Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Shez's avatar

Thank you to all the 8 authors who contributed in putting this together. Addressing these anomalies will be a challenge, and I'm hopeful this prompts a thorough audit of both the sites and the CROs.

Expand full comment
Eve's avatar

All of the above is true, however, the problem was not lack of regulatory oversight. These products were taken out of the pathway of regulatory oversight for which drugs and biologics are subject. They were purposely contracted by the DoD under OTA, and were legally defined not as drugs or vaccines but as "medical countermeasures." This is important to understand. There are laws on the books that enable the DoD to contract for medical countermeasures to be used in a declared medical emergency. As such a "medical countermeasure" is in the category of weapon, or any other product the DoD might employ in the defense of the country or in war. There was never any intention to treat these substances as if they were actually vaccines or drugs. The FDA cannot regulate a weapon that the DoD has purchased. If you are serious about legal challenges you need to understand the laws that have enabled the US bioterrorism program. Katherine Watt has undertaken a very detailed study of all these laws, and why "regulatory oversight" grounds will never succeed in a court of law. In fact it is part of a coverup to focus on regulation. You are participating in covering up the fact that the DoD and Congress created a bioterrorism program that can be used on Americans and others around the world. Watt's substack is: www.bailiwicknews.substack.com.

Expand full comment
84 more comments...

No posts