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 con…
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).
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).