RFKjr Interviews SASHA LATYPOVA - transcript

 

Katherine Watt Aug 30

 

Transcript, RFK Jr. interview of Sasha Latypova, March 15, 2023. Edited by PH 

Robert:

Hey everybody. I'm really happy that we have a returned guest today. Sasha Latypova is a former Pharmaceutical R&D Executive. She worked in the industry for 25 years and ultimately owned and managed several contract research organizations working on clinical trials for more than 60 pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, J&J, GSK, Novartis, and many others.

Latypova worked many years in cardiovascular safety assessments and interacted with the FDA and other regulatory agencies on these matters on behalf of her clients as part of the FDA Cardiovascular Safety Research Consortium.

Sasha sold her companies and retired from the industry before the pandemic, and has been speaking out on COVID and the mRNA vaccines and related matters since early 2021 as an independent researcher.

What you're going to hear today is immensely important. It puts a new dimension on the corruption that has occurred, and the really, what I would call, coup d'état against democracy, by forces that include not only the medical cartel, but our military and intelligence apparatus as well, and Sasha has done an incredible job of going into the weeds and documenting exactly how they've got away with what they've gotten away with,  and this huge fraud that they have pulled off that has gulled virtually the entire regulatory community, physicians, and the public.

Sasha does not have a scientific, or medical title. She's an MBA, but she brings a special expertise, which is understanding the regulatory protocols and processes that govern clinical trials. She was in charge of compliance for over 60 clinical trials. So she knows what the regulatory hurdles are that are normal and that businesses have to comply with if they're going to bring a product, a drug, or a vaccine to market.

During the early part of 2021 she began noticing some gaps in that process, let's say, and some irregularities about the way that the vaccines were brought to market, and that caused her to do Freedom Of Information requests and to really figure out what was going on, and the fraud that she uncovered is monumental.

So I'm going to get Sasha to explain - as she does incredibly articulately, eloquently and clearly - exactly what happened.

So welcome again, Sasha. The last time you were in a very luxurious house with a beautiful oil painting behind you of Daniel in The Lion's Den, which I just loved and you said that it was your painting and I looked you up and your artwork is incredible. So you are a person of many, many talents.

Sasha Latypova:

Thank you. Yes, it's my favorite painting, I think. I love the way it turned out and I love what it told me when I was doing it. 

Robert:

You must feel like Daniel in the lion's den some days when you wake up.

Sasha Latypova:

Yes.

Robert:

Except the lions are trying to eat you.

Sasha Latypova:

No, they're not. The message of that painting is that, first of all, God's design is perfect, absolutely perfect. I wish more people understood it. And it has to do with both the truth and the human body and everything that has been created in the universe. You cannot improve on the truth and you cannot improve on the design of the human body or the cells or the DNA. And no matter what these fear mongers are telling you about gain of function and all that nonsense, just understand that that's fear mongering and bluff.

They cannot overcome what God created. And that's why that story about Daniel is told that way. And if you understand it, then you know that there's nothing to be afraid of. So that was the message that painting told me when I was making it and well, that's sort of the philosophical underpinnings of all of this.

But yeah, coming back to the criminals, let's talk about the criminal organization. You're correct. When I started looking into this in early 2020 and later, in 2021, when they started rolling out the so-called vaccines, I was still naive and under the assumption with most of my colleagues that these were pharmaceuticals, and the FDA was regulating them. And the CDC was supposed to be monitoring the safety signals, but that somehow they missed them.

And a lot of people are still in that camp and trying to get the CDC to pay attention to the things that it was never going to and has no mandate to pay attention to, and in fact has the opposite mandate for. And that was the problem. At the beginning I was looking at the various databases of CDC and looking at the adverse events and deaths, especially serious adverse events and deaths associated with the so-called vaccines by lot numbers.

And that was my unique view because I understood how they're made. They're supposed to be made in lots, and the lots have numbers, and they're tracked. And in any normal safety surveillance system, this is what you do: you identify some kind of a problem, a clustering of deaths, you look up the lot numbers, and you immediately recall them. And that's done by the manufacturer. All manufacturers have those systems of surveillance, so you get letters from your car dealers saying, "Oh, this part was recalled”, or whatever.

And that's because the same safety surveillance system was triggered somehow, and they figured out that "okay, this part number needs to be taken off the market." The same happens with pharmaceuticals. The vast majority of recalls of pharmaceuticals, or food, salad with salmonella, are recalled by the manufacturers all over the United States. Yet this never happened with these products.

In fact, there was one lot identified in Orange County, California for Moderna, by Orange County, California Health Department on January 18th, 2021. They were calling out an abnormal number of allergic reactions, and nothing happened. So they flagged it, but there was no action taken. The lot continued to be distributed all over the United States, and ultimately caused something like 65 deaths and over 3,000 adverse events, serious adverse events.

And after something like this happens, what I need people to understand is you don't have to continue going on saying, "Oh, I need to demonstrate excess mortality associated with this product." No, you don't! When something like this happens that I just described, it should be considered intentional murder and those responsible should be prosecuted.

