenses
(1) In general
Subject to paragraph (4), there shall be available as a defense for any person to any civil or criminal action brought under the antitrust laws (or any similar law of any State) with respect to any action taken to develop or carry out any voluntary agreement or plan of action under this section that—
(A) such action was taken—
(i) in the course of developing a voluntary agreement initiated by the President or a plan of action adopted under any such agreement; or
(ii) to carry out a voluntary agreement initiated by the President and approved in accordance with this section or a plan of action adopted under any such agreement, and
(B) such person—
(i) complied with the requirements of this section and any regulation prescribed under this section; and
(ii) acted in accordance with the terms of the voluntary agreement or plan of action…
50 USC 4558(o) Preemption of contract law in emergencies
In any action in any Federal or State court for breach of contract, there shall be available as a defense that the alleged breach of contract was caused predominantly by action taken during an emergency to carry out a voluntary agreement or plan of action authorized and approved in accordance with this section. Such defense shall not release the party asserting it from any obligation under applicable law to mitigate damages to the greatest extent possible…
Related Bailiwick reporting and analysis:
Jan. 13, 2023 - Covid-19 bioweapons and the Defense Production Act of 1950
“…I think the divergence lies in the difference between a pharmaceutical corporation operating as a private, commercial business, and a pharmaceutical corporation that has been folded into the government's national security complex through invoking of the Defense Production Act of 1950, PL 81-774, 64 Stat. 798.
The pharmaceutical corporations have essentially turned into a branch of the federal government, whose agents have been granted sovereign immunities and set beyond ordinary judicial proceedings, short of treason, sedition and bioterrorism prosecutions.
I think [the] civil liability approach is very valuable for drawing that government-corporation merger or absorption process into clearer view and public understanding, in the same way that Brook Jackson's False Claims Act case provides opportunities to see it in action, through (so far) the Pfizer arguments April 22, 2022 at pp. 8, 11-13 and 25-26, and the US government's endorsement of that legal argument Oct. 4, 2022 at pp. 6-8…”
March 2, 2023 - Key quotes from Pfizer's April 22, 2022 Motion to Dismiss and US Government's Oct. 4, 2022 Statement of Interest in Support of MtD.
…from the US Government's Oct. 4, 2022 statement of interest in support of Pfizer's Motion to Dismiss at p. 10:
“…[Brook Jackson’s] complaint does not identify any provision in the SOW for the Project Agreement between Pfizer and the Army that conditioned Government payment for the vaccine on Pfizer’s compliance with the clinical trial protocol or regulations.
The SOW, which is attached to the complaint, further specifies that the Army did not regulate the conduct of the clinical trial, which is “out-of-scope” for the purchase agreement between the Army and Pfizer.
In short, the complaint does not plead factual content to support a conclusion that compliance with the clinical trial protocol or regulations was necessary under the contract between Pfizer and the Army such that clinical trial violations would give rise to a claim for express or implied certification liability.”
