Other Transaction Authority (OTA) is to federal procurement contract regulation as Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is to federal drug safety regulation.
Discover more from Bailiwick News
Other Transaction Authority (OTA) is to federal procurement contract regulation as Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is to federal drug safety regulation.
They're both provisions through which Congress and US presidents pretended to legalize criminal conspiracy to produce and use weapons of mass destruction.
First part of reporting about the issues the US Government’s Oct. 4 statement of interest in warrior Brook Jackson’s whistleblower case against Pfizer, help to illuminate.
Means, motive and opportunity.
Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) programs established by Congress and President Clinton on Nov. 21, 1997 pretended to authorize the US Secretary of Health and Human Services and Secretary of Defense to illegally order illegal use of illegal chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction on all Americans and all the people in the rest of the world.
Other Transaction Authority (OTA) programs established by Congress and President Obama on Nov. 25, 2015 pretended to authorize SecDef and HHS Secretary to illegally contract with and pay criminal private corporations to illegally produce illegal weapons.
On Nov. 21, 1997, Congress and President Clinton passed the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act. Through it, they added a new section (21 USC 360bbb) to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act: “Expanded access to unapproved therapies and diagnostics.”
Code translation:
Access = production and deployment
Unapproved = illegal/prohibited under federal and international law
Therapies and diagnostics = weapons
The Emergency Use Authorization program under 21 USC 360bbb, if correctly titled, would be “Expanded production and deployment of illegal and prohibited weapons.”
On Nov. 24, 2003, Congress and President Bush passed the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2004, adding 21 USC 360bbb-3, “Authorization for Medical Products for Use in Emergencies.”
Section 360bbb-3 refers to “products,” a category that includes qualified countermeasures, which includes medical countermeasures and security countermeasures.
The term “medical countermeasures” seems to have entered the lexicon on Nov. 30, 1993, when Congress and President Clinton passed the NDAA for FY1994 and added to Title 10, Armed Forces, Section 2370a. “Medical countermeasures against biowarfare threats: allocation of funding between near-term and other threats.”
At least that’s the first document on my hard-drive that shows up in a keyword search.
10 USC 2370a was repealed on Oct. 28, 2004.
Not to worry.
Two years earlier on June 12, 2002, “medical countermeasures” had been shifted out of Title 10 (Armed Forces) and put under Title 42, (Public Health and Welfare) at 42 USC 300hhh, “Public health and medical preparedness and response functions,” through the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act passed by Congress and President Bush.
Medical countermeasures moved again on July 21, 2004, when Congress and President Bush passed the Project Bioshield Act.
Project Bioshield moved the “qualified countermeasures” program to 42 USC 247d-6a: “Authority for use of certain procedures regarding qualified countermeasure research and development activities.”
Whatever the products are called, and wherever the pretend lawfulness of their use is addressed in the United States Code, they are chemical and biological weapons.
Whenever you read or hear the terms “biologic” “vaccine” or “countermeasure,” translate them as “illegal weapon.”
The terms are simply ways Congress, Presidents and appointed US government officials pretend that the crimes they’re committing are lawful acts, while they pretend to regulate illegal weapon manufacturing and use, through the pretend process of fulfilling their duties to protect public health and safety from toxic food and drugs.
On Nov. 25, 2015, Congress and President Obama passed the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2016.
This is how they corrupted the procurement contracting system in the same way that they’d already corrupted the food and drug regulatory system.
The ‘prototype’ procurement language, called Other Transaction Authority or OTA, was added at 10 USC 2371b, “Authority of the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects.
10 USC 2371b was renumbered 10 USC 4022 effective 01/01/2022, through the NDAA for FY2021 passed on Jan. 1, 2021 by Congress and President Trump.
Which the criminals who write US laws for the zombie Congress to pass apparently forgot, because they tried to amend it again, back at 10 USC 2371, in the NDAA for FY2022 passed on Dec. 27, 2021, at 135 Stat. 1825.
It’s all part of the overall game of throwing Americans off the rancid scent of the criminal infiltrators working in the US Department of Defense and Department of Health and Human Services as they carry out their fraud-based global mass murder campaign.
Lying and killing. Killing and lying.
Through 10 USC 2371b/10 USC 4022 Other Transaction Authority (OTA) program set up in 2015, Congress and President Obama pretended to legalize Department of Defense contracting with pharmaceutical corporations to produce bioweapons, in violation of federal and international laws prohibiting same.
10 USC 4022(a)(1) - “[T]he Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Secretary of a military department, or any other official designated by the Secretary of Defense may, under the authority of section 4021 of this title, carry out prototype projects that are directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces.”
