When I heard Bobby Kennedy last year explain how the COVID “vaccine” gene therapies were really not “approved” by the FDA, it all made sense. The FDA trials on eight mice and emergency use approvals in children who did not actually contract COVID were all part of an NSA Warp Speed propaganda campaign to make we Guinea Pigs think the “vaccines” had been tested like any other FDA drug. In fact, these deadly gene therapies were approved by using a novel regulatory pathway created by Dick Cheney after September 11th with the Patriot Act. A new law allowed the Department of Homeland Security to get any bioweapon they wanted “approved” by appealing directly to the Secretary of the Health and Human Services.
21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3 states, “the Secretary may authorize the introduction into interstate commerce, during the effective period of a declaration under subsection (b), of a drug, device, or biological product intended for use in an actual or potential emergency (referred to in this section as an “emergency use”).”
A lawsuit against Pfizer filed a few years back by a pharmaceutical whistleblower named Brook Jackson had some developments today. Pfizer admitted in a reply brief that the safety signals Ms. Jackson alleges were not relayed by Pfizer to the FDA were irrelevant because the FDA was not even the approving agency.
The Pfizer brief states, “In quoting 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3—the statute setting forth the criteria for issuance of an EUA—Relator conveniently omits the most critical language. (Opp. at 4.) Immediately before the language Relator quotes, in a section entitled “Criteria for Issuance of Authorization,” the statute provides:
The Secretary may issue an authorization under this section with respect to the emergency use of a product only if, after consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (to the extent feasible and appropriate given the applicable circumstances described in subsection (b)(1)), the Secretary concludes—….
21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(c) (emphasis added). Accordingly, Congress has not merely identified “objective criteria” for issuing an EUA, but rather Congress also identified an appropriate decision maker: the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”).2 Despite the Government’s full knowledge of Relator’s concerns, the Secretary continues to urge Americans to get vaccinated to this very day. See, e.g., Statement from HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra Following CDC’s Recommendation of Updated COVID-19 Vaccines, Sept. 12, 2023, http://tinyurl.com/4tuea5sj (“Following the . . .launch of the largest adult vaccination program in our nation’s history, COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives, kept countless people out of the hospital, and provided peace of mind for the country. As fall and winter approach, I encourage everyone six months and older to get an updated COVID-19 vaccine to protect themselves and their loved ones.”).
There is no statutory basis for Relator to substitute her judgment for the Secretary’s on this critical question of public policy. Nor does a jury have a role to play here. See Harman, 872 F.3d at 669 (“We can assume that this and contrary views are debatable, but we must accept that the choice among them lies beyond the reach of seven citizens of Marshall, Texas, able though they may be. As revered as is the jury in its resolution of historical fact, its determination of materiality cannot defy the contrary decision of the [G]overnment, here said to be the victim, absent some reason to doubt the [G]overnment’s decision as genuine.”).
Congress entrusted the EUA decision to the HHS Secretary’s discretion; Relator’s allegations have not prompted the Secretary to withdraw the EUA; and the SAC provides no basis to doubt the sincerity of the Secretary’s determination—in the face of Relator’s persistent objections—that Pfizer’s vaccine is safe and effective. As the Fifth Circuit has explained, “[w]hen the [G]overnment, at appropriate levels, repeatedly concludes that it has not been defrauded, it is not forgiving a found fraud—rather it is concluding that there was no fraud at all.” Id. at 670.
Harman, which is conspicuously absent from Relator’s opposition brief, controls the materiality analysis here. As both a factual and statutory matter, it is crystal clear that Relator’s allegations were not material to the Government’s decision to purchase the COVID-19 vaccine. Under the principles set forth in Harman, the SAC should be dismissed. See id.”
In other words, Pfizer has the gall to argue that one man, the Secretary of HHS, Xavier Becerra, a lawyer with no medical training, has the right to make the decision to approve these gene therapies to be used by billions of people without needing to see any real clinical trial data. Worse: Even when mountains of irrefutable data pile up that the gene therapies are deadly, this one man has the authority by congress to ignore it all.
How did congress pass this law back then and ignore it to this day? It is because all members of congress get rich while in office. That corruption makes them compromised and the Deep State (i.e., rogue three-letter agency staff) exploits them.
The only justice that will be doled out relating to these gene therapies will come from the states. Someone like Ken Paxton or Ron DeSantis will have to be the ones to sue in civil court and prosecute in criminal court.
The constitutionality of this law 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(c) needs to be challenged by State AG’s. Now is the time. We have Pfizer admitting that they relied on this law. It would be “Exhibit A” to show how the law is being abused.