When everyone from the President to your primary care doctor declared loudly and wholeheartedly in December 2020 that the newly FDA-authorised Covid mRNA vaccines were ‘safe and effective’ – what were those claims based on?
In this article, I will review the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the U.S. Government to the initial development, manufacture and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots. I will use the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process.
The analysis will show that:
- The Covid mRNA vaccines were acquired and authorised through mechanisms designed to rush medical countermeasures to the military during emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction.
- These mechanisms did not require the application of, or adherence to, any laws or regulations related to vaccine development or manufacturing.
- The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorisation for the vaccines was based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. (This last point is being challenged in multiple court cases, so far to no avail.)
What all of this means is that none of the laws or regulations that we count on to protect us from potentially harmful, or deadly, medical products was applied to the Covid mRNA vaccines. The assertion of ‘safe and effective’ was based entirely on aspirations, opinions, beliefs and presumptions of Government employees.
In Part 1 of this article I will provide a summary of the main contractual and legal points and explain how they excluded any requirements for regulatory oversight. In Part 2, I will go through a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation.
Contractual Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines
When the U.S. Government entered into its Covid vaccine agreement with Pfizer, which was acting on behalf of the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, the agreement encompassed a minimum of 100 million doses of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” and a payment of at least $1.95 billion. The agreement also allowed for future procurement of hundreds of millions of additional doses.
That’s a lot of money for a lot of items, especially since the vaccines had not yet been tested, approved or manufactured to scale and, as the agreement stated, were purely “aspirational”.
Obviously, this is not normal procedure. But, then, those were not normal times. The Government declared that we were “at war” with a catastrophically dangerous virus that would kill millions and millions of people of all ages unless we could develop “medical countermeasures” (a military term) and get everyone to take them as quickly as possible.
In keeping with the declaration of war, it was a military framework that was used for acquiring the aspirational products that became known as Covid mRNA vaccines.
Military Acquisition
The Government side to the agreement with Pfizer was the Department of Defence (DoD), represented by a convoluted chain of parties, each operating as a subcontractor, or co-contractor, for the next.
You’ll find details about the role of each of these military procurement groups in Part 2 of this article. The important point to recognise is that all of these bodies are charged exclusively with military objectives: “ensuring military readiness”, “enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel” and “supporting the Army and Unified Land Operations, anytime, anywhere”.
This is crucial, because the laws and procedures governing military procurement have a very different set of assumptions and cost-benefit considerations than those used in civil society.
In fact, agencies governing civilian and public health, like the NIH, NIAID and HHS, do not have the authority to grant certain types of special acquisition contracts, which is why the Covid vaccine contracts had to be overseen by the Department of Defence.
Thus, HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities… which HHS lacked”.
What are “OTA authorities”?
Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA)
(Note: OTA is used interchangeably to refer to Other Transaction Agreement and Other Transaction Authority.)
The OTA is a procurement method that, according to Department of Defence guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants or cooperative agreements”.
What types of transactions are we talking about?
First and foremost, the OTA acquisition structure “operates outside the Federal Acquisition Regulations”. This means no federal laws related to Government purchases apply to OTAs. Such laws generally involve things like ensuring competition, accounting standards, cost management, record-keeping and labour practices. For purchases of medical products, they also include things like oversight of research on human subjects and privacy laws.
Why is it a good idea to bypass all these acquisition regulations? For the military, OTAs can provide “access to state-of-the-art technology solutions from traditional and non-traditional defence contractors”. More specifically, according to DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency), OTAs are designed to “avoid many of the hurdles that scare away private industry”, including “burdensome regulations”.
The second defining aspect of OTAs is that they apply to projects that are
directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of personnel of the Department of Defence or improving platforms, systems, components or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defence, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components or materials in use by the armed forces.
In other words, OTA is not a pathway for Government acquisitions primarily intended for civilian populations.
In fact, from the time of OTA inception in 1958 until Covid, the vast majority of OTAs were awarded for weapons, military supplies and information technologies. For example, in an overview from 2013-2018, the top OTAs dealt with underwater weapons, ground vehicles, rocket propulsion systems and “technologies related to the use of the electromagnetic spectrum or the information that rides on it”.
