On the odds of Nuremberg 2.0 prosecutions for the US government’s Covid war crimes.
Responding to Toby Rogers’ recent posts about June FDA meeting agendas.
Post in two sections:
Responses to Toby Rogers’ recent posts about FDA plans.
Thoughts about the likelihood of Nuremberg 2.0 prosecutions of government officials.
Section 1 - Responding to Toby Rogers.
I’ve posted some this information in comments at Rogers two posts; this is a merged, expanded, revised version.
In the last few days, Toby Rogers has posted two important reports:
Rogers and his readers in the comments raised several important issues, including
Continued lack of valid clinical trial data demonstrating any efficacy of Covid-19 injections for reducing Covid infections among children
FDA’s apparent intention of “basing national policy, that impacts 18 million children…on a study with only 10 cases and…not even pretending to care about science anymore.”
Original, adult studies that skipped essential safety steps, and rushed to market with no long-term safety data for products that have since been seen to not stop infection, transmission, hospitalization or death
Collapsed popular support for the Biden administration given high Covid death counts since Biden’s inauguration
FDA’s awareness that the products cannot pass proper regulatory review and FDA’s development of “a plan to rig the process in favor of Pharma in perpetuity” through a Future Framework “whereby all future (reformulated) Covid-19 shots will automatically be deemed ‘safe and effective(TM)’ without any additional clinical trials, on the theory that they’re ‘biologically similar’ to existing Covid-19 shots.”
Genocide as the proper term for injecting people with modified mRNA that skipped clinical trials.
Whether manufacturers would need to conduct additional clinical trials and engage in new FDA regulatory review, for reformulated products, if the Future Framework isn’t approved in June.
Immunity from legal liability for injection manufacturers, the FDA, vaccinators and others in the chain from research and development to injection point.
At the end of the first post, Rogers concludes:
The American people know exactly what you are doing. We have the receipts. It will be relatively easy to secure a conviction at Nuremberg 2.0 — we literally have you on video committing crimes against humanity. As a reminder, the courts have determined that “I was just following orders” is not a valid defense.
In the second post, Rogers says, of the Future Framework under review by the FDA VRBPAC (Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee) at their June 28 meeting:
“This is literally the worst idea in the history of public health…If the Future Framework is approved, effectiveness of these shots will decrease, adverse events will increase, these shots will fuel the evolution of variants that evade the vaccines, and there will be no clinical trial data before these reformulated Covid-19 shots are unleashed on the unsuspecting public.”
At the end of the second post, Rogers provides contact information and talking points for readers to contact elected officials and FDA committee members to urge rejection of the Future Framework.
I think Rogers is making one major interpretive error in his analysis of the programs on the FDA vaccine committee’s June 2022 agenda.
Covid-19 is not a government-run public health program being badly supervised by FDA regulators captured by Big Pharma.
Covid-19 is a government-run domestic military research and development, social control, bioterrorism, mass murder program being operated with deadly effectiveness by the Health and Human Services Department, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson on behalf of the World Economic Forum, World Health Organization, and Bank of International Settlements.
I’ll address Rogers’ specific points with statutory and regulatory citations below.
The key point is that American citizens are confronting an unconstitutional, statutorily-enabled, publicly-funded global bioterrorism program that HHS, Congress and US presidents have been building and operating with increasing intensity since the 1997 Emergency Use Authorization law and the 1997 NDAA that authorized bioweapons experimentation on the American public without our knowledge or consent.
First off, I agree with Rogers that it’s a good idea to lobby FDA committee members, because it’s part of the overall process of applying pressure to the unelected technocrat class implementing the American bioterrorism program.
I also think it’s a good idea to lobby Congress members and other federal and state elected leaders, because that’s part of the process of identifying and isolating those who are driving the bioterrorism program by vice of their primary allegiance to the murderous global elite, and splitting them from the men and women who are just along for the ride out of fear of the globalists, ignorance or both.
The elected leaders in the second group — perhaps led by Senator Rand Paul and Senator Ron Johnson — have the potential, if led and backed by a critical mass of angry citizens, to peel away from the zombie Congress, zombie federal and state courts, and zombie state governors and legislatures, and establish some parallel living government institutions that hold primary allegiance to the American people and the US Constitution.
