back to back to Pandemic Parallax View | rat haus | Index | Search | tree
Editor’s Note: This is an annotated transcript of the original source published on bitchute.
Discussion with Katherine Watt on
American Domestic Bioterrorism Program

Sasha Latypova, Due Diligence, 4 Nov 2022
video, mp3 (50:28)

This discussion centers on Katherine Watt’s analysis in American Domestic Terrorism Program (ADTP), published 28 April 2022 on her substack with ongoing updates. The following excerpts from the opening of ADTP set the framework:

A whole lot of things that once were federal and state crimes and civil rights violations have been legalized by Congress through legislative, statutory revisions to the United States Code, signed by US Presidents, and implemented at the administrative, regulatory level by the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Defense through the Code of Federal Regulations....

I think the critical decay began around 1983, when the ‘public health emergencies’ section was added to the 1944 Public Health Service Act, although the 1944 PHSA itself represented an additional militarization of human medicine in the United States. Most of the worst laws have been passed since 2000 – just before 9/11 and the US Department of Defense false flag anthrax attacks. They are listed below, with links to the full text of each law, and a short summary of what I understand about how each one fits into the overall scheme....

In other words: Congress and US Presidents legalized and funded the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. government and the American people, through a massive domestic bioterrorism program relabeled as a public health program, conducted by the HHS Secretary and Secretary of Defense on behalf of the World Health Organization and its financial backers.

Katherine Watt is a self-described Roman Catholic, American, Gen-X writer, paralegal, printmaker, wife and mother. She founded Baliwick News as an independent newspaper in 2016. The name reflects “the sociopolitical, economic and legal status of the American people as peasant subjects in a neo-feudal, global jurisdiction of control and oppression; we are no longer sovereign citizens of a functioning Constitutional republic.” The scope of her critical analysis of US law and history of legislation as it pertains to human medicine is formative and profound. Charles Rixey writes of Katherine Watt, “Excellent coverage of the legal implications of the pandemic”. As Watt describes her research and writing focus:
I work on finding, reading, analyzing and reporting on statutes and regulations passed by US Congress, and executive orders and legislation signed by US presidents, implemented by US Health and Human Services secretaries and Secretaries of Defense, mostly since 1983, and on judicial decisions by federal and state courts, as criminal acts of treason that built the legal foundations for the unconstitutional, democidal American public health-police state, which was deployed fully for the first time on January 31, 2020 with HHS Secretary Alex Azar’s declaration of public health emergency on the Covid-19 pretext.
From Some thinking about tampering with evidence and spoliation, 16 Nov 2022:
I’m not a lawyer. I’m a paralegal and writer. I do legal research and writing that can be used to support civil and criminal cases when private attorneys and/or public prosecutors decide to draft and file in US courts. I’ve been able to do the research covered at Bailiwick because I’m not a lawyer. I can devote time to research and writing, because I haven’t been handling any part of the flood of non-treason cases — challenging mask, test and vaxx mandates, prying clinical trial data out of the FDA, fighting for jobs and businesses and military careers — that warrior-attorneys like Warner Mendenhall, Robert Barnes, Jeff Childers, Todd Callender, Tom Renz, Aaron Siri and hundreds of other, less-well-known lawyers have been heroically bringing these past three years.

Private attorneys and public prosecutors are unlikely to file treason, terrorism and related federal criminal cases, and federal judges are unlikely to accept such cases, without significant, well-informed public pressure. That’s the other main purpose of Bailiwick: educating and mobilizing more people to exert social and political pressure on attorneys and judges, to terminate the interlocking control-and-cull campaigns operated under a fraudulent national emergency framework; hold accountable the US Government officials who pseudo-authorize, actually-fund, and run the programs; and set up relief programs for injured victims and the survivors of the dead.

I post sacred art with my writing because I’m Catholic, the art is beautiful, the saints are inspiring, and without the faith that my father passed down to me, I could not do this work.