Like the EUA product-development and FDA review program, the OTA government purchasing program classified bioweapons as qualified countermeasures, medical countermeasures and security countermeasures.
The OTA federal contract procurement program set up by Congress paralleled the creation of the Medical CBRN [Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear] Defense Consortium, or MCDC.
This is the public-private partnership through which new chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons are funded, developed and deployed by the US Government in conspiracy with private sector agents to sicken and kill human beings.
MCDC members describe themselves as
A consortium formed in response to the Government’s expressed interest to establish an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) with an eligible entity or group of entities, to include industry, academic, and not-for-profit partners, for advanced development efforts to support the Department of Defense’s (DoD) medical, pharmaceutical and diagnostic requirements as related to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel.
Through the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND), the Medical Countermeasures Systems (MCS) Joint Project Management Office is always looking for innovative, safe and effective medical solutions to counter CBRN threats. The usage of an OTA allows government to partner with the MCDC to leverage cutting edge R&D and develop prototypes from commercial sources. This gives MCS an agile and flexible way to develop medical countermeasures using new and innovative technology.
Pfizer, Inc. is among the current members of the MCDC consortium.
FDA has a parallel program, called the Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMi).
That’s the FDA branch of the US Government’s public-private partnership program to produce and use illegal chemical and biological weapons.
The 2015 Congressional act pretending to authorize the OTA program is one of the many ways that the US Government has “expressed interest” in setting up the corporate-state death machine since the mid-1940s.
Here’s how this fits with the US Government’s statement of interest in Brook Jackson’s whistleblower case.
Two key US Government contracts are involved.
First is the July 20, 2020 Base Agreement between Advanced Technology (ATI) and Pfizer, Inc., identified as MCDC Base Agreement No. 2020-532.
Signing authority was listed as
MCDC Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) No. W15QKN-16-9-1002 and 10 U.S.C. § 2371b, Section 815 of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Public Law 114-92.
The second contract is the July 21, 2020, MCDC Technical Direction Letter or Statement of Work (SOW) for "COVID-19 Pandemic - Large Scale Vaccine Manufacturing Demonstration" between Pfizer and DOD/Advanced Technologies Inc.
The military prototype contracting provision must be read in conjunction with several other ways that the US Government gradually, quietly "expressed interest" in conspiring with businesses like Pfizer to commit genocide.
These include Congressional amendments to the 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act and the 1944 Public Health Service Acts which — by January 2020 when the US Government's Covid-19 crime spree began — had entirely eliminated federal regulatory standards for production and use of products designated by the FDA for emergency use during an HHS-declared, HHS-maintained 'public health emergency.'
21 USC 360bbb-3(c) "Criteria for Issuance of Authorization" is a linchpin.
At 21 USC 360bbb-3(c)(2), the law provides that the HHS Secretary may issue emergency use authorizations if he or she concludes
that, based on the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that—
(A) 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, approved or cleared under this chapter, or licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 262], for diagnosing, treating, or preventing such a disease or condition caused by such an agent; and
(B) the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product, taking into consideration the material threat posed by the agent or agents identified in a declaration under subsection (b)(1)(D), if applicable;
With the benefit of the July 2020 OTA contract, Pfizer’s April 2022 motion to dismiss and the US Government’s October 2022 statement of interest, we can now fully understand several things.
No safety standard is material to the HHS or FDA decisions.
The only efficacy standard is that the product "may be effective.”
Efficacy conclusions are to be based on the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary.
If no scientific evidence is construed as available to the HHS Secretary, the HHS Secretary can make the declaration anyway.
The Base Agreement contract provided, at Section 21.06, for DOD military personnel to monitor and control every document, phone call, email, meeting and third-party audit between Pfizer (the “project agreement holder” or PAH) and FDA regulators.
DOD put this into the OTA bioweapons procurement contracts to ensure from the very start that Operation Warp Speed could only ever conclude with FDA authorizations and approvals, and that the FDA would never, under any circumstances, revoke the authorizations and approvals, because revocation of the authorization is the only condition under which US Government payment on the contracts can be suspended.
DOD and Pfizer agents had means, motive and opportunity, through OTA contracts, to personally ensure that
no valid clinical trials would be conducted,
no valid clinical data would be collected and analyzed, and
all scientific evidence of product toxicity would be removed, altered, suppressed, falsified, destroyed, discredited or otherwise disappeared, by anyone involved anywhere in the pretend clinical trials process.
DOD and Pfizer agents could thereby ensure that no evidence capable of interfering with the HHS Secretary and FDA regulatory officials (Azar/Kadlec/Gruber) EUA declarations would ever become available.
The mechanism was reinforced by other contractual provisions that separated the military “prototype manufacturing demonstration projects” from the pretend pharmaceutical research and development projects.