What About OTAs for Medical Products?
In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear medical countermeasures”.
Broadly speaking, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD”. Furthermore, such technologies could include “animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis, assays, diagnostic technologies or other platform technologies”.
Note that there is a mention of FDA licensing, which means a medical product cannot be purchased through OTA without any FDA involvement. The extent of that involvement will be discussed in the section on regulations below.
But before we get to the FDA, just looking at what an OTA can be applied to, it does not look like manufacturing 100 million doses of anything is even in the ballpark.
Pfizer’s Other Transaction Agreement (OTA)
DoD can make three types of agreements under OTA: research, prototypes and manufacturing. Importantly, according to National Defence Magazine, the agreements (which are “other than contracts”) are supposed to start with prototypes and then move “from prototypes to production contracts”. In other words, you start with an OTA for a prototype and then get an actual production contract.
In contrast, the agreement between Pfizer and the U.S. Government, routed through the Department of Defence and the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, classified what Pfizer agreed to deliver as a “prototype project” and “manufacturing demonstration”. As stated in the agreement:
The intent of this prototype project is to demonstrate that Pfizer has the business and logistics capability to manufacture 100 million doses of its currently unapproved mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine for the Government [(b)(4) redaction]
So the military acquisition branch of the Government is paying Pfizer to show that it can manufacture 100 million doses of a never-before produced or tested product, while also acquiring those 100 million doses, and potentially hundreds of millions more. The “prototype” somehow includes not just the manufacturing process but also the 100 million doses created through that process.
Nowhere in the history of Other Transaction Agreements is there anything remotely resembling this conflation of a prototype (“a preliminary model of something”, according to the Oxford English Dictionary) and the manufacturing of millions of exemplars of that prototype. Actually, it is unclear from the wording of the OTA whether the “prototype” applies to the mRNA Covid vaccine, the mRNA platform for manufacturing the vaccine, the actual manufacturing of 100 million vaccines or all of the above.
Regulatory Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines
What about regulatory oversight of the development and manufacturing processes?
For pharmaceutical products, like vaccines, this would include: 1) clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the products, and 2) compliance with ‘Good Manufacturing Practices’ to ensure what is in each dose is actually what is supposed to be in each dose.
Who is responsible for this type of oversight in the context of Pfizer’s OTA?
Pfizer will meet the necessary FDA requirements for conducting ongoing and planned clinical trials, and with its collaboration partner, BioNTech, will seek FDA approval or authorisation for the vaccine, assuming the clinical data support such application for approval or authorisation.
What are the FDA requirements “for approval or authorisation”?
According to the Pfizer OTA, those requirements are whatever it takes to “grant an Emergency Use Authorisation (‘EUA’) under Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act”.
In fact, the two regulations applied to the authorisation of the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccines were EUA and its partner, the PREP Act, which grants legal immunity from prosecution to anyone who has anything to do with the vaccines, unless they commit outright fraud.
Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA)
EUA is a very special way to authorise a medical countermeasure in very specific types of emergencies. It was designed, according to the Department of Justice, to quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments against – among other CBRN agents – potential biowarfare and bioterror agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola and plague.
As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health, “Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorisation.” The article continues,
The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic.
You can read about the details of EUA regulations in part two of this article. In summary, an Emergency Use Authorisation can be granted by the Food and Drug Administration once the HHS or DoD have declared that there is an attack, threat of an attack or national security threat created by a CBRN agent (a weapon of mass destruction).
Significantly, as the Harvard Law article explains, EUA was not intended to cover brand-new vaccines:
The only vaccine ever to have received an EUA prior to the current pandemic was AVA, an anthrax vaccine that had already been formally approved for other purposes.
This is extremely important: EUA was meant for dire situations of warfare or terrorism, not to protect the entire population from naturally occurring pathogens. For this reason, EUA products do not require the type of legal safety oversight that is applied in civilian contexts by the FDA.
And without adherence to legal safety standards in clinical trials and manufacturing, there is no way of knowing whether the products, in this case the Covid mRNA vaccines, are actually safe.