Sasha Latypova writes at Trial Site News on mRNA Fraud - Regulatory and Manufacturing Investigations. Her Due Diligence program is published on the Team Enigma - How Bad is Your Batch? bitchute channel. Latypova is an ex-pharma/biotech professional with 25 years experience in clinical trials, clinical technologies, and regulatory approvals. She owned/managed several contract research organizations, worked for 60+ pharma companies worldwide, and interacted with FDA as part of a scientific industry consortium on improving cardiac safety assessments in clinical trials.
In her own words: “I am a retired pharmaceutical R&D executive. I worked in pharma clinical trials and ran several clinical research organizations working for 60+ pharmas worldwide. My clients included Pfizer, J&J, AstraZeneca and many other large and smaller companies. I also worked with the FDA and helped my clients prepare regulatory data submissions. I have an MBA degree from Dartmouth. Regarding bioweapons, all of this is based on me reading publicly available information - there are numerous DOD and academic studies, reports, and textbooks on this topic available online.”

On 12 November in a Side Note near the top of More SARS-CoV-2 and spike protein biology, immunology and vaccinology from Nov. 3 CHD panel discussion with Jonathan Couey, Robert Malone and others, Katherine Watt crystalizes the mind-bending inculcated, media-reinforced, self-blinding mechanism beguiling many people and preventing breaking through the mind-fog to actually see clearly what is happening in our world.

I was on a legal strategy and information call yesterday with Sasha Latypova and some others, and the discussion turned briefly to how difficult it is for many people to wrap their minds around the horrific truth that the US Government, functioning as a front company and project manager for the owners of the Bank of for International Settlements [][††], is working to ruin and prematurely end the lives billions of people around the world, and has made a very good start to achieving the mass murder campaign’s goals since launching Covid-19.

Sasha, who was born in the Soviet Union, observed that it really shouldn’t be hard to understand, because it’s one of the most common features of governments. Sooner or later, most of them kill off a lot of their own people, and a lot of people of other countries.

It’s a blind spot for many Americans mostly because Americans don’t learn about the government-run genocides of history in public schools, because that information is deliberately suppressed in American public school curricula.

I’m a product of American public schools; I graduated from high school in 1992. My history classes never discussed Soviet, Chinese, Cambodian or other government-sponsored genocides of the 20th century, or the persecutions and pogroms of previous centuries. They’re not discussed in most high school curricula now.

My ability to see these things is largely due to anomalies of my home life as a child and adolescent. God put me into the world as the daughter of a culturally mixed marriage (European mother, American father). I grew up in a psychologically-abusive family system my parents created and maintained, due to the forces that shaped them when they grew up in the 1940s and 1950s. Those forces shaped my strong critical thinking and bullshit-detection skills. I had to learn through painful, personal experience to see through lies, gaslighting and suppression of relevant counter-evidence, in order to maximize my odds of emotional and cognitive survival.

I’ve worked with evidence of diabolical, deadly government corruption daily for many years, so I have a deep understanding of how real it is. I still have to fight against the inculcated, media-reinforced self-blinding mechanism that recurrently nudges me back toward “this can’t be real.”

Sasha’s point being: government-run mass murder is not at all an inconceivable crime.

It’s one of the most regularly-conceived and executed crimes in human history.

I’ll add to her point: this may be one of the first times that a government, [or dozens of governments simultaneously, coordinated and/or coerced by the US Government,] has launched a population cull under the public health pretext and manipulated the available information so thoroughly that a large proportion of the victims have, in a seemingly-voluntary way, committed individual acts of suicide and homicide, under the instilled delusion that the cultural project is about protecting self, others, “Grandma” and the public good.

But that too, can be seen as the logical progression from the Holocausts, genocides, and abortion campaigns launched last century, which each began under the pretext that the healthy, wanted members of society could and should protect themselves from the dangers posed by undesirables, by rounding up and killing the undesirables and leaving only the wanted people alive to carry civilization forward.

Selected critical analysis by Katherine Watt is listed at the end of this transcript.


Sasha Latypova:
Hello everyone. This is Sasha Latypova for Trial Site News. This is my show Due Diligence. Today I have a very important guest and very experienced legal researcher, Katherine Watt and I highly recommend everyone to read her substack, which is called Bailiwick News. Katherine has compiled an an encyclopedia of knowledge of how our rights, constitutional rights have been subverted. And really if you want to understand what’s going on today with the Covid so-called pandemic, I highly recommend reading the substack and understanding the legal deception and structure behind it. Welcome Katherine. Would you like to introduce yourself and give some background?