At that point law enforcement needs to be triggered into action to go after those responsible who are now responsible for 65 dead people all over the United States... 

Robert:

Let me add, and I'm going to try not to interrupt you, but let me just add one other thing, that there have been surveys of which lots are injuring people. And my understanding is that something like 90% of the injuries are the result of one or two or three or four. It's a very, very small number of lots, maybe 5% of the lots

Sasha Latypova:

That was an early data point, which is still true based on the raw output from the VAERS database. Well, in reality what we also found is that the CDC also manipulates the data through their contractors. They manipulate the data very heavily so that it looks this way. In reality I would say that 30% of the lots account for 90% of the deaths. But because of data manipulation that the CDC does, it looks more like 5% of the lots.

But yeah, it's neither here or nor there. We still see that there is a huge signal triggered, there's a huge signal associated. If somebody just took a raw output and said, "Oh look, there are 5% of the lots. Let's look at them more closely. Let's recall them," the first thing is stop and recall. If this is done in the interest of public safety by everyone involved, the government, HHS, FDA, CDC, all the manufacturers, Pfizer, their subcontractors, anyone has those systems in place, anyone can detect it. And once they detect it, the first thing to do is stop and recall.

None of this happened in the United States. It happened in Japan for a couple of lots of Moderna, but it never happened in the United States. Even after they flagged it, they continued selling it and they killed 65 people. So to me, that was enough. I didn't need to continue screaming at the CDC, "Please look at my data!"

I knew that they were criminals at that point and they were doing it intentionally. So I started looking; do I have a confirmation that these products are not good in manufacturing compliance? And yes, we do. We have direct documents from the European Medicines Agency stating that Pfizer was not in compliance with good manufacturing practices at the time of authorization or conditional marketing approval actually in Europe.

They were not in compliance. And that was regulatory objection number one, which is a major red flag: formal objection by the regulator to the approval. And that should have been resolved before anything was shipped. Yet two weeks after that notice was issued commercial lots of Pfizer, which had been manufactured long before that opinion was issued, got shipped within the US and internationally, violating every import-export rule and all other GMP compliance rules also.

So after that, you should say it's completely intentional, not only in the US, but internationally. Again, nothing happens. I am still confused as to why nothing happens. And everybody's asking everybody on all sides that question, "Why is there is no action? Why no action by the courts? No action?" We can't even bring them on charges for any of these very flagrant violations.

And then ultimately I ran into this brilliant analysis by my colleague now, Katherine Watt, who writes Bailiwick News Substack, and she's compiled what I would say is the  encyclopedia of reference and law reference on this topic of how the US government over time created this pseudo-legal structure.

I'm saying none of this is lawful, this is completely unconstitutional, what I'm going to describe. But they made it legal on paper and that's what Katherine has tracked. And once I read it, the universe started making sense to me again because this is what they've done. This is the crime that they're committing, as we speak.

So what they put in place - and this has been done over time - shows a lot of pre-planning and premeditation. They've created a framework of pseudo-legal laws that they're using. And the first of them is, well, there are several statutes, six key statutes that she describes, but I'm going to speak about just a few of them here.

The Emergency Use Authorization Law is what's being used here in the US, it's a little bit different outside of the US, but let's focus on the US. It was put in place in ‘97 under Clinton, and it authorizes the FDA to put drugs or devices on the market without proper testing, or allows unauthorized use of a device or drug. And that was initially explained as a very limited niche kind of application for desperate cases for terminal cancer, or something. A very, very critical criterion for EUA is that there is no other treatment option.

So that explains the suppression of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which were perfectly workable, safe, and long-used medications that were showing a lot of promise for treating COVID, And yes, we know now definitively they're quite effective at treating COVID.

Robert:

And that is because the EUA provision regulation that was promulgated by the Clinton administration had safeguards in it. And it said, "Yes, you can take a medication that has no approval and you can distribute it and approve it for use without clinical trials, without any safety or efficacy testing. But you cannot do that if there is an existing drug that is approved for any purpose that is demonstrated to be effective against the target illness."

And so you can only use that EUA if no other drug or treatment exists. So it was very important if they wanted to use that EUA for their vaccines. They needed to first discredit or destroy any drugs that actually were effective against COVID. And very early on, they knew that hydroxychloroquine was effective against Coronavirus because NIH did studies that showed it was; it was devastatingly effective, both as a preventative and as a cure. And they knew that.

And Ivermectin was also devastatingly effective, but it would've killed their entire use of the Emergency Use Authorization if there had been any acknowledgement that those drugs were. So they had to suppress them.

Essentially there was a series of laws put in place that allowed the military to take over distribution of vaccines under a provision that does not allow any clinical trials and does not allow any safety testing. Essentially the safety testing that we did see, which was conducted by the pharmaceutical industry, was kabuki theater, put on for the public with no regulatory implications. And that's why they were able to take all these shortcuts because it was meaningless theater.

