On recursive, iterative legal instruments and intentional legal ambiguities.
On recursive, iterative legal instruments and intentional legal ambiguities.
Another example of how clear definitions, thinking, writing and speaking are helpful for moving human society through and past the crises.
Related to Sasha Latypova’s latest:
Feb. 7, 2024 - Audio recording leaked from AstraZeneca: Covid was classified a national security threat by the US Government/DOD on February 4, 2020.
Other key Feb. 4, 2020 events:
Feb. 4, 2020 is the effective date for four public health emergency determinations issued by then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar under the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act, to support declarations that “circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use” of several product classes.
The determinations and declarations together enabled the subsequent issuance of PREP Act declarations and Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) letters of authorization (LOAs) to specific weapons manufacturers for specific products, exempting the contractors and everyone else in the supply, distribution and use chain from civil and criminal liability for the injuries and deaths that would be caused, intentionally, by use of those weapons on human targets, intentionally deceived into thinking they were receiving regulated medicinal products, instead of the intentionally-toxic poisons they were actually receiving.
All four of those PHE determinations, and the derivative declarations, are still in force today.
Dec. 15, 2023 - The PCR test viewed from the legal kill box perspective. - “…(1) in vitro diagnostics for detection and/or diagnosis of the novel coronavirus (85 FR 7316); …(2) personal respiratory protective devices, also known as masks; (85 FR 13907); …(3) medical devices, including alternative products used as medical devices, also known as ventilators and ventilator accessories. (85 FR 17335); …(4) drugs and biological products, also known as "Covid-19 vaccines" along with Remdesivir, molnuparivir and others. (85 FR 18250)…”
Feb. 4, 2020 is also the date on which the World Health Organization distributed a list of “candidate vaccines developed against SARS-CoV,” drafted by Pierre Gsell.
April 25, 2022 - The investigational drugs that weren’t.
Reader sent a question about this timeline point (p. 191 of 2022 Bailiwick collection; March 14, 2022 - Moderna’s 2013 patent on furin cleavage site, Brook Jackson’s 2020 report to FDA on clinical trial fraud, Pfizer 2021 SEC filings)
2021/11/17 - [86 FR 64075] - US-HHS added “SARS-CoV/SARS-CoV-2 chimeric viruses resulting from any deliberate manipulation of SARS-CoV-2 to incorporate nucleic acids coding for SARS-CoV-2 virulence factors” to the list of “biological agents and toxins listed in this section [that] have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety” to 42 CFR 73.3. [NOTE: This classification change relates to Bailiwick’s long report about how US-HHS is at the center of the American branch of the World Health Organization under the 2005 International Health Regulations, such that WHO already is the bankers’ one-world-government and the US government has already been rendered moot until US withdraws as a member state from WHO. US-HHS definition change may also be an attempt to forestall accountability efforts by preemptively reclassifying bioweapons as legally identical to pandemics, to block international law claims brought under the theory that SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon, and not a pandemic, thus nullifying the PHEIC pretext for sovereignty-removal issued by Tedros on Jan. 30, 2020 and still in effect, and instead bringing international laws prohibiting chemical and biological weapons to bear.]
Reader questions:
You say that US HHS's act classifying C19 as a biological agent (or weapon) or toxin (or weapon?) nullifies lawyer claims (that gain-of-function chimera viruses like C19 are not pandemic-eligible)? And HHS/WHO are saying WHO has power to wage war against a bioweapon attack(?). I'm not clear on that. So if WHO and co-conspirators develop a killer virus, WHO is entitled by its mission statement to hunt it down and "vax it"? WHO has an expanded power to wage war? Against itself now — an unscalable criminal conflict of interest.
My reply, edited
Briefly, yes.
The recursivity is a feature, not a bug, of the worldwide warfare system.
WHO defines, develops and deploys the threats/pathogens/weapons platforms, which WHO orchestrates (with US-DoD and HHS) and WHO defines, develops and deploys the responses/treatments/prophylactics/weapons platforms.
In the same way that HHS Secretary has infinite recursive authority to deploy countermeasures allegedly against pathogens capable of causing “public health emergencies,” and then countermeasures allegedly against the adverse effects of previously-deployed countermeasures.
21 USC 360bbb-3(c)(2)(A)(ii) - “…the product may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing (i) such disease or condition; or (ii) a serious or life-threatening disease or condition caused by a product authorized under this section…for diagnosing, treating, or preventing such a disease or condition caused by such an agent.”
WHO/US-DoD/US-HHS is the threat, although they project attention away from that fact by presenting the threat as external to themselves: natural or lab-made but deployed by an “other,” and they also present themselves as the defense against the threat.
Foxes guarding henhouse. Trojan horse. Many ways to think about it.
Re: the specific addition to the scheduled toxins list, I think it’s another example of the muddying-the-waters strategy they’ve used throughout and have built-in redundancies for.
I think the timing of the addition (Nov. 2021) was related to the August 2021 Joseph Murphy report, which was released publicly through Project Veritas in January 2022.
Jan. 11, 2022 - Joseph Murphy report; Summary of DARPA analyst’s report provided to Project Veritas.
The Murphy report was also (I now think) a controlled release of partly-true, partly-false information to further confuse and misdirect public attention and create a muddy paper trail for use in later legal proceedings.
If a legal case were ever to be brought against WHO or US-DoD or US-HHS/CDC/FDA officials under international laws prohibiting biological or chemical weapons development or use, the defendants would point to the Nov. 2021 addition of the compounds to the scheduled toxins list, as another layer of plausible deniability, to make it harder to pin down the legal status of the SARS-CoV-2 compounds themselves, and the legal status of the products deployed later (vaccines etc.) allegedly against SARS-CoV-2, and the legal character of the actions of the people who developed and deployed both classes of weapons.
…I think that’s what the blurring of lines between national security threat/natural pandemic/public health emergency, and scheduled toxin/biological weapon/natural pathogen are mostly about:
Confusing things and making it harder to get to legal clarity about what’s happening and what the legal status of the various compounds and products are, and what the legal statuses of the people using, manipulating and deploying the products are.