Katherine Watt:
Yes, I should have prepared for that. I have a philosophy degree from Penn State. I worked as a reporter for a while for small newspapers. Then I got a paralegal certificate, and I worked for small law firms, mostly sole practitioners doing constitutional law and civil rights law, and a lot of other types of things. Then because of the way the media landscape changed in the mid-nineties, when blogs came along I opened a first blog in 2005, and I’ve been doing independent reporting online since then. Then I started looking at the legal stuff for Covid when the lockdowns started in 2020.

Sasha Latypova:
When I found your substack I was blown away by the depths of the research, by the writing, the quality of everything and the meticulous references that you’ve compiled. It’s a huge resource, very useful for everyone. But I stumbled on it. You have a post, and I think it’s an overarching post that’s called American Domestic Bioterrorism Program. I wanted to, as an introduction, would you explain to people why you call it that, and how you arrived at that conclusion?

Katherine Watt:
I call it that because from the beginning of 2020 onward, I was trying to figure out what was going on, especially at the local level and the state level why the constitutional rights were not being protected by federal judges. There were some very early cases. There was one in Pennsylvania in, I think it was filed in May of 2020. And there was a good decision from a Federal Judge in September saying, You can’t do these shutdowns of people’s businesses. You can’t do these things at schools. You can’t, whatever. And then that was immediately stopped by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. And that was confusing.

Then in January, 2022, that’s this year, I heard a podcast with Todd Callender on Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet’s show Truth for Health, where he talked about the 2005 International Health Regulations put together by—it was an updated version that it turned out that the World Health Organization had put together—International Health Regulations. Sometimes they called them International Sanitary Regulations. They changed the name, but they started it in the fifties, and then they’ve updated it since. In the 2005 version, they added in a whole lot more surveillance power and forced treatment powers and other things that the World Health Organization wanted the national governments to put into place through their own statutes and their own regulations, and through their state level statutes and regulations. After I heard the podcast, I went looking for the sources of what he had talked about, and then I started pulling on the threads and unraveled how they put it together from, well—they started long before 2005. But things really ramped up in the two thousands. And then it got rolled out its fullest form so far in January, 2020.

Sasha Latypova:
Right. I also was stunned by the long history of this. What was the earliest relevant piece of law that you can trace that was changed in particular for this plandemic to occur?

Katherine Watt:
I think the earliest one was the 1983 establishment of the Public Health Emergencies Program under the rubric of the Public Health Services Act, which was a 1944 law. But when Reagan and the Congress at the time put in the Public Health Emergencies section, that was the beginning of concentrating much, much more power in the hands of the Health and Human Services Secretary, whenever a public health emergency has been declared by the HHS Secretary. So it’s a completely closed loop of once they declare it, they have all the power, and they are the only one who can suspend their power because of the way they wrote the laws, to the extent—let’s say—to the extent that federal judges and Congress accept the premise that the executive branch can shut them out of everything after the announcement has been made.

Sasha Latypova:
So this unconstitutional, I would say, law was put in place in the eighties—

Katherine Watt:
Yep.

Sasha Latypova:
—saying that this branch of government can usurp power—

Katherine Watt:
Mm-hmm.

Sasha Latypova:
—pretty much at their own discretion. So what is a public health emergency and how—does it have to have some sort of concrete set of rules, data, any threshold that needs to be reached for a public health emergency to be declared? Or is it just something that they describe as one?

Katherine Watt:
So far? I think it’s just one that they describe as one. There may have been at the beginning—no, it just said, public health emergencies is a thing. It’s basically like a parallel version of a national emergency. So if they declare a national emergency because of a war or because of a natural disaster, that has all these cascade effects on other laws and other constitutional rights. This just added another version of that to be public health emergencies as part of medicalizing it. And I think probably as part of making it harder for people to see that it was a government usurpation or a government tyranny effort because people think, Oh, it’s about public health. It’s about protecting us.

Sasha Latypova:
Yes. So now looking at this in retrospect—and of course I’m familiar with your writing in this particular piece, that’s why I’m spending so much time on this particular question—it becomes clearer now why with all this massive propaganda campaign, even up in years to this so-called Covid pandemic, was focused on these public health issues. But more, they wanted to propagandize specifically, viral pandemics.