Sasha Latypova:

Yes, exactly. So it was a pretend authorization by a regulatory agency, the FDA, that has no regulatory mandate to regulate countermeasures in the United States. Remember the FDA mandate is to regulate interstate commerce of medical products and food. So they are supposed to approve medical products, and these are not medical products, they're "countermeasures".

So the legal framework that's being utilized here is essentially pretending that this is a health event and pretending that these are health products while using laws that actually put them into a totally different space legally, or pseudo-legally, I would say.

So in addition to the Emergency Use Authorization, they're using another set of laws that they're allowing them to contract under, namely “Other Transaction Authorities” under the Department of Defense. And they're not just overseeing the distribution of vaccines, by the way; that was "sold" to the public also.

The Department of Defense is actually fully in charge of the development of the clinical trials, of the execution of all this manufacturing, and ordering of them and distributing the money and taking possession of the delivered product and distributing it and owning it until it is injected into a person. So they're using an Other Transaction Authority, which is a way for the government to contract. Again, initially it was very narrowly defined, giving authority to NASA to do it in the 60s. But now 11 government agencies are using it and DOD is a particularly frequent user of this method.

Robert:

Other Transaction Authority, or OTA, and it was essentially designed to allow the Pentagon to quickly buy weapons and weapons systems without paying attention to any existing regulatory authorities.

Sasha Latypova:

Yes.

Robert:

What they've done is they've taken that Authority and they've applied it to the vaccines. So they're purchasing the vaccines under OTA as a “demonstration product”, not as a medical product. So FDA has no authority over it. CDC has no authority over it. The Military is actually manufacturing. They farm this out to hundreds of military contractors to do the manufacturing, to do the distribution, to do every aspect of it. And it's all a huge military operation.

And the involvement of the drug companies is kind of window dressing because the Pentagon did not want to put on the product, "This is a Pentagon made, Defense Department made product." They essentially paid the pharmaceutical companies for their brand names so people would think they were getting something from Pfizer and Moderna.

But all of the back room and the distribution and manufacturing is done by the military, and the pharmaceutical companies were brought in to put their name on it and then to pretend to do clinical trials, which have no legal significance.

Sasha Latypova:

Absolutely. Yeah, that's exactly right. So OTA allows them to quickly order otherwise regulated products from regulated industry, private industry, without following the regulations. So that's critical and that's why the DoD loves it so much, because not only can they do that, they can also hide a lot of technology and IP from the public, from each other, from other government branches. So it's perfect for them. And they don't have to follow any federal procurement accounting rules.

So that's why they're stated budget is 800 billion, but they can't find $8 trillion because they lost it and there's no accounting records for it. That's how they do it. And they distribute humongous amounts of money through this and through their agency. It's technically the HHS agency, but it's called BARDA, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

But BARDA kind of distributes the money. So they're all contracted. These contracts became available, over 400 of them, for all countermeasures, not just vaccines, but vaccines got the largest chunk of money. So it's vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, even masks were included. So they give them a huge chunk of money.

The scope of work of these contracts, the primary scope of work, is large scale manufacturing "demonstration". Demonstration meaning fake. It also uses other words, sometimes “prototypes”; sometimes it's “prototype”, “demo countermeasure”, “large scale manufacturing demonstration”. Those are the typical scope of work in this project. And then they mention in fluff language things like, "Oh, it's going to be subject to FDA rules and compliance." But then they also have these scope definition clauses where it says specifically it’s out of scope, "and we're not paying for it, we're not ordering it, it’s pre-clinical, -clinical, -development-and-manufacturing compliance." So that should be understood very clearly by everyone.

Department of Defense gave humongous amounts of money to all these pharma companies for demonstration. Just a demonstration. And if you knew that you're going to inject your child with a Department of Defense prototype ordered under OTA and emergency use authorized, would you do it? I don't think so. So that was the biggest lie that was sold to the public. "Come get injected with the safe effective thing manufactured by Pfizer," a prestigious pharmaceutical company, which is also a felon by the way. But people think that it's a pharma company.

Anyway, so that's how they did it. And they can invoke all this structure under public health emergency and continue invoking it under public health emergency, because this whole thing clicks into place when they announce a public health emergency based on absolutely no data and no evidence that any emergency exists. And they have been extending it and will continue extending it as long as we allow them to because of this, because they need it in place so that they can continue implementing this structure.

Robert:

When they operate under OTA, there is no quality control, because normally you would have quality control choke points. In other words, the government regulates quality control at the factory. And then again in the distribution system when you cross state lines, you have to show the lot number and you have to show that you complied with quality control and best manufacturing processes.

But now, under OTA, there literally are no best management practices, there are no best manufacturing processes. And so we don't know what the ingredients are, we don't know how it was manufactured. We don't know where a lot of these were manufactured, and we just know nothing about these products, and nobody is actually looking at them. Is that so?

Sasha Latypova:

Yeah, that's accurate. I even have suspicion that reading these documents - and this is an educated guess - that Pfizer, for example, also doesn't know exactly what's in those products because there are some indications - I'm not going to discuss this deeply right now - that Pfizer is also not necessarily knowing exactly what goes into what.