No Legal or Regulatory Standards Apply to the FDA’s Decision to Grant EUA
Here’s the kicker about EUA: because it was intended to be issued only in war and WMD-related emergencies, there are no legal requirements for how it is issued, beyond the determination of the FDA that such authorisation is appropriate. No legal standards for how clinical trials are conducted. No laws regulating the manufacturing processes. Only “reasonable beliefs” based on whatever evidence is available to the FDA at the time that it makes its determination.
This is how it is described in U.S. Code 360bbb-3, which covers EUA:
Criteria for issuance of authorisation
- An agent referred to in a declaration [by the HHS Secretary] can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition
- 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
- The product may be effective in diagnosing, treating or preventing such disease or condition
- The known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, taking into consideration the material threat posed by the CBRN agent(s)
- There is no adequate, approved and available alternative to the product
In its EUA Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders, the FDA recommends that EUA applications contain information about clinical trials, manufacturing processes, potential risks etc. Crucially, as stated at the top of every page, these are merely “nonbinding recommendations”.
It’s up to the EUA applicant to decide what information to submit, and it’s up to the FDA to decide whether that information meets the “statutory requirements” (as stated above).
PREP Act
If you agree to develop, manufacture and sell hundreds of millions of aspirational products to the Government under the contract-like Other Transaction Agreement and bioterror-contingent Emergency Use Authorisation, you need very good liability protection.
This is provided by the PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act that was designed to go hand-in-hand with EUA. Again, it is possible to envision a bioterrorism scenario, like an anthrax attack, in which the Government needs to get lots of countermeasures very quickly. Many people will inevitably die in the attack, but if there’s a chance that the countermeasure will work, it needs to get made and distributed as quickly as possible. If it has some bad side effects, or even if it kills some people, one could argue that the manufacturer should not be held liable.
Clearly, this was never intended to apply to a new, untested vaccine used to counter a naturally occurring virus in hundreds of millions of people.
What, then, are the standards for determining the necessity of a PREP Act declaration?
Here’s how the Health and Human Services (HHS) website describes the factors considered by the HHS Secretary:
In deciding whether to issue a PREP Act Declaration, HHS must consider the desirability of encouraging the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labelling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administering, licensing and use of the countermeasure recommended in the Declaration. HHS may also consider other relevant factors.
As with the EUA determination, there are no legally binding standards or directives for issuing a PREP Act. If the products made under EUA cause harm or death, no one involved in making or administering those products can be held accountable, as long as there is accompanying PREP Act protection.
Conclusion
The BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were authorised for use in the entire population of the United States based on the application of the following sequence of agreements and determinations:
- Department of Defence uses ‘contract-like’ Other Transaction Authority (OTA) to buy aspirational products. DoD is not responsible for overseeing clinical trials or manufacturing. Pfizer is responsible for getting authorisation from the FDA.
- The FDA is permitted to issue Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) to Pfizer for mRNA vaccines because the HHS Secretary declares that there is an emergency that warrants EUA.
- FDA makes its EUA determination based on whatever evidence and considerations it feels are appropriate, given the emergency situation. There are no legal standards that apply to the FDA’s considerations, except that it believes the product may be effective, the benefits outweigh the risks based on available information and there is no alternative product.
- The Health and Human Services Secretary grants total legal immunity through the PREP Act to anyone involved in developing, making, shipping or administering the vaccines, based on his determination that there is an emergency that justifies this action.
That’s what the ‘safe and effective’ claim for the BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines was based on in December 2020, ahead of millions of people – including children and pregnant women – being mandated to take the injections. Objectors were ridiculed, silenced, ostracised and fired. Harms and deaths were, and continue to be, covered up, uninvestigated and uncounted.
Questions About the Legality of the EUA for Covid mRNA Vaccines
It sounds like something in this whole process must be illegal, right?
So far, trying to charge pharmaceutical companies with wrongdoing related to Covid vaccines has failed, because the EUA plus PREP combo means they were not required to apply any legal or regulatory standards to their clinical studies or manufacturing processes.