Katherine Watt:
Yes.

Sasha Latypova:
Through media, through Hollywood, Netflix shows, books publications.

Katherine Watt:
And through test runs, like SARS1 in 2003, H1N1 in 2009. Yeah.

Sasha Latypova:
Exactly. And then they would have these old stories about Ebola in Africa—

Katherine Watt:
Yep.

Sasha Latypova:
—constantly barraging people with that idea. So they wanted that image of scary, scary virus that causes pandemic, that kills half of the world’s population. Which is total nonsense, scientifically, I can assure you. But it’s a figment of science fiction; plays on a lot of fears, of people’s imagination, lots of productions in color.

Katherine Watt:
Yeah.

Sasha Latypova:
And then, because they needed that to justify this—because at least in a national emergency, you can point to something concrete, a big earthquake, a big [unintelligible], maybe somebody did attack us and a bomb exploded. You can point to concrete things. With this, it’s more playing on imagination, on fears, on something invisible, an invisible threat that you can’t identify. But it’s so deadly and so stealthy. So that’s how it all ties together with the long history of this.

Katherine Watt:
Yes. And it’s way less destructive of infrastructure. It can destroy social structures and economic structures without actually taking out buildings and railroad tracks and factories with bombs. For the people who want to do the takeover, they can keep all of the productive facilities and get rid of the people who might otherwise want a share in the products produced there. They did it with board games too. I don’t know if you mentioned that in your list. But my kids have a board game called, I think it’s called Pandmemia or something [“Pandemic” ? - originally released in 2008editor]. The whole premise of the game is you start off with rolling the dice or whatever, and it says that the pandemic has started in this country. The board is a map of the world. And then the goal of the people playing is to control it with medications and various things. It’s Yeah.

Sasha Latypova:
Incredible. I also recently watched—and I think they also played into people’s beliefs and religious beliefs in particular. For example, I recently stumbled on a production by History Channel, which was talking about, the book of Revelation, apocalypse, and they specifically used disease and the plagues and the disease part of it to fear monger like crazy. They got all these experts, I don’t know where they got them from, to interview in this very overdramatic fashion saying that there can be—and this was a few years before 2020.

Katherine Watt:
Right.

Sasha Latypova:
Saying that there could be this stealthy virus that, imagine you’re walking around without symptoms.

Katherine Watt:
Yes.

Sasha Latypova:
And it spreads and then 500 million people dead. And overdramatizing this nonsense, [that] it exist like this in nature. But they’re making this up and they’re pretending like this is a big deal, real deal. Very stealthy, very dangerous. So that the government needs to protect you from this.

Katherine Watt:
Yes. And that piece about, before you even have symptoms is super, super important. Because they came up with the term asymptomatic. And they also—I just found the other day in a Health and Human Services regulation, “precommunicable”, That’s even more than asymptomatic. It’s before communicable. And they put that in [U.S.C Title 42, Part G—Quarantine and Inspection, §264. Regulations to control communicable diseases] as this is a thing that we’re going try to keep track of, so that if it’s even in just the precommunicable stage, we can still quarantine people.

Sasha Latypova:
It’s absolutely incredible. They can quarantine you. So the government can take you away from your family, your children from your family, based on an unidentifiable pathogen of which you are not symptomatic and you have no ability to transmit it to anyone. So basically just take you away—

Katherine Watt:
For no reason. Yeah.

Sasha Latypova:
For no reason whatsoever. So that’s what I want people to clearly understand. The second question I had is about this other transactional authority. I think you covered it really, really well. I will attach the document that you gave me to this video. But I want people to understand, because not a lot of people are familiar with this at all.

Katherine Watt:
Right. I came across it because of Brook Jackson’s case. Brook Jackson is the whistleblower who was working for Ventavia, who was a subcontracted to Pfizer under the contract Pfizer had with the Department of the Defense to produce a hundred million doses of what they call a vaccine and distribute it through the DOD to all the people in the United States. Brook Jackson, as soon as she got to her trial site—she had three—in Texas, she noticed there were terrible problems with the clinical trials. She reported it first to her bosses at Ventavia, then to people at Pfizer. Then she tried to file, I think an anonymous hotline report, to the FDA and within hours of the FDA report, she was fired. Then she filed a False Claims Act case because her theory at that time was that Pfizer was defrauding the U.S. government by falsely saying they were doing good clinical trials, and that the U.S. government would want to know this because they would want to not spend money on a fraudulently produced product.