Their message to the American government globalists could be:
“We see you’ve put the Constitution in the trash because it interferes with your plans, and that you’ve been waging biowar on the American people.
We think the American people are still endowed by their Creator with inalienable moral rights to their own lives, liberties and property.
We still think the government’s power is inherently limited in scope, and doesn’t include the authority to maim and kill people who haven’t been convicted of crimes after due process of law.
We still think the Constitution — particularly the Bill of Rights — is useful for protecting the American people from the American government.
So we’ll just take it out of the trash and start using it again.
Anyone who wants to live in the America we’re trying to re-establish on American soil is welcome to declare their own individual bodies and homes part of it.”
Some of the specific issues raised by Rogers and his readers, rephrased for clarity:
Have there been any valid clinical trials of any Covid-19 mitigation measures, for adults or children?
The 1997 Emergency Use Authorization law (21 USC 360bbb) and subsequent amendments in 2004, 2005 and 2013, established that the use of products given EUA status by the HHS secretary, on human beings, “shall not be considered to constitute a clinical investigation.” 21 USC 360bbb-3(k).
One of the recent, relevant amendments to the 1997 EUA law was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on Dec. 13, 2016, during the Obama lame duck period.
The 2016 Cures Act authorized FDA committees to use ‘real world evidence’ instead of traditional clinical trials, in making regulatory decisions.
Real world evidence was defined as: “data regarding the usage, or the potential benefits or risks, of a drug derived from sources other than randomized clinical trials.”
To implement Congressional intent as expressed in the 2016 Cures Act and related statutes, Health and Human Services technocrats drafted and promulgated several sets of regulations (Final Rules) and guidance documents for product sponsors.
The sponsors for the Covid-19 injections are the US Department of Defense, BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) within HHS, Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson.
Like the Cures Act itself, most of the new HHS rules and guidance documents were quietly circulated through the Federal Register during the lame duck period after Trump’s election in November 2016, and before his inauguration in January 2017.
The new rules covered expansion to federal apprehension and detention powers during communicable disease outbreaks (quarantine); exemptions from informed consent procedures; exemptions from clinical trial and Institutional Review Board rules; exemptions from product safety and efficacy standards; exemptions from manufacturing quality standards; exemptions from labeling and prescription rules; and exemptions from many other US laws related to protecting the lives and liberties of American human beings from government- and corporate-inflicted injury and death.
The guidance documents provided sponsors with information about how the FDA would not object, in making regulatory decisions to approve mass use of new drugs, devices and biologics, if sponsors chose to use health registries, health insurance databases, and other data sets that collect information after product roll-out into the general population, instead of doing clinical trials before FDA approval and public roll-out.
The Cures Act authorized product manufacturers to skip clinical trials, go right to general administration, and then collect data from private databases like health insurance companies and health registries (Veterans Administration, Medicare/Medicaid, Defense Medical Epidemiology Database etc.) about what happens to people after they’re given the product. My current understanding is that the ‘real world evidence’ data can remain private, as proprietary information to be used by the pharmaceutical manufacturers, the US government (as confidential national security information), and the insurance companies.
In other words, the statutes, regulations and guidance documents authorized HHS, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, working through the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory committees and contracted pharmaceutical corporations, to conduct mass experiments on the American population using social isolation, masking, testing, and injectable drugs, devices and/or biologics, most lethally through the products marketed by the US government as Covid-19 vaccines.
And that’s precisely what they’ve been doing.
Here are some of those Final Rules and guidance documents:
2016/09/21 - HHS Final Rule - Clinical Trials Registration and Results. Gutted clinical trial standards and monitoring programs.
2017/01/13 - HHS FDA Guidance Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products and Related Authorities. Authorized mass administration of chemical and biological weapons reclassified as security countermeasures, pandemic products, epidemic products and medical countermeasures.
2017/01/19 - HHS Final Rule - Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. Covered 16 federal agencies, subsequently adopted by other agencies. Gutted human subject informed consent protections. After some delays and partial effect intervals, this rule went into full effect January 21, 2019. (The rule revised the 1991 Common Rule, which had been developed based on 1947 Nuremberg Code and 1978 Belmont Report.)
