Some recent comment threads
On DOD contracts, informed consent, EUAs, government/Big Tech censorship, FEMA camps, Internet kill switch, and more.
…Have you looked into Advanced Technologies International? NPR reporting from September 2020:
"Instead of entering into contracts directly with vaccine makers, more than $6 billion in Operation Warp Speed funding has been routed through a defense contract management firm called Advanced Technologies International.
ATI then awarded contracts to companies working on COVID-19 vaccines.
As a result, the contracts between the pharmaceutical companies and ATI may not be available through public records requests, and additional documents are exempt from public disclosure for five years."
I haven’t dug specifically into ATI, but ran across them because they’re also the passthrough in the two DOD contracts cited by Pfizer in its April 22, 2022 Motion to Dismiss Brook Jackson’s False Claims Act case.
The Statement of Work at p. 10 is where the prototype language, and the exemption from “Good Clinical Practices” show up:
“The scope of this prototype project is the demonstration by Pfizer of the supply and logistics capability to manufacture and distribute to the Government of 100M doses of a novel mRNA- based vaccine that has received FDA-approval or authorization based on demonstration of efficacy (hereafter FDA-approved or authorized).
The criteria for successful Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) are described in Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products and Related Authorities: Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders, January 2017; and Development and Licensure of Vaccine to Prevent COVID-19: Guidance for Industry June 2020.
The successful provision of these doses shall establish the effectiveness of a technology capable of potentially providing immediate and long-term solutions to coronavirus infections.
While pre-clinical, clinical, and chemistry/manufacturing/controls (CMC) activities are described in the Background section of this Statement of Work, the Parties acknowledge and agree that such activities not related to the large-scale manufacturing demonstration are out-of-scope for this prototype project as Pfizer and BioNTech have and will continue to fund these activities, without the use of Government funding.”
What does the law say about "Trade Secrets"? Point me in the right direction?
If all ingredients are not disclosed because they are allowed to be "Trade Secrets"; how can Informed Consent be given?
Having explored granted patents; this is not just in the avenue of the Medical Countermeasures like shots, Personal Protective Gear like masks, tests, dyes like Gadolinium, but also now in nano clothing, inhaled air from nasal sprays and chemtrails, in pills per Albert Bourla and water & food...
Informed consent is not being given, and under the current laws, it doesn’t have to be given.
Trade secrets law is irrelevant; I haven’t looked into it because informed consent is already gone.
One set of laws is the EUA framework, under which HHS Secretary can unilaterally, preemptively make risk-benefit decisions for all recipients by declaring the product’s “known and potential risks and benefits” to be acceptable.
Another set of laws is the Investigational New Drug (IND) framework, under which HHS Secretary can unilaterally make risk-benefit decisions for all recipients by declaring that the product poses “no more than minimal risk.” That’s probably the framework being used for chemtrails, nasal sprays, pills, water, food, clothing.
See Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics (FDA) Act, as amended:
21 USC 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii) waiving informed consent for unapproved EUA products (2004 Project Bioshield Act);
21 USC 360bbb-3(e)(2)(A) waiving informed consent for unapproved use of an approved EUA product (2004 Project Bioshield Act);
21 USC 355(i)(4) waiving informed consent for experimental products classified by HHS as ‘minimal risk’ IND drugs (2016 Cures Act);
21 USC 360j(g)(3)(D)(i) waiving informed consent for experimental ‘minimal risk’ investigational devices (2016 Cures Act).
No consideration of individual patient health profiles and risk tolerances required. No evidence of safety signals required. No review (judicial, legislative, scientific) required, and — for judicial — such review is prohibited, as the decisions are within “agency discretion.”
Can you make a post on the internet kill switch?
Brandon Smith did a post on it a couple of months ago, referencing Cyber-Polygon [this year’s exercise scheduled to begin tomorrow, July 8] and his reasoning makes sense to me.
It’s not a subject I’ve done a lot of research into, but I’ve read reports that have identified the legal documents authorizing such a move. Brennan Center page on PEADs has some of them, links and excerpts below.
I think this may be part of why open resistance isn’t emerging in the US and other Western nations. I think a sizable majority of the potential resistance fighters in the interior, flyover country, are aware of these emergency powers and know that whoever makes the first move toward open, kinetic warfare will be at a disadvantage in the public image/psy-op arena.
In other words, it may be prudent to wait for the government to make the first use of open force, because if the resisters make the first move, the government will trigger all these emergency powers and explain it to the public as quashing a dangerous rebellion.
But if the government makes the first move, and the resistance movement manages to quickly, broadly disseminate credible video and other reporting on the government’s aggressive, first-strike attack on ordinary people, then the government will have a somewhat more difficult project of framing the conflict as protective of public safety.