So there is a huge question mark as to whether there is mRNA in these products or not, sometimes there is. I know some of the researchers found evidence of RNA, but it was not conforming to the specification that Pfizer described. It was different lengths of mRNA, different strands of mRNA, and there were huge impurities, a thousand times greater than limit.

There were impurities of DNA and all kinds of other toxic materials were found such as metals, for example, very toxic metals and other large structures that are unexplained, but they're too large to be in an injectable product. and that should be, again, basis to recall any of this.

So we don't know what exactly is in it, whether there is RNA, if there is RNA, what it's coding for, what it's not coding for, even when it's not coding for things. It has been designated, this RNA and small pieces of RNA have been designated as a biological weapon since 1997 at least. I found a number of government reports including a whole textbook by NIH that says so and has a whole chapter on this.

So we have these non-compliant biological materials distributed in these vials. We don't know exactly what; there are billions of vials, they're all over the place, some may be blanks and some may be super toxic. They're non-compliant we know for sure. They're biological materials. They have been designated as dual use. In fact, the contracts are saying they're dual use civil and military application. We have government reports describing them as biological weapons, and the use of them is indistinguishable from use as a biological weapon.

So I have a question to our government: What is it exactly that they're forcing on us? Somebody needs to start investigation, and address it, but while we're doing investigation, it should be stopped. It should be stopped and recalled. So that's my message.

Robert:

Yeah. Let me ask you this. I know that BioPort, which is this crooked company that I'm very familiar with, that had a monopoly on the small pox vaccine and the anthrax vaccines, and they have this very corrupt relationship with Robert Kadlec who runs BARDA, and BARDA runs the national strategic stockpile. They buy all the countermeasures. So he's looking at a multi-billion dollar budget that he can distribute to his friends, and he gives most of the contracts to one company, BioPort.

Sasha Latypova:

BioPort. Now it's called Emergent BioSolutions. They renamed themselves

Robert:

He used to be their business partner. He was their employee. He's given them, faithfully, for the entire time he's been in government, these very lucrative monopolies over vaccines. And their product was found to be substandard, had all kinds of impurities, and very, very bad. Nobody understood what was in it. And they shipped it to Canada, as I recall, because they couldn't use it in the United States. So they gave it to the Canadians.

But the question I have is, how much of these vaccines are actually being manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna and how much of them are going to military contractors like Emergent BioSolutions, which used to be called BioPort?

Sasha Latypova:

Yes, there are hundreds of companies that are involved. So Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen have been advertised as sort of the front, but in fact there are hundreds and hundreds of both different vaccine manufacturers of different sizes, and locations, but also raw material suppliers and fill-finish companies, which takes the product and then fills it into vials and does all the packaging and things like that.

So that's a network that had been established by the Department of Defense through various consortia. So here, specifically, are biological chemical, biological radiological, and nuclear consortia involved, which comprise about 300 companies. I'm not saying all of them are doing this, but a good chunk are involved, and the whole thing, people are saying, "Well, but that means that all of these people, thousands of people, are in on this conspiracy" actually, it doesn't require thousands of people to be in on a conspiracy.

It is so compartmentalized, it's so split into small pieces, and they did it immediately. Normally, if you're doing something very, very novel as a manufacturer, you do everything from soup to nuts at the beginning and then you start outsourcing once you understand certain components of your product and you've defined inputs and outputs.

Here, they did the opposite. They went right away into huge scale, had it broken into little bits of everything. And now you have this: a hundred companies making billions of vials. So for example, drug substances made at Rentschler, shipped to Andover or another, like Kalamazoo, and they make a drug product, then they ship it to fill-finish in Kansas. And I actually interviewed some of the insiders on the manufacturing floor.

They have no idea what they're doing there. Stuff comes from somewhere, they mix it, send it somewhere else. They don't know what's going on. 

And oftentimes the people working are, first of all... So Moderna for example, brag that their entire biologics manufacturing facility in Norwood, Massachusetts was built by the way in 2019 where they had no product to have a manufacturing facility for, yet Anthony Fauci went and cut the ribbon and everybody was super proud and they said it's fully digital. Well, you know what fully digital means before you have any products that are designed or anything? It means that there are no humans on the floor to ask questions or to ask about compliance or to ask what the ingredients are. And they frequently hire very inexperienced people and then don't train them.

And as Brook Jackson found, oftentimes they're not even aware that they're supposed to have a quality system, standard of written procedures, that they're supposed to be trained, that they're supposed to be signing off. So they hire people who don't know it, they don't tell them, and then they don't need to be in on the conspiracy because they're not aware of the rules.

So that's how I'm telling everyone when I say FDA or when I say Pfizer, I don't mean the thousands of people who work there, I mean the leadership and general counsel who are aware of the legal structure that's being utilized here and are in fact invoking it in their defense right now. So that's what's going on.

Robert:

One of the problems is they're trying to make billions and billions of units of this product in a three month time period. So they have to put in the orders, you have to get all of the supply chain in place, have the bottles, have the glass, have the syringes, have all of these. And it seems like they had to put this manufacturing process in place earlier. It's not something where you can go to the pharmaceutical industry and say to the pharmaceutical industry, "Stop making flu shots and start making COVID shots," and they can produce billions overnight, right? It's not that simple. Did the pharmaceutical industry have any part of this or how was it done?