2017/01/19 HHS Final Rule - Control of Communicable Diseases. Expanded federal apprehension and detention powers.
2017/07/25 - HHS FDA Guidance - IRB Waiver or Alteration of Informed Consent for Clinical Investigations Involving No More Than Minimal Risk to Human Subjects. Notified sponsors that FDA would not insist they provide for informed consent of individual human subjects, but would rely on HHS secretary unilateral, pre-emptive declaration that a product posed ‘minimal risk’ for all recipients, regardless of individual health status, risk-benefit assessment, and rights of conscience.
2017/08 - HHS FDA Guidance - Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Medical Devices.
2018/06/19 - HHS Final Rule - Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects: Six Month Delay of the General Compliance Date of Revisions While Allowing the Use of Three Burden-Reducing Provisions During the Delay Period
2021/11 - HHS FDA Guidance - Real-World Data - Assessing Registries to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products
2021/12/02 - HHS Final Rule - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Adding the Category of Vaccines Recommended for Pregnant Women to the Vaccine Injury Table - Added vaccines recommended for pregnant women to the list of vaccines subject to the 1986 VICP compensation scheme, so as add another hurdle to civil suits against Covid-19 injection manufacturers, even though the products had not yet been added to the childhood vaccine schedule that otherwise governs access to VICP scheme. Because CDC does recommend them for pregnant women.
To Toby Rogers’ concern about the FDA currently poised to base “national policy” on a study with “only 10 cases,” this would simply be business-as-usual for FDA.
Since January 2020, with the HHS Secretary’s declarations covering isolation, masking, testing and injection policies, the FDA has already been basing national policy that impacts the entire American population — not just children — on invalid clinical trials, using the EUA exemptions from the standards required of valid clinical trials, and the ‘real world evidence’ framework.
The June FDA meetings at which injections for children will be discussed, will simply be expanding the use of faked, non-existent or otherwise invalid clinical data to target another cohort of victims: children.
Has Congress authorized and funded a bioterrorism campaign against the American people?
The national policy has legislative authorization derived from the 1997 addition to the 1938 Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act, of the Emergency Use Authorization program, and from the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act, which transferred the US government’s chemical and biological weapons research program from the Department of Defense, operating under 50 USC Chapter 32 — Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, to the Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, operating under 21 USC Chapter 9, Subchapter V — Drugs and Devices.
Is Congress working on more legislation, to further enable the US government’s bioterrorism program?
Among other legislation, there’s a bill that would reinforce the Future Framework regulations the FDA committee will discuss in June, as outlined by Rogers in his recent posts.
The 2022 PASTEUR Act (HR-3932): Pioneering Anti-microbial Subscriptions To End Upsurging Resistance Act, was referred to a House subcommittee on Health in August 2021.
The PASTEUR Act would create subscription-based procurement contracts between the US government and pharmaceutical corporations for ongoing, open-ended development, purchase and deployment of drugs alleged to treat antibiotic-resistant infections and other communicable diseases. The program would be developed by committee comprised of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Veterans Health Administration (VA), and Department of Defense (DOD).
How insurmountable are the liability shields for the manufacturers and the US government agents conducting the bioterrorism campaign?
Congress preemptively immunized everyone involved in the bioterrorism program from civil suits through the 2005 PREP Act amendments to Public Health Service Act, 42 USC 247d-6d.
Before any individual victim or survivor or class action group can file any claim against a manufacturer, the HHS Secretary or the Attorney General has to file a criminal prosecution, mandatory recall or other enforcement action against the defendant(s), and has to win that case, as a baseline to establish willful misconduct for use in subsequent civil suits. See 42 USC 247d-6d(c)(5)(B)(i).
The standard of proof is ‘willful misconduct’ proximate to injury or death, which is higher than ordinary negligence or recklessness.
HHS and the Attorney General will not file enforcement actions against the pharmaceutical manufacturers, because the genocide is a joint, public-private partnership project of the US government and those corporations, and it’s going according to the US government’s plan: lots of people are getting injured, getting sick, and dying.
Pfizer recently confirmed — in its April 22, 2022 motion to dismiss Brook Jackson’s False Claims Act whistleblower suit — that the US government is pleased with the results of the project, by citing its ‘prototype’ contract with DOD for a vaccine manufacturing demonstration project as the basis for Pfizer’s lawful failure to comply with Good Clinical Practices and other FDA regulations since the very beginning in July 2020.