It turned out that that is not the case. The U.S. government was in on the fraudulent clinical trials and in on the whole fraud entirely. That came out in Pfizer’s April 2022 motion to dismiss. Because Brook, when she filed her False Claims Act, she attached the Statement of Work, which was a contract that was supposed to govern how the clinical trials were done. And in its motion to dismiss Pfizer attached another contract called an Other Transaction Authority—OTA contract—saying in effect, no, we had no obligation to conduct valid clinical trials because the only goods and services we were providing to the U.S. government, according to this contract are a large scale manufacturing demonstration for a prototype. So they split off the clinical trials from the manufacturing and production side. I looked at that contract and had already come to the conclusion that it was a joint fraud between Pfizer and the DOD. And this corroborated that in Pfizer’s own words.

So the OTA is a separate contracting, purchasing framework that U.S. government agencies can enter into with private companies. And the report that I sent you is from KEI. The title of it is Other Transaction Agreements: Government Contracts that Eliminate Protections for the Public on Pricing, Access and Competition, Including in Connection with COVID 19 Vaccines and Treatments [KEI Briefing Note 2020: 3 Other Transaction Agreements: Government Contracts that May Eliminate Protections for the Public on Pricing, Access and Competition, Including in Connection with COVID-19; local PDF]. It started in 1958, according to that report through NASA. But it’s since been expanded to, I think they said, 11 agencies have it now, have this special authority that Congress has given them to enter into these contracts. And it suspends all kinds of oversight.

That’s the bottom line of what an OTA does. In my view, Pfizer is probably correct that under the terms of the OTA, they had no obligation to ever conduct a valid clinical trial. They could make the entire thing a fraud. They could make the entire thing seem to be real and said that actual data, but it didn’t have to be good data. It didn’t have to be in compliance with any of the regulations that otherwise govern clinical trials. That’s why in the one piece I’ve done on it, I compared it to the Emergency Use Authorization because OTA did for the financial contracting side, what EUA did to the drug regulation side: they both just took them out of the normal.

Sasha Latypova:
So this is a structure by which the government can essentially wave for themselves all the normal rules and regulations for development approval of otherwise regulated products such as pharmaceuticals.

Katherine Watt:
Right.

Sasha Latypova:
And order that thing that now has no regulations attached to it.

Katherine Watt:
Right.

Sasha Latypova:
From the private manufacturer who otherwise would be regulated by those rules.

Katherine Watt:
Yes.

Sasha Latypova:
So, that’s, again, that needs to be understood very clearly. And when you said they order prototypes, Is prototype defined? What is prototype?

Katherine Watt:
Prototype is one of, I think it’s one of the keywords that makes it clearer that it’s a bioweapon and not a drug, or it’s a drug that is a bioweapon, basically. But prototype just has to do with, it’s,...... I don’t even know how they explain it. It’s a product that doesn’t have other regulatory meanings. It’s ..... I can—I should look into that more, ... like where in the, in the statutes prototype is defined. But what it boils down to is it’s a military product as part of a military project. It’s not a pharmaceutical project as part of a public health project.

Sasha Latypova:
I’ve been talking a lot about the fact that the DOD ordered all these prototypes and all these countermeasures.

Katherine Watt:
And that they control it from, from the very beginning of the ...

Sasha Latypova:
Yes. That’s why a lot of people ask me what is the proof that DOD controls it? How would you answer that question? What does need to exist to show people the proof? Well—other than the documents that we’re all pointing out to—but really, how do they control this whole production?

Katherine Watt:
I mean, I think they control it because they control the—well, there’s the things that you’ve pointed out in the contract about that DOD has to be a participant on every single phone call, every single email, every single meeting that happens between Pfizer or its subcontractors or any of the pharmaceutical subcontractors and the FDA regulators. Which means that DOD is in there directly controlling the decisions that FDA makes and the announcements that FDA makes, and the material that FDA is allowed to review or not review. That plays into another piece of the puzzle that showed up through Brook Jackson’s case, which is under the law, the HHS secretary is supposed to make his or her decisions about EUA products, about medical countermeasures, about security countermeasures, all these terms they came up with, which basically just mean bioweapons. But bioweapons packaged so that they look like medicine.