Sasha Latypova:

Yeah, so they had some part in this. So I have these contracts with DoD for COVID countermeasures, go back to Emergent BioSolutions in 2012. I'm sure they go earlier than that, but that's the ones that I have. And what appears to have happened is since at least that time, the Department of Defense was recruiting them through Industry Days, and they still do them, it's the public event.

So they would do this Industry Day, a recruiting event, they will invite them and say, "Oh, you can submit proposals for these kinds of grants." And it was all focused. At that time they were calling it parainfluenza vaccine and that they need this manufacturing base. And it's a niche application that doesn't make sense for private manufacturers to invest in, but the government needs to help them out. And here's the purpose of BARDA, to give grants and technical support and establish this kind of a network, which they did.

And it's a gigantic network. They're saying "niche", but 50% of pharmaceutical industry money for R&D goes through this mechanism. So how is this niche? They're controlling the entire industry because it's a single buyer buying 50%. But anyway, since then they've established this gigantic network of manufacturers, ostensibly for parainfluenza, that they have exchanged IP with throughout, and manufacturing.

Because you can't just say, "Here, I need 10 billion doses of this completely new drug." It's an extremely complex manufacturing system. It's just as complex as making a new aircraft or making a brand new type of a vehicle. It has many parts and suppliers and procedures that you need to put in place. Raw materials need to be available. These are very expensive raw materials, these DNA templates, you need to grow them in cells; so they fail frequently; you grow some batch and it fails. So you have to do it again.

So somebody estimated, just to produce what they claimed to have produced for these RNA products, you need to make about a kilogram of DNA as a template. It's a staggering number. You can't just make it overnight. And I guarantee you they didn't.

And also just even having these contracts in place for this amount of money all signed in, the signatures begin in early February. Well, that means that it was negotiated the year before, because you can't just walk into the room and sign a 10 billion contract like this.

So all of that indicates that they sold the public a bunch of fluff, a story about the Cinderella overnight success, whereas this was pre-planned, they made the manufacturing facilities, they established their relationships, they established their raw material suppliers, they put in place the contracts and relationships so that they could just turn it on when they wanted to. And they called them all and they said, "Oh, stop working on your influenza models. Switch over to COVID." That's what happened.

Robert:

If you were to go to the automobile industry with a totally new product, which this is, nobody had ever done anything like this, “You have to manufacture this, at 100 degrees below zero”, or something.

Sasha Latypova:

The story keeps changing on that.

Robert:

Nobody has a manufacturing facility that can do that. What if you went to an automobile company and said, "We have a totally different kind of vehicle. Can you make 10 billion copies in three months?" Is it the same kind of thing?

Sasha Latypova:

Yeah, it's the same kind of thing. They would tell you, "I can't do that. I don't even have raw materials for that thing to happen, not enough raw materials, not enough parking space, not enough staff, not enough production lines."

So that's why all of this story about, "Oh, Moderna made it in the weekend." That's nonsense. That's absolute nonsense. They had this all pre-planned. The contracts show that the relationships go way back. There are material transfer agreements between NIH and Moderna going to 2015. There's all kinds of evidence that shows that this was pre-planned activity and the machinery was in place. And it's all companies that people are not aware of, like Emergent BioSolutions, like Ology - they call it Ology, it used to be called Resilience, but it's basically government-owned biologics manufacturing facilities that they bought from pharma companies. And now gave them a gigantic amount of money to do this biologics manufacturing.

So all of this is government-owned, DoD-owned, DoD-managed through the defense contractor networks and with the same mechanisms that they use for weapons and also with the same mechanisms of not following any regulations, as they do for weapons.

There is one more thing, coming back to public health emergency, that's why they need it so desperately, public health emergency essentially -

Robert:

Is this why they needed the public health emergency?

Sasha Latypova:

Yes, they needed this. Specifically, the public health emergency allows them to invoke these illegal laws that I just described, including the Ttransactions Authority, use of Emergency Use Authorized countermeasures. Under public health emergency it does not constitute clinical investigation, which means it puts them outside of FDA regulatory supervision. And then Other Transaction Authority allows them to order undisclosed prototypes. In this word “undisclosed prototype” you can hide whatever you want, a tank, a missile, or a biological weapon.

Then what also happens under public health emergency is the HHS secretary becomes de facto head of the government, and a dictator. Again, nobody really knows, but there was Alex Azar - now it's Xavier Becerra - who deploys these things on the United States population, on every man, woman, and child here. And he in his sole capacity, or she, whoever succeeds them, decides the criteria for this deployment. It’s their personal decision, whether these particular things - countermeasure prototypes by Department of Defense - may be effective. That's it. There's no other standard.