“Because of pandemic-related exigencies, the agreement was not a standard federal procurement contract, but rather a ‘prototype’ agreement executed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2371b[.]…
The [contract’s Statement of Work] describes a ‘large scale vaccine manufacturing demonstration’ that imposes no requirements relating to Good Clinical Practices (‘GCP’) or related FDA regulations.”
Pfizer specifically cited the US government’s continued payment for product deliveries made under the contract and public promotion of the products, despite early and ongoing calls on the government from Brook Jackson, Steve Kirsch, Jessica Rose, Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, Naomi Wolf and many others, for FDA and DOJ to stop the injection program, as evidence the US government is fully satisfied with the products. See Motion to Dismiss at p. 24)
…[Jackson’s] complaint on its face shows the Government has been aware of her allegations since September 2020, months before Pfizer submitted a single invoice for its vaccine or the Government started paying for it. Documents that she published on her own website reveal the extensive information she shared with multiple federal agencies before filing her qui tam action.
…With detailed knowledge of Relator’s concerns, the Government authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, that authorization remains in effect, and the vaccine remains eligible for payment by the United States. The Government has also clearly rejected Relator’s allegations by issuing a recent public statement expressing “full confidence” in the data supporting authorization and approval of Pfizer’s product…And the Government declined to intervene in this action to boot…
Manufacturers and other contractors working through HHS procurement are also covered by sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act, because they’ve been reclassified as HHS employees for the purpose of fulfilling the contracts. See 42 USC 247d-6a(d)(2)(A), passed by Congress in the 2004 Project Bioshield Act.
If it ever got that far, which it can’t, vaccinators themselves (nurses, pharmacists etc.) could use the “just following orders” defense, citing to the HHS Secretary declarations of covered countermeasures as the orders they were following. 42 USC 247d-6d(c)(4):
“(4) Defense for acts or omissions taken pursuant to Secretary’s declaration
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a program planner or qualified person shall not have engaged in “willful misconduct” as a matter of law where such program planner or qualified person acted consistent with applicable directions, guidelines, or recommendations by the Secretary regarding the administration or use of a covered countermeasure that is specified in the declaration under subsection (b), provided either the Secretary, or a State or local health authority, was provided with notice of information regarding serious physical injury or death from the administration or use of a covered countermeasure that is material to the plaintiff’s alleged loss within 7 days of the actual discovery of such information by such program planner or qualified person.”
The part (b) condition is meaningless; because the injections are legally not part of clinical investigations (see above), no one monitors injection recipients after injection, conducts follow-up assessments, collects adverse effect or death information, or reports such information to any local, state or federal health authority.
The blanket liability shield for the public and private agents running the American bioterrorism program has already been upheld in at least one state court, which found that the 2005 PREP Act preempts state laws authorizing state-level civil claims for negligence and battery.
The H1N1 influenza vaccines administered in 2009 were an earlier campaign in the same overall bioterrorism program. When challenged by a mother whose kindergarten daughter was injected at school, without parental consent, the public health officials cited the PREP act as the basis for their immunity, and the New York Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Parker v. Lawrence, 102 AD 3D 140 (2012).
These liability exemptions are the reason why American attorneys, as far as I know, have not filed private civil suits against Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and the US government: the lawyers know about the barriers to suit, and know that they’re insurmountable.
Section 2 - On the likelihood of a Nuremberg 2.0 prosecution of Covid-19 architects as war criminals
I don’t think the architects and generals of the American domestic bioterrorism program will face a Nuremberg 2.0 prosecution as war criminals, because the global situation is so different from what it was during World War II.
The US Congress, US presidents and US courts are active participants in the democidal project, and so are the world organizations (UN, WHO, International Criminal Court, etc.) that would — if not themselves part of the war criminal network — be forums for the presentation of evidence at war crimes tribunals.
There is no “good guy” government outside the governments of the bad guys with any interest or credibility to assert itself on behalf of the worldwide victims of the global bioterrorism conducted by governments against their own citizens.