But what about the Government?
Since the OTA, EUA and PREP regulations are intended for use during a catastrophic CBRN emergency, we might ask ourselves: did the U.S. Government believe SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered potential bioweapon? Did the Government use what we might consider an extra-legal (in civilian terms) acquisition and authorisation process based on the assumption that the entire population was threatened by the equivalent of a bioterrorism or biowarfare attack? It sure seems like it did. And if so, did it have a legal obligation to inform the public of this situation in order to resort to the OTA and EUA procurement and authorisation pathway?
Moreover, even if the Government considered COVID-19 to be a disease caused by a potential bioterror agent, how could the HHS Secretary justify an Emergency Use Authorisation that required him to determine that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security” when it was known that COVID-19 was deadly almost exclusively in old and infirm populations?
In December 2020 the following facts were known about COVID-19 without a reasonable doubt:
- The infection fatality rate (IFR) for the entire population was less than 1%.
- The IFR for anyone under 55 was 0.01% or lower.
- The IFR for children was near zero.
A disease that has significant potential to affect national security has to be very severe, especially in its effect on the military. Yet in December 2020, military-aged people were known to be at nearly no risk from COVID-19. And still the HHS Secretary determined that there was an emergency that warranted EUA for the mRNA vaccines. And all military personnel were mandated to get the injections.
I hope that by publishing this information as widely as possible we can eventually find a way to demand some measure of accountability.
Acknowledgements
Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt have been trying to draw attention to this shocking legal and regulatory framework for a long time. I am deeply grateful for, and indebted to, their in-depth research and tireless work to disseminate this information.
Debbie Lerman is a Brownstone Fellow who has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practising artist in Philadelphia, PA. This article was first published by the Brownstone Institute.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This is information that has been chiselled out gradually, and only by determined effort from those like RFK Jnr and others. It is certainly plausible that, at least at the top of the food chain, secretive bio-military guys were fighting an undeclared and secret war on a biological weapon, most probably largely of their own manufacture.
Given that the Western powers have equally clandestinely been waging war on Russia via Ukraine whilst denying involvement, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised. It would seem that World War III will be fought entirely by conscripts who will be told they’re going to fight climate change by planting trees.
“. The assertion of ‘safe and effective’ was based entirely on aspirations, opinions, beliefs and presumptions of Government employees.”
That’s perhaps charitable. Some people may have thought like that, others just lied or didn’t care and thought about the money, power or worse.
Good article
I remember reading an article in Zerohedge, probably about 18 months ago, which claimed Covid was a potential bio-weapon and the lockdowns/jabs were a military response.
Gosh, looks like the “conspiracy theorists” were right ……. again.
The reason why their labs were moved outside of the US was due to the strict US regulations. Don’t forget the number of US labs in Ukraine!!
Yeah it was too risky for DARPA and that’s going some!
This is one of the most important articles all true sceptics should read, if only the introduction and conclusions. This is the state of our so-called democracy and we, the people, have been well and truly stitched up by corrupt elitists who believe they know best. Whether there exists a grand plan and/or a convergence of vested interests plus multiple cock-ups, we certainly cannot rely on our existing institutions to get us out of this mess.
If the institutions believed that Covid was a bioweapon (which the article speculates they may have) then the law seems to authorise their actions. I am not sure how they could justify their repeated statements (and actions to counter any alternative scemario) that the virus had evolved naturally and spread through innocent means. They even discounted the idea of intentional spreading of a natural virus.
If they did think this was a war like circumstane they might argue they are entitled to keep it secret in the interests of better handling the situation. If it does turn out to have been engineered (almost certain, surely) and released negligently or spread partly because of Chinese secrecy, then there will be hell to pay in the west and in the developing world alike. If it turns out the US quangos were inviolved or knew more than they told the US government then they deserve to be treated harshly.
Dr David Robberts claims it was an intentional ‘release’ of a virus. See his viral video in the European Parliament.
‘….did the U.S. Government believe SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered potential bioweapon?’
It is clear, now, that the U.S. Government did believe that and consequently leant on the British and other governments.
Those governments consequently panicked.