Robert:

Let me just clarify what you're saying. Normally for the protocols that you had to go through in your businesses, you would do a series of proposals. You design the clinical trials to make sure that they're going to show efficacy, that they're going to show safety. You do those clinical trials for a number of years, and then you go and show the results to FDA, and FDA has to make determinations about safety and efficacy and has to make determinations that the product is going to avert more harm than it causes, and the appropriate warnings and the side effects that you put on the manufacturer's inserts and all these thousand things that you have to do to get a product to market and get the inspections, et cetera.

Here, all of those are abolished. And the only determination is that the Secretary of HHS decides in his head with either some evidence or no evidence whatsoever that the product may be effective. That's it.

Sasha Latypova:

That's it.

Robert:

That's it. And even if the evidence then shows that it's not effective, he can say, "Well, I still believe it's effective."

Sasha Latypova:

Absolutely. He never has to -

Robert:

It's on the market. Even if there's a mountain of evidence that says, "It's killing people, it's not effective." He can choose legally under his own decision making that, "I'm going to believe this is effective no matter what the evidence says. And as long as I believe it's effective legally, I can essentially mandate it for all Americans."

Sasha Latypova:

Absolutely. There is no stopping criteria. He never has to reconsider the decision. And since there are no criteria to begin with, well, whatever made him believe so can continue making him believe so. And so that also explains mainstream media, the huge propaganda campaign of fear and lies that mainstream media pushed on the American public and global public, in cahoots, obviously with FDA and CDC and NIH.

That explains it because they need to maintain this theatrical performance, pretending that there is no evidence, so that the HHS Secretary can continue his delusion and deployment of these unauthorized, non-compliant biological materials on everyone.

Robert:

As long as he keeps saying, "It's safe and effective," that's all he has to do?

Sasha Latypova:

Mm-hmm.

Robert:

He just has to mutter that line, "I believe it's safe and effective." And as long as he says it's safe and effective, it achieves the criteria, which is that it may be effective. That is all he has to show.

Sasha Latypova:

That's all he has to do. That explains to you also why Janet Woodcock and Peter Marks, with clear fear in their eyes, keep repeating this mantra on mass media all the time. And no matter what the experts bring, this is the best documented atrocity, as far as the deaths and injuries, in human history, according to all sorts of experts. And I respect them very much. And they keep bringing these documents to these people and they look at them like this and they say, "It's safe and effective." But that's why. Because that's their role, to support the charade.

Robert:

They just have to keep repeating that mantra. And meanwhile, two of the highest officials who were in charge of FDA of making these determinations quit in a very, very dramatic way because they must have seen the hoax that was happening.

Sasha Latypova:

Yeah, I'm not sure if they saw the hoax, but I know; I read the emails of Marion Gruber, and… forget the person who was reporting to her. They both quit. So the issue was exactly that at the time of the so-called approval of this - the charade - that Peter Marks, by the emails, is quite aware of, seems to me, because it's easy to tell people who freak out about the deadlines that were put on them and which were absolutely outside of the norm by a long stretch.

So you need to understand that any normal drug approval is thousands, if not a million pages of documentation, and terabytes of data that needs to be very carefully reviewed according to very standardized and rigorous protocols that are written up. And then the staffers at FDA were pushed to the absolute limit. And these completely unreasonable deadlines were pushed on them specifically by Peter Marks and Janet Woodcock, who would then go and push people and say, "If you don't do this in this time, people are going to die and it's going to be your responsibility."

So a bunch of people quit. I know that was reported by Vanity Fair. Two people committed suicide because they took it seriously.

Robert:

Two FDA employees.

Sasha Latypova:

Two FDA staffers according to the Vanity Fair article committed suicide during this process. I can understand why. People were just out of their mind driven with fear by media on one side and scary, scary virus stories. And on the other side, we have the top FDA officials telling them, "People are going to die because of you, because you're not reviewing this quickly enough, and you need to review it in two weeks." Where before it took six months -

Robert:

Or six years.

Sasha Latypova:

Or six years. Yeah, well I mean just the review process of documentation itself. That's why also, for example, Pfizer submitted fake results. We've written a lot of it on Substack. They submitted fake what's called Western blots, which is the test that shows that this mRNA produces this spike protein. They just computer simulated them. And it's very obvious. There's a program that does it, and it was made obvious on purpose so that people wouldn't pass it as a real test. But they did. They submitted fake tests to FDA, [inaudible 00:43:29] all three of them accepted them.

Robert:

And FDA actually lied, as you pointed out, as they did a maternal rat study to look at if they gave this vaccine to rats. This is while they were testing whether it was safe to mandate to pregnant women, and in every litter of rats, there were individual pups who had these really horrible bone deformities.

And it was a signal that was as loud a signal that you can get that you ever see in medicine. These rats were horrendously deformed and yet FDA when it looked - and Moderna didn't even try to lie about it, Moderna submitted the rat study because it had to - And then FDA lied about it by saying, "There were no problems with the rat study."

It was just a huge enterprise of lying.

Sasha Latypova:

Absolutely. So the FDA lied on behalf of Moderna. Moderna accurately describe - I think it's their own report – that maybe it was even worse. I only saw their own summary. I didn't see the underlying data. But in their own summary, they admitted to this and FDA just said, "Okay, we are going to lie to the public, to all the pregnant women that we're going to inject.”

