Maybe you should speak with Mrs Latypova and Mr Barnes and Dr Mike Yeadon first, because deciding to go after Pfizer using the adulteration of vaccine and non-disclosure to FDA method, obviously based on good manufacturing practices is very likely to be futile... So you're likely to just waste your time and effort when you shou…
Maybe you should speak with Mrs Latypova and Mr Barnes and Dr Mike Yeadon first, because deciding to go after Pfizer using the adulteration of vaccine and non-disclosure to FDA method, obviously based on good manufacturing practices is very likely to be futile... So you're likely to just waste your time and effort when you should be focusing on going after the "this is a bioweapon" approach of Dr David Martin and Mrs Kingston.
This is because Mrs Latypova (whom, like Dr Mike Yeadon have both 20+ years each of experience in navigating good manufacturing practices) and Mrs Watt have already disclosed very very clearly that good manufacturing practices legal framework doesn't apply in the case of COVID vaccines, those were "procured" via Other transactions authority (OTA) law exemption / framework of US DoD, which employs as military contractors different suppliers including Pfizer. So under OTA they don't have to follow good manufacturing practices.
Furthermore, Mr Barnes already failed to procecute Pfizer for defrauding the government (which adulteration and non-discolure to government & FDA) precisely because of OTA, but also because the contracts were for a demo, not a final prduct. So it is beyond me how they'll succeed now with adulteration fraud to FDA, when their focus should be what Dr David Martin has been shouting for at least a year now, and Mrs Karen Kingston (she has provided 2 different attack methods, one is the above as Mr Kirsch, which will fail, the other one is as Mr David Martin's). Dr Martin has proposed that the line of legal attack should be "this is a bioweapon" and thus different set of laws apply in that aspect, not good manufacturing practices nor OTA above.
Maybe you could speak with Dr David Martin + absolutely with Mrs Latypova + Mrs Watt + Dr Mike Yeadon, to coordinate your legal efforts and with the right approach that will not fail, otherwise there's great delays with the legal path until we realize we've reached another dead-end, while more people die and/or not receive compensation assistance for their huge medical bills.
In fact I can already guess what the government will claim behind closed doors probably. "Judge, we received note from CIA about the leaked virus on purpose by Chine. So we invoked war time lawys and under the OTA we procured what we thought were remedies. During war times that the legal framework of Operation Warp Speed applies, our contractors don't have to adhere to good manufacturing practices laws, OTA exempts those, due to the urgency of the situation. Therefore no good manufacturing practices laws were broken, they didn't apply. Furthermore there's legal precedence with Mr Barnes' case that even if Pfizer didn't disclose something and defrauded us, good manufacturing practices laws still don't apply, same as in Mr Kirsch's case of adulteration with DNA. And last, we believe this was just an accident, DNA impurities were introduced by the process of replicating mRNA because of the rush of the whole thing, we believed we were under attack by China with its intentional release of this bioweapon".
Dr David Martin's approach is clearly true (this is a bioweapon by any means of definition, since nobody disputes that this was gain-of-function research with dual purposes). With bioweapon given to US citizens on purpose, Pfizer becomes a co-conspirator with FDA and DoD, which is only fair to hold all parties accountable, not just Pfizer (and make sure Pfizer doesn't escape under a loophole of OTA).
Mr Kirsch,
Maybe you should speak with Mrs Latypova and Mr Barnes and Dr Mike Yeadon first, because deciding to go after Pfizer using the adulteration of vaccine and non-disclosure to FDA method, obviously based on good manufacturing practices is very likely to be futile... So you're likely to just waste your time and effort when you should be focusing on going after the "this is a bioweapon" approach of Dr David Martin and Mrs Kingston.
This is because Mrs Latypova (whom, like Dr Mike Yeadon have both 20+ years each of experience in navigating good manufacturing practices) and Mrs Watt have already disclosed very very clearly that good manufacturing practices legal framework doesn't apply in the case of COVID vaccines, those were "procured" via Other transactions authority (OTA) law exemption / framework of US DoD, which employs as military contractors different suppliers including Pfizer. So under OTA they don't have to follow good manufacturing practices.
See https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/a-latypova-and-a-watt-talk-about?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fother%2520transactions%2520authority&utm_medium=reader2
Furthermore, Mr Barnes already failed to procecute Pfizer for defrauding the government (which adulteration and non-discolure to government & FDA) precisely because of OTA, but also because the contracts were for a demo, not a final prduct. So it is beyond me how they'll succeed now with adulteration fraud to FDA, when their focus should be what Dr David Martin has been shouting for at least a year now, and Mrs Karen Kingston (she has provided 2 different attack methods, one is the above as Mr Kirsch, which will fail, the other one is as Mr David Martin's). Dr Martin has proposed that the line of legal attack should be "this is a bioweapon" and thus different set of laws apply in that aspect, not good manufacturing practices nor OTA above.
Maybe you could speak with Dr David Martin + absolutely with Mrs Latypova + Mrs Watt + Dr Mike Yeadon, to coordinate your legal efforts and with the right approach that will not fail, otherwise there's great delays with the legal path until we realize we've reached another dead-end, while more people die and/or not receive compensation assistance for their huge medical bills.
In fact I can already guess what the government will claim behind closed doors probably. "Judge, we received note from CIA about the leaked virus on purpose by Chine. So we invoked war time lawys and under the OTA we procured what we thought were remedies. During war times that the legal framework of Operation Warp Speed applies, our contractors don't have to adhere to good manufacturing practices laws, OTA exempts those, due to the urgency of the situation. Therefore no good manufacturing practices laws were broken, they didn't apply. Furthermore there's legal precedence with Mr Barnes' case that even if Pfizer didn't disclose something and defrauded us, good manufacturing practices laws still don't apply, same as in Mr Kirsch's case of adulteration with DNA. And last, we believe this was just an accident, DNA impurities were introduced by the process of replicating mRNA because of the rush of the whole thing, we believed we were under attack by China with its intentional release of this bioweapon".
Dr David Martin's approach is clearly true (this is a bioweapon by any means of definition, since nobody disputes that this was gain-of-function research with dual purposes). With bioweapon given to US citizens on purpose, Pfizer becomes a co-conspirator with FDA and DoD, which is only fair to hold all parties accountable, not just Pfizer (and make sure Pfizer doesn't escape under a loophole of OTA).