Michael Gove told the U.K.’s official COVID-19 inquiry the virus’s “novel” origins complicated the state’s response; ‘material that had been sent to me by friends outside Government that led me to believe action was needed’. He then bypassed normal channels to pressure the PM.
But whatever intelligence briefing they had been given was completely wrong; the panic unnecessary, unprofessional and ill advised:
‘There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was man-made let alone that it escaped from a lab. All of the scientific data clearly points to a virus naturally circulating in horseshoe bats being transmitted to humans…’
Prof David Robertson, Head of Viral Genomics and Bioinformatics (Centre for Virus Research), University of Glasgow 28 Nov 2023
‘There is strong evidence from virus genomics that the covid-19 virus was not artificially engineered, or made by humans, but likely arose from another virus infecting wildlife.’
Prof James Wood, Infectious Disease Epidemiologist at the University of Cambridge 28 Nov 2023
‘What the actual data shows, including data I and my team have collected is that very similar viruses are circulating in wildlife, particularly bats. There is nothing unique in the structure of SARS-CoV2 that does not have similar structures in wildlife, even the infamous Furin cleavage site has putative versions from wild bats. There is no data to support a manmade origin’
Prof Alice Hughes, Group Leader Biodiversity Analytics of Terrestrial Ecosystems (BAT) group, University of Hong Kong 28 Nov 2023
Britain, to its great detriment, was led by a weird clique of opinionated, incompetent hypochondriacs into an economic disaster of historic proportions.
So dysfunctional is this country now that even the £200m inquiry is incapable of providing anything at all useful in the way of insight into the virus and the wholly inappropriate measures taken to combat it.
Covid 19 was simply just another common cold coronavirus, identified as such on 06 Feb. 2020 by a coronavirus expert, Prof. John Nicholls, present in China at the time of the outbreak.
The appropriate response had been identified by the Common Cold Unit in 1992
‘It is therefore arguable that in the case of infections like coronavirus or rhinovirus colds, which are normally quickly self-limited, the best approach would be to relieve the patient’s discomfort and disability and leave their immune system to take care of the virus.’
‘Current estimates of the total cost of government Covid-19 measures range from about £310 billion to £410 billion. This is the equivalent of about £4,600 to £6,100 per person in the UK.’
House of Commons Library 12 Sept 2023
Britain has been and continues to be stuffed by a bunch of narcissistic, pompous and entitled politicians, functionaries, providing a hopelessly incompetent service at great expense to the long suffering taxpayer.
Large numbers of citizens are incandescent at this state of affairs. There is a price to be paid.
The Netherlands has shown us the way…….
“Britain, to its great detriment, was led by a weird clique of opinionated, incompetent hypochondriacs into an economic disaster of historic proportions.”
So was virtually every other country in the world – led into disaster. Are all the other leaders (and not just politicians but other people in positions of power) equally opinionated, incompetent and hypochondriac?
Yes.
That is why Anders Tegnell stood out so remarkably.
The misapprehension originated in the U.S. and the U.S. is capable of exerting a great deal of pressure on the rest of the developed world.
All that followed, in my view, absent strong leadership except in Sweden, Florida, South Dakota (and Texas?), derived from social desirability bias, otherwise known as safety in numbers.
From what I read it was the WHO that gave the global Lockdown recommendations to the World.
As I understand it, the presence of a Furin Cleavage site does suggest it’s man made. This isn’t being talked about, but I’m pretty sure it’s not been disproved.
Could this be ‘limited hangout’ to provide plausible deniability?
We know that the trail of the spike protein modification in China begins with Anthony Fauci who needed to get the research out of the US to somewhere with less oversight, then onwards to Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak, then to Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The furin cleavage site used has markers that exist only in the lab, they are not found in nature.
I don’t this this trail suggests it’s man-made, I think it makes it a racing certainty.
This is not correct.
‘Furin cleavage sites have been found in bat coronaviruses far away from SARS-CoV-2 on the family tree.’