“Controlling communications: At least one of the documents under review was designed to implement the emergency authorities contained in Section 706 of the Communications Act. During World War II, Congress granted the president authority to shut down or seize control of “any facility or station for wire communication” upon proclamation “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.”
This frighteningly expansive language was, at the time, hemmed in by Americans’ limited use of telephone calls and telegrams. Today, however, a president willing to test the limits of his or her authority might interpret “wire communications” to encompass the internet — and therefore claim a “kill switch” over vast swaths of electronic communication.
And indeed, Bush administration officials repeatedly highlighted the statute’s flexibility: it was “very broad,” as one official in the National Security Council scribbled, and it extended “broader than common carriers in FCC [Federal Communications Commission] juris[diction].”
“For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts. Other powers are available even without a declaration of emergency, including laws that allow the president to deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest.”
Update July 8 - More on CyberPolygon
2021/06/10 - Presentation slides - Cyber-Polygon: Clues to the Elite’s Next Pandemic
2022/02/16 Press Release - Cyber-Polygon 2022 to take place on July 8.
Cyber Polygon is organized by BI.ZONE, an expert in digital risks management (Sber Ecosystem), with the support of the World Economic Forum’s Centre for Cybersecurity and INTERPOL. The training is conducted on an annual basis and will take place for the fourth time in 2022. The central theme this year is Digital Resilience in the Cloud Age.
The event will consist of three parallel tracks: an online conference with the participation of top executives from global organizations, a technical cybersecurity training for corporate teams, and expert talks from leading specialists in practical cybersecurity.
Speakers from around the world will discuss how to maintain business continuity and develop safely in the cloud era. Among the invited experts are leaders of the private and public sectors from across the globe as well as representatives of international organizations."
If you can, please publish the evidence you have that federal judges are operating under death threats. This would go a long way toward explaining otherwise inexplicable acts on the part of the federal judiciary. For example, it would explain why Joe Biden remains in office despite evidence from the study of the 2020 election…Is Biden's continuing presence in office the result of death threats received by federal judges?
I don’t have direct evidence of it.
O’Looney said he’s been told that a British member of parliament (Graham Brady, with whom he and 18 other doctors, scientists, etc. met in Sept. 2021), NHS doctors and others who know what’s happening and are in a position to speak out on large platforms, have been offered millions of pounds into Swiss bank accounts, or simply continuing to receive their large salaries, to stay silent, or death to them and their loved ones if they speak out.
O’Looney himself has been offered $85,000 to shut up, and survived an attempt on his life last December. He’s made peace with the fact that he must speak out until he’s dead, to save his own soul from eternal damnation, and that speaking out increases the likelihood he’ll be killed by those who want to continue the killing with impunity.
If it’s happening in the UK, it’s happening everywhere, because we know the whole project is being coordinated globally by WHO and WEF and BIS.
That’s what I base my conclusion on - that the observable behavior of the people who could speak out and make a difference, but don’t, aligns with the likelihood that they’re being bribed and threatened to maintain their silence.
What do you know about FEMA camps? It’s my understanding that the government has many scattered across United States and by executive orders anyone can be apprehended and thrown into these camps for any reason. Such plans are in place for those that might refuse a vaccine and government claims it’s about safety or emergency…
As for the federal power to do the apprehension and detentions, that’s on the books and ready to be deployed as soon as HHS Secretary gives the green light:
That’s one of the things they strengthened during the Obama lame duck period, through the Federal Register Notice of Final Rule published Jan. 19, 2017.
On FEMA camps as such, I don’t know much, but they’re definitely on my radar.
Some of what I’ve heard is that they were authorized and/or acknowledged around 1987, through a program called Rex 1984, which Oliver North apparently mentioned during the Iran-Contra hearings.
Other search terms I’ve heard, but haven’t pursued yet, include Operation Garden Plot and Operation Cable Splicer, the latter related to federal plans to take over state and local governments during civil unrest as defined by federal government. See also Operation Mountain Guardian, Denver Colorado, 9/23/2011.
I’ve also heard that shopping mall owners may have contracts with feds to serve as holding centers, especially malls that are largely vacant or have low occupancy.
The main thing that caught my attention on this issue was when Attorney Todd Callender pointed out that hospitals and nursing homes are already serving as de facto death camps, hidden in plain sight, into which people walk voluntarily, because they don’t know what’s happening inside or why.