They’re supposed to make it on the basis of scientific data and evidence, “if available”. And that if available is very, very important because the DOD was in a position to make sure that no valid data would ever be made available to the FDA regulators. And to ensure that even without it, they would produce the authorizations and the approvals that the DOD required under the terms of the contract with Pfizer in order to go ahead with the manufacturing and the contracts and the hundreds of millions of dollars that they funneled to these companies. So the availability of data is a key part of how DOD controls not just the product itself, but also the information available to the regulators and to the HHS secretary. I don’t think that gets them off the hook morally because I think that the FDA and HHS officials were willing and knowing participants in it. And I think that can be shown. But it does explain the mechanism by which it was done—is done.

Sasha Latypova:
So yes. We need to spend a little more time on this. So the decision to—what is it legally called? Is it authorization, licensing or is it just deployment of the countermeasures?—is up to the sole authority of HHS secretary who under Trump was Alex Azar, and now it’s Xavier Becerra. So those two individuals, sequentially, made decisions about deployment of these counter measures, prototypes, bioweapons, to the American public and the world. And that decision was based on available data, if available.

Katherine Watt:
Yes. It was based on available data about the products. And it was also based on available data about the known and potential risks of the actual thing that they were deploying the product against. So they got to decide, unilaterally, basically as dictators, what is the level of threat that this SARS-CoV-2 poses to the population, and what are the acceptable risks and benefits calculations of the countermeasure deployed against that first SARS-CoV-2 thing. It was, it is multilayered.

Sasha Latypova:
The enormity of this, I just, I can’t emphasize enough, is one person, Alex Azar or Xavier Becerra, decides for 300 million people in the United States, unilaterally, how much threat Covid poses to them today and in the future.

Katherine Watt:
Yep.

Sasha Latypova:
And how safe, efficacious this product is for them, specifically individual and for their children, their babies, their elderly, now and in the future.

Katherine Watt:
Yes.

Sasha Latypova:
How insane that is, it just blows my mind. But it is written in the U.S. law,

Katherine Watt:
Right. It’s massive and it’s very hard to wrap your head around how massive it is.

Sasha Latypova:
Yes. And I will put citations that Katherine provided under this video as well, so that people can check for themselves and read that language that we just cited. Another question I had, before we go into the information management of this. Let’s just play back the scenario. Alex Azar is HHS. This thing starts unfolding. They’re claiming it’s super lethal, next plague. Okay. He decides—somebody shoves these things in front of him and says they’re okay. Pfizer said so. FDA said so. DOD says so. He thinks, Okay, they may be effective and so let’s deploy them.

Katherine Watt:
Yep.

Sasha Latypova:
But that’s early, let’s say early 2020. Now, two years later, we have two years worth of data on both the transmission, local transmission of Covid, which is near zero everywhere.

Katherine Watt:
Effective other treatments is another thing.

Sasha Latypova:
Effective other treatments. The deadliness of the injections. There’s a lot of adverse events. And now they’re even admitting officially myocarditis is a thing. A bunch of states such as Florida said that we’re not going to recommend it to children. Is this the available information that now Xavier Becerra has to take into account? Or is it just, he can pretend he never heard these things?

Katherine Watt:
I think he can pretend he never heard these things. He can definitely pretend he never heard these things because he’s been pretending that for two years now. And that’s where it gets into the amazing structural features Congress built into these things where Congress not only put all the power into the HHS secretary’s hand. They also eliminated their own oversight power. They eliminated, or they claimed to—this is written in the laws—they claimed that they have no power to overrule or review his emergency declarations about their existing emergency. They can’t overrule his EUA declarations. They also put provisions that no federal judge can review those declarations. Once they’re made, they’re considered solely within agency discretion. So there’s no judicial review and eliminated states power to take any course of action different from what the HHS secretary has said that they should do, which is called preemption.