And that's another thing that people need to understand. So I am describing a very illegal structure that's made legal on paper. It's unlawful. The government is driving this. People misunderstand that this isn’t just another instance of big pharma corruption. It's much, much bigger than that, because the FDA and the US government expanded their immunity from prosecution under the PREP Act to these people.

And they said, "Here's billions and billions of dollars very quickly, just do this under these DoD contracts and we're going to protect you, we're going to give you this protection that we have as a government to do these things to you as a private manufacturer as long as you follow orders and you don't ask any questions."

And that's exactly what's happening here because we also see the FDA lying in a lot of places, not just the rat study, but in a lot of places. The FDA and regulators are lying on behalf of the manufacturers.

Also, the Department of Justice lawyers are showing up in court defending Pfizer's commercial interest. It's not Pfizer's commercial interest, it's the government's commercial interest. And also in the international contracts, as you remember, they have these predatory clauses where Pfizer takes possession of military bases and government state assets in case they get sued.

I was asked why would private manufacturer, pharmaceutical manufacturer, want a military base? Well, because it's not the pharmaceutical manufacturers, it's the US government that wants that military base. That's what people need to understand.

It's a collusion, it's a merger of pharma with government, you can't treat it as just bad pharma, a private company being bad. It's them together being bad. And that's a much, much worse problem we have.

Robert:

All right. Well, I'm going to let you go, Sasha, but before I do, I'm an attorney, I try to figure out ways to sue people like this. And one of the frustrating things during this pandemic is that the PREP Act, the CARES Act, and the 1986 NCVIA Vaccine Act have all bestowed broad immunity from liability upon all of these actors.

So they're getting away literally with murder, with mayhem, with mass murder. They're getting away with it because they have been given this shield of immunity from liability. You have an expertise in corporate liability, as a corporate liability officer, do you see any obvious place where somebody like me can file a lawsuit and get redress for some of these illegal acts?

Sasha Latypova:

Yeah. First of all, neither me nor my colleagues discourage anyone from doing just that, just going after Pfizer because of all the fraud that they have committed. I think the problem is we're all having - we don't know exactly what's going to crack that wall - but we have to attempt different ways.

Now, yes, we can try going after Pfizer, I'm just saying, here's the lay of the land. This is the defense they're going to invoke; they already invoked it in Brook Jackson's case. They're saying, "We did not defraud the government. We delivered the fraud that the government ordered." 

In April they filed motion to dismiss. And while the case may be dismissed, it hasn't been dismissed, but let's say in the future it gets dismissed because of this. That admission alone is priceless. And we need to elicit these admissions in court.

They need to tell us ultimately, through whatever method we're going to go after, that it's an explicit US government policy to commit mass murder and genocide. Or these were rogue actors, these people, Robert Kadlec, Peter Marks, Fauci, whoever, these specific individuals, they were rogue actors and acting outside of their authority.

Those are ultimately the admissions that we need to get from them publicly, and they need to repeat it over and over and over again so that everybody hears them.

Robert:

Sasha, let me ask you one other thing. You know that Robert Barnes, the attorney who's been very, very active on these issues, along with me from the beginning, who's partnered with us on many, many lawsuits and who is directly involved in litigation against the federal government on some of these issues, he has come down criticizing some of the things that we've been talking about today, saying, "Well, even though statutorily there is - because the military contracts are written the way that they are - actually there is no statutory obligation to do the clinical trials, et cetera."

But there is a contractual obligation because in each of those contracts with the entities, with the pharmaceutical companies in places like BioNTech, the manufacturers, et cetera, there's a contractual requirement that they do perform clinical trials.

And Barnes believes that that is equivalent to the statutory requirements. So how do you respond to that?

Sasha Latypova:

Well, first of all, I'm not an attorney and I respect Robert Barnes a lot, and I support Brook Jackson's case, and I want it to win. I want people to understand that I really do want them to win, and I want this to stop, and I want this to be resolved and investigated properly.

Now, I disagree with the position on the contract, the position that the legal team has taken on the contracts. I disagree with it because I read these contracts quite thoroughly and they are very strangely written if your objective is legitimately to produce a good pharmaceutical, because I have negotiated, while I'm not an attorney, I have negotiated numerous pharmaceutical research and development contracts, including several large ones with Pfizer. And I know how Pfizer writes contracts when they do mean to put a good product on the market and they want the suppliers to behave. And this is not how this contract is written.

And also, Pfizer is not the writer of this contract. This was written by the government, and I suspect Department of Justice lawyers or whoever crafted this. So it's written by the government, it's written in government language, and it has very curious features.

First of all, as far as I understand, I know I can't really argue statutory versus contractual, but as far as I understand the OTA, the Other Transaction Authority contracting method that's being used here, the Department of Defense can use it, but they can only use it to buy prototypes. It's not the method to order legitimate pharmaceutical products, regulated pharmaceuticals.