For that matter, it’s a stretch to call the Americans after World War II the “good guys.” The Nuremberg Code was undoubtedly an important milestone in protecting human beings from deadly experimentation conducted in the name of the greater good of society, and its principles must be re-established as legally binding as quickly as possible.
But American and other Allied forces committed horrific war crimes during World War II, alongside American corporations’ direct complicity in the Nazi programs. Those crimes have never been prosecuted because the globalist elites ran the post-war accountability programs to ensure their own impunity and keep the path open for the crimes against humanity they’ve continued committing ever since.
Attorney Reiner Fuellmich of the Corona Investigating Committee, Hannah Rose, Mike Yeadon, Wolfgang Wodarg and others have tried over the past two years to file reports and cases in international courts.
Others including David Martin, Jack Boteler and Tom Renz have tried to file criminal reports and cases with American federal and state prosecutors and courts. The cases aren’t being investigated or prosecuted by the DOJ, FBI, state attorneys general, or county sheriffs or district attorneys in state and federal courts.
This is why many of these leading attorneys, investigators and whistleblowing scientists don’t talk much anymore about international court trials or Nuremberg 2.0.
Instead, they talk about setting up new legal systems and new courts, new health care and clinical research systems and other parallel systems outside the existing bioterrorist government institutions.
As stated up top, my lodestar hope is that once the citizen outrage critical mass shifts from wrongly-targeted anger at dissident doctors, lawyers, scientists and writers who keep speaking out against the government narratives, to rightly-targeted anger at the government officials running the bioterrorism program, some elected officials will perceive the shift in the political winds carrying intimations of rough justice at the street level brought by citizen vigilantes with nothing left to lose and no faith in non-violent recourse to the zombified justice system.
My hope is that those government officials will try to set up parallel legal systems that are newly and independently faithful to the US Constitution and its sacred Bill of Rights, and through those parallel government institutions, prosecute the officials who remain loyal to current, bioterrorist government, for treason, genocide and other war crimes and crimes against humanity.
So the rest of us can withdraw our implicit consent from the criminal government occupying Washington DC, and invest it in something new and better.
NehmingNehms posted an interesting account of his time in Eastern Europe in 1989, just before the fall of the Berlin Wall, on the topic of tipping points among civilian populations.
Back in the summer of 1989, I visited a friend of mine (let's call him Clint) in Europe. As it happened, he had an East-German girlfriend (let's call her Lena), so he, Lena, and I and some other friends spent a month traveling throughout Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany, the last week of which we spent in East Berlin. At this time, the talk in East Berlin was all about the fact that many young Germans were leaving East Germany by pouring over the border that Hungary was dismantling. Many of the emigrants were skilled and were leaving in droves.
Clearly this was an unstable situation — East Germany could hardly afford to have too may younger workers escaping — so I asked Lena a very simple question: Couldn't East Germany just solve the problem by shutting down their border?
Lena's response, accompanied by nods of agreement by the other East Germans, was that if this happened there would be a revolution within a month.
Why, I asked. Lena responded that one of the few freedoms East Germans had was to travel at least to other Warsaw block countries. If they took that away, then there'd be hardly anything else to live for.
So, in October 1989, I was back in graduate school and had heard that East Germany had indeed shut down the border when Mikhail Gorbachev was visiting. I told my graduate adviser: You watch, soon there's going to be revolution in East Germany. Less than a month later, the Berlin Wall fell.
What was fascinating to me, then as it is now, was that every East German knew the point at which they would no longer tolerate the abuse they had been taking from their government.
I've often wondered if the same is true for the US; namely, is there an event that would trigger Americans into saying with one voice enough with politics as usual?
I posted a comment:
I’ve asked this specific question - “where is the line“ of local sheriffs and police officers who have told me, in conversations, that they hate the masking and the ‘mandates’ and the abuse of children in schools, but won’t speak out because they don’t want to lose departmental funding (the sheriff) or their jobs (the police officer). The line for them is not abuse of children as public school policy; they made that absolutely clear.
Both said the line for them is when the government starts trying to confiscate household guns. Remains to be seen when they decide that line has been crossed, given all the incremental moves over recent decades to gut the Second Amendment. Also remains to be seen what they do when they decide that line has been crossed.
I think that’s the line for a lot of Americans. Because our Second Amendment is like the open eastern borders for the East Germans.