In other words, the FDA’s decisions about products manufactured by Pfizer and other DOD contractors were made long before anyone in America had ever heard of Covid-19. The clinical trials were done to support the psychological part of the military operation; the scientific validity and regulatory compliance of the trials was irrelevant.
The FDA decisions based on the pretend trials were made by identifiable FDA officials, each of whom evidence will show either had knowledge, complicity and intent to further the crimes, or acted out of fear and ignorance, under DOD duress and coercion.
Back to Brook Jackson’s case.
Pfizer’s core argument in its Motion to Dismiss, which the US Government has now endorsed in its Oct. 4 statement of interest, is that clinical trials and clinical data from all of the sites, including the serious adverse event reports from the very start of the trials in Summer 2020, were not “material” or “necessary” to the FDA’s decisions to grant Emergency Use Authorization (Dec. 11, 2020) and approval (Aug. 23, 2021) to Pfizer’s product.
Pfizer, April 22, 2022 at p. 3
The Government’s “actual behavior” here says it all. Both the complaint itself and the public record show the Government has been fully aware of Relator’s allegations for nearly two years without withdrawing authorization or stopping payment for Pfizer’s vaccine.
To the contrary, FDA took regulatory action that made the vaccine widely available and publicly responded to Relator’s allegations by expressing the agency’s “full confidence” in the data used to support the vaccine.
DoD continues to purchase the product and make it available, free of charge, to all people living in the United States.
And the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), which was required under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(a) to investigate Relator’s allegations “diligently,” declined to intervene in this lawsuit.
All of this is “very strong evidence” that Relator’s allegations are not material to the United States, and accordingly Pfizer’s vaccine was—and continues to be— eligible for payment by the Government.
US Government, Oct. 4, 2022, 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.
As the complaint notes, the contract did condition payment between Pfizer and the Army on FDA approval or authorization of the vaccine. This provision in the contract could support a claim for fraud in the inducement if the complaint had pleaded facts supporting an inference that the alleged clinical trial violations at the Ventavia sites actually altered FDA’s approval or authorization decision.
However, while the complaint generally contends that the alleged clinical trial violations by Ventavia “call[] the vaccine’s EUA into question,” there are no allegations in the complaint that the data from the Ventavia sites caused FDA to authorize the vaccine or that FDA would have revoked authorization had it known about the alleged clinical trial violations by Ventavia.
Short note about where I’m going with this series of reports.
The implications of the contract terms were first publicly acknowledged by Pfizer on April 22, 2022, in Pfizer's motion to dismiss Brook Jackson's whistleblower case.
As of Oct. 4, 2022, the implications of the contract terms have now been publicly acknowledged and endorsed by the US Government.
On Oct. 11, 2022, Brook Jackson's attorneys asked Judge Truncale for permission to file a response to the US Government's statement of interest.
On Oct. 14, 2022, Judge Truncale granted that permission, and ordered Jackson's attorneys to file a response by Oct. 27.
I think that in their response Brook Jackson's attorneys should take the US Government's newly-discovered interest in intervening, and accept it, by asking Judge Truncale to:
Deny Pfizer’s motion to dismiss
Add the US Government, including President Trump, President Biden, current and past secretaries of DOD, HHS, DOJ and DHS, along with CDC, FDA, NIH, NIAID, DARPA and BARDA officials as defendants.
Add a claim under 18 USC 2333 against the named US government officials and their subordinates (agency and departmental directors, advisory board members, etc.)
Terminate the national emergency declarations, proclamations and programs.
Immediately suspend the entire US vaccination program including the schedules for childhood, adolescent and adult injections, and order a full, independent investigation to be conducted by a civilian team led by Steve Kirsch and Naomi Wolf.
Close all DOD, FDA, CDC, Pfizer, Moderna, J&J and subcontractor facilities, and designate them as crime scenes in an active criminal investigation conducted by a civilian team led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Francis A. Boyle.
If ordered by Judge Truncale, this would enable full discovery into the multiple, heinous crimes including fraud; production, stockpiling and use of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction; and mass murder, that the US Government planned, conspired and contracted with the private corporate defendants (Pfizer, Ventavia and Icon) to conceal from the public during the planning stages, commit and then cover up.
Other Transaction Authority (OTA) is to federal procurement contract regulation as Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is to federal drug safety regulation.
Thank you for taking the time to look at the case. I wish we could do as you suggested but we have limits in civil actions.
Ugh! My head hurts! Conclusion: Our federal government is too big, out of control and merely seeks to preserve itself by getting control of ALL OF US! we need to cut away the massive brambles and uproot this overgrown, ugly mess and begin from the beginning. Plant a new garden.