So number one, they're already in trouble here because they can only buy prototypes. And in fact, the prototype language is all over this contract. That was always odd for everyone involved. Why are they talking about prototypes? But that's why, because OTA requires them. If they want to use OTA, which they want to use for a variety of reasons - avoiding regulation, secrecy, and so forth - they have to buy prototypes.

That's what they're buying. They're buying prototypes, and they call them different ways. They call them countermeasures, they call them large scale manufacturing demonstrations, anything under the sun but properly, pharmaceutically-defined products.

Another thing is that these contracts have curious omissions of defined terms for anything that has to do with good manufacturing practice compliance. Anything that has to do with clinical trials or preclinical or anything like that. None of them are defined terms. And if you understand what defined terms means, it's like if you’re really serious about something, you have to define it upfront in the front section of the contract that says defined terms, and then that serves as later on if you have a dispute or something went wrong, then you can go and enforce it. Otherwise, it becomes subject to eye-of-the-beholder type of a deal and unenforceable.

And then when they do talk about good manufacturing practice, which they do - they mention them throughout this contract in a variety of places - it's also very curious. Because in many places they make mistakes. They call them "good manufacturing processes". They call them "good manufacturing procedures", which is not what it is. The law says, "good manufacturing practices," and has specific citations that you have to make, again, if you really mean it.

In one place, in the scope, they're saying specifically “preclinical”, “clinical trial”, and “good manufacturing practice”, or “chemistry manufacturing controls” rather, is out of scope and the government is not buying it and not paying for it. And then in the deliverable section, finally, they cited correctly as “good manufacturing practices”, 21 CFR part 210. But then it says that for the deliverable itself Pfizer is going to write a plan of how they're going to comply with it. It's just a plan that's a deliverable, not the compliance itself. And the acceptance criteria from the government, the government is going to review that plan, nothing else.

So again, I'm not trying to hurt the case or defend Pfizer in any way. I'm not defending Pfizer. They're collaborating in this criminal enterprise in my opinion. But you have to understand the lay of the land, how the thing is structured, who is doing what. And my opinion is it's been structured together, it's led by the government, by the Department of Defense. They want to use frameworks that are inappropriate for buying pharmaceuticals, and they're weaseling themselves out of those requirements in this way.

But then the main lie is then, together with Pfizer and the FDA, they're lying to the public that these are properly purchased, ordered pharmaceuticals, regulatory compliant, and the FDA is regulating them. That's the lie. So that's what needs to be understood when they're going after these contracts.

Robert:

I feel like both you and Robert Barnes are my friends, and you're both people I respect enormously. But I feel like I have to come down on your point of view on this issue because there's a huge difference between a contractual obligation between two parties and a statutory obligation that is enforceable by multiple parties and gives rise to all kinds of duties and obligations to the general public.

If Pfizer violates a contract with the military, with the Pentagon or with the Department of Justice, only the Department of Justice has the right to redress and it gives the Department of Justice the ability to ignore breaches of contract and to overlook them. And we know that the Department of Justice does not have a regulatory enforcement arm that is expert in pharmaceutical product production or distribution.

So there's nobody sitting in the Department of Justice whose job it is who will lose their job if Pfizer screws up. And I know just having tried to get the Justice Department involved in pharmaceutical cases, even breach of contract and breaches of judicial settlements with the Justice Department... 

In fact, I've been begging the Justice Department for three years to get involved with a case where Merck has been just blatantly lying about the efficacy of the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine. They cheated on it. They lied to the regulators. They used rabbit blood and told them that it was human blood, and we know all this, and I've been trying, wrestling with the Justice Department. They already have an enforcement contract. They have a judicial settlement, and they're not willing - and Merck is in breach of it - to go in and redress it and sue Merck or just say to Merck, "You violated. Here's your stipulated penalty." They won't do it.

So I think you're right. And then also, it's one thing to have a statutory obligation where you have a statutory obligation to do good manufacturing practices. And where there's somebody over at HHS who can walk into your factory any day without notice and say, "Hey, you've got rats in here," or, "You've got glass in your product," or, "the product is not homogeneous. Each of these batches is completely different,." it's very different than a contract between the Justice Department and Merck saying, "You’ve got to do this, but nobody's going to be looking over your shoulder. Nobody's going to be walking into your plan."

To me, it's highly unlikely that they would comply with any of those obligations if you don't have that enforcement power. So I think I have to come down on your side on this one, Sasha, and I want to thank you again for joining us. You're amazing, you're an amazing resource, and I know the work that you've been doing exposing this has been very damaging to your own career. Your livelihood has been in the pharmaceutical industry. I highly doubt whether you ever get hired again.

Sasha Latypova:

I highly doubt it.

Robert:

You're one of these amazing people who's just said, "This is wrong, and I don't care what the personal cost is. I'm going to expose this." So thank you. You are a true hero, Sasha. Thank you very much.

Sasha Latypova:

Thank you, Robert. I really appreciate it. This means a lot to me when you say that.

Robert:

Well, thank you. You deserve it, Sasha Latypova, thank you so much.