Through the HHS-CMS waivers of patient rights protections, hospital homicide protocols (ICD-10 codes; withholding of treatments like hydroxychloroquin, Ivermectin; dehydration; starvation; restraints; Remdesivir; ventilators) and the legal agreements in place, police officers and sheriffs who are called to disputes between patients, patient family members, and hospital staff over medical battery, unlawful restraint, etc., have been arresting and removing the worried family members, while protecting the homicidal hospital staff, instead of helping the families get the patients to safety, and arresting the homicidal hospital staff.
That’s the front line of the FEMA-camp fight right now, and has been since the beginning of 2020, ramping up in Sept. 2021 as more people figured it out.
So, what would have to be done to strip away the EUA status of the vaccines? It appears that “EUA” is the protective force field, if you will, that needs to come down.
My view is that destroying the EUA status, without collapsing the entire government, will require a federal court finding the EUA statutes unconstitutional ab initio (from the beginning), declaring them null and void, and/or Congress repealing those statutes.
In the meantime, do not comply.
The leverage to get the federal courts and Congress to right the statutory and constitutional wrong is to draw out the implicit violence hiding behind the statutes and regulations, due to widespread compliance with unlawful and immoral directives.
A critical mass refusing to comply with unlawful orders will evoke use-of-force attempts by the federal government, exercised through unlawful orders to military personnel, private military contractors, state police, county sheriffs and local police.
They're getting away with hiding the government attack on the People so far because brainwashed people walk into the pharmacies and hospitals and ask to be maimed and killed, and politely thank the person who injects them.
Gab - Stonewall Jackson:
I’m not buying the excuse of Boris Johnson’s resignation. The supposed reason was for a scandal known as “party gate”, that he broke Covid lockdown rules? Well, if that’s the case, then every Democrat governor and mayor in the United States should resign.
Gab - me:
I agree. It’s part of the overall NWO plan, which requires weakening, delegitimizing and dismantling nation-state governments, and increasing the anger of the people at the corruption and criminality and lack of accountability of their own governments, as a prelude to having agents of the one-world-government come in and offer to save the day for the angry people, by substituting the globalist corruption for the deposed federal corruption and calling it an improvement.
I thought the information about how the federal government coordinates and controls Twitter and other Big Tech through Section 230 threats and back channel directives was already understood [since May 2021], through Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai’s lawsuit that uncovered the Twitter Trusted Partnership, Twitter Partner Support (PSP) Portal and Elections Interference Operations Playbook for State and Local Officials.
Reader email to me:
…The better defensive citation [on informed consent] would be the Common Rule, 45 CFR 114.16? Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital decision cited this but reached the wrong answer. I didn't check the briefs to see how it was argued or whether that portion was appealed.
True it wasn't in fact a clinical trial, but the Common Rule is broad enough to fully implement Belmont and Nuremberg and apply to [informed consent for] any 'experiment' which is broadly defined and certainly included any EUA especially where data is gathered on an ongoing basis pending a final determination…
There are definitely more mandates on the way, so we need to start building a body of precedent either based on a fundamental right of bodily autonomy or 'strong' informed consent [with full info and without burden]…
Me email to reader:
Will need some time to read through this a couple of times and respond more fully. Also there’s just too much information to be researching and compiling all of what needs to be pulled together. I have to be careful about not trying to do more than I can do, so I don’t get overwhelmed and can keep going on the limited issues I focus on.
One thing right off is that Common Rule is gone; that’s what the Jan. 2017 new regulations was about — replacing 1991 Common Rule at all, or almost all, federal agencies, to enable the medical torture/battery/homicide.
Agree that the mandates are coming back, not sure what will happen when people continue refusing and more people (who took one or more shots but won’t take any more) join the refusenik team.
Reader email to me:
I have been studying the English Constitution…and in particular, the English Bill of Rights of 1688/9 for about 28 years now and one of my friends now has a website where his work on the Bill of Rights can be seen, including an excellent slide presentation.
…I have also attached one of the essays that I did about six months ago which covers executive orders, or proclamations as they are also known…
I'm a little overwhelmed at the moment with all the information coming in from all over, but I do appreciate getting leads from readers and have downloaded the reports...
I certainly agree with you that in common law and even civil law up until early 2020, there were restraints on executive power, although it had been eroding for many decades, if not centuries (as you point out in your research).
Part of my own cognitive process, and what I'm trying to convey to readers, is to understand that the restraints have been destroyed/eviscerated by the agents pulling the Covid-crimes, and need to be re-established and restored all over again.
For the time being, they're gone.
It's a significantly different framing than the more mainstream view that the existing restraints are still there and need to be located, presented to the criminals, and somehow enforced by the criminals against themselves.
But it's also hard to accept, especially because the destruction of the restraint frameworks was done so gradually, so quietly for so long, and then the result sprung on us all of a sudden.
It's incredibly disorienting.