‘…..the absence of the furin cleavage site in BANAL-236 and other SARS-CoV-2 relatives raises the question of how and when the pandemic virus’ progenitor could have picked up its site. Wang and many other researchers think this may have happened when it swapped genetic material with other more distant coronaviruses that do have a furin cleavage site. “Recombination happens in bats with a high frequency’
‘It’s also possible that the furin cleavage site arose without recombination. “This type of virus replicates very fast in humans, particularly if they don’t have any previous immunity, and accumulates a lot of mutations that could generate a furin site’
‘Close cousins of SARS-CoV-2 found in a cave in Laos yield new clues about pandemic’s origins
New viruses show for first time that a key feature of the pandemic virus exists in the wild’
Science Sept 2021
Nevertheless a ‘lab leak’ origin can probably never be ruled out.
However:
‘The search will never lead us to patient zero, the first person to be infected by SARS-CoV-2, Hanage says. “Humans are looking for a story,” he says. “They want Columbo to come in and just somehow get somebody to confess or show what actually happened.” Instead, there are “possible stories” about SARS-CoV-2’s origin—some more probable than others—and stories that can be excluded, Hanage says. “And the space of possible stories in which there was a natural origin in or around the markets is much larger than the space of possible origins in which the Wuhan Institute of Virology is involved.’
Science 02 Sept 2021
Someone heckled Hand-cock in a meeting about patent 0 and the problems with that claim, he wasn’t eager to speck to the man.
It has been disproved.
‘Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses‘ Science Direct Jan 2021
‘The SARS-related coronaviruses are in the beta genus, one of four in the Coronaviridae family. Several members of that genus feature furin cleavage sites, which appear to have evolved repeatedly. And one SARS-CoV-2–related virus, described in a Current Biology paper last year by a team led by Shi Weifeng of Shandong First Medical University, has three of the four amino acids that constitute the furin cleavage site, which is “strongly suggestive of a natural zoonotic origin” for SARS-CoV-2’
‘Lack of furin cleavage may be explained by insufficient sampling in bats, or by acquisition of the furin cleavage site through passages of the virus in an alternate host or during an early poorly symptomatic unreported circulation in humans.’
And Gove’s pattern of thought at the Inquiry was shut down quickly by the barrister, it seemed to me. Not on the agenda, evidently.
Thsnk you for giving oxygen to Sasha and Katherine’s work. They are absolute heroines of the last 3 years – Sasha’s 1st outing since “Covid” was to build “How bad is my batch” with Craig Paardekooper (another anonymous superstar). Both Sasha and Katherine have substacks – strong recc a sub to one, other or both.
To me, this begs the questions:
There were hints that loathsome-Govesome believed this was out of the ordinary. With it coming from China, who’s to say what they thought, since they certainly wouldn’t tell us.
But I still think this was mainly about the money.
This information was floating about early in the ‘plandemic’ admittedly not on MSM but on different alternative websites.
They mentioned something along those lines in the ‘Plandemic’ movie as far as I can recall. Dr David Robberts was on there I think.
Paula Jardine’s articles reproduced in The Conservative Woman are very enlightening. Essentially a small group of ex-military people with some noticeable paranoias were allowed to alter the whole basis on which significant parts of the US military and the US government operated regarding civilian control and how medicines were developed and authorised for use without any safety testing data.
Read ’em all and weep!
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/author/paulajardine/
A good article, but as the rationale is within the purview of the USA DoD, it begs the question: what happened elsewhere? E.g. China? Russia?
But that is not true! BTW UK Column covered this a few months back with Patrick Henningsen….that was when I first heard about the DOD & ‘Countermeasures’.
So they thought it was a bioweapon, hence all the parties. Makes sense.
The intention of the DoD was not to save us from a bioweapon.
Did you all forget what is actually in the jabs? Mike Yeadon says that they are deliberately harmful and nobody who devised them could possibly have been ignorant of the fact.
We were being deliberately killed and harmed.
If vaccines were rapidly introduced under protocols for military threats might it not be possible to conclude that the US government thought SARS-CoV-2 really was a bioweapon?
That makes a lot of sense in terms of how worldwide responses panned out, but if true then one has to ask why there was such a hysterical rush to deny the possibility.