There’s sections in these laws—I have it in my head, but I can’t think of the name of it—that make it so that there is no state authority to overrule HHS secretary, there is no congressional authority to overrule HHS secretary, and there is no judicial authority. And Congress did that. Which raises the interesting, super interesting philosophical question of—with horrible implications—how did they give away a power that they didn’t have the power to give away? Congress does not have the power to dissolve itself. Congress does not have the power to dissolve the federal judiciary under the U.S. Constitution. But they did it to the extent that the federal judges are deferring to them. And Congress is deferring to the HHS secretary. And the states, for the most part, with exceptions like Florida, are deferring and not challenging these things. They’re just saying, Whoop, that happened.

Sasha Latypova:
I guess, well, you know, you gave our power away,

Katherine Watt:
I guess the Constitution’s gone now, so whatever.

Sasha Latypova:
So whatever. We’ll just continue collecting pensions and have a nice life and, hope it will blow over. Right?

Katherine Watt:
I don’t know if they hope it’ll blow over. I think they’re planning to make it more of them doing less and more of—I mean, because I think their goal is to turn it all over to the World Health Organization and [unintelligible] and stuff. That’s the game that they’re playing, but if they never had—you can’t give away a power that wasn’t yours to give away to begin with. And the power in our country is supposed to be in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. There’s supposed to be nobody that’s above it. So to have Congress say, Well, you know, never mind, is just super bizarre.

Sasha Latypova:
It’s absolutely, it’s absolutely incredible. And I hope more people see this and understand what’s happened. But before we go into, what’s the next steps, this just puts into perspective all the information warfare that was associated with this. Because again, the key thing is available information if available to one person.

Katherine Watt:
And if that person doesn’t wanna look at it, it’s not available to him.

Sasha Latypova:
Yes. If the person doesn’t want to look at it—but at least somebody can challenge this was available through HHS. That’s why I’ve seen a lot of—I’ve read now a lot of web productions including emails of FDA officials, including emails between CDC and now we also know about the White House was colluding with the tech platforms. In fact internally, while this was going on, I had a bet with my husband because I come from the Soviet Union. So I saw how—and this was even before the pandemic—I saw how quickly somebody would be would be banned from all platforms simultaneously, Facebook and Twitter and everything. And I kept telling him there is a Central Committee. Because, that’s where I’m coming from.

Katherine Watt:
(Laughter) You’re like, I’ve seen this movie. Yes.

Sasha Latypova:
And he was like, No, no. They just make phone calls to each other. These are companies, they’re private companies, they’re, they just—sometimes they coordinate this stuff and I’m like, No, no, there’s this. And lo and behold, theres

Katherine Watt:
There’s sure enough, there it is.

Sasha Latypova:
But my point is that they’re actively—all these emails, when I see them between the FDA officials, they are actively trying to prevent any information that contradicts this statement that Covid is the plague. It’s going to kill billions of people and we need these poorly designed, hastily made products on the market to prevent it. So whatever subverts that narrative, they’re desperately managing fires to suppress that. And that becomes very, very obvious in these productions.

Katherine Watt:
Yes. I was just thinking this morning, because there are so many fronts on the war. I think the information one is the very, very, very primary one because they need absolute control of the information to maintain the fear levels at the levels the fear has to be at, to maintain all the other controls. As soon as people have information about who is doing what and what it is that they’re doing, they get less afraid because they understand it as like, Oh, we’re just being attacked. That’s what this is. Instead of the confusion and disorientation and social disconnection that they’ve been pulling off for a couple years. So yes, the information part is, the top of the control pyramid in my view. And then they have that reinforced with all of these other things with the regulations and keeping the checks and balances and separation of powers from actually functioning. But to make all of that work, they have to keep everybody afraid and to make everybody afraid, they have to keep control of the information.

Sasha Latypova:
Yes. But it’s not working very well for them, is it? I think because the alternative media expanded and people became fed up and after you’ve been lied to for a while, it becomes obvious and so people become fed up. And I think the message is spread because we see the steep drop off in the vaccinations and very low uptake in the new boosters and things of that nature. So I think as far as people becoming aware of their being lied to, that’s a good trend. I think we need to, obviously, explain more how the problem is being committed.

And another question I had is let’s come back a little bit to the clinical trials, documentations, manufacturing documentation, any documentation that so far has been produced through FOIA. I know some firms have been very successful in doing that, like Aaron Siri’s ICAN. They’ve produced a lot of materials and especially the Pfizer clinical trial documents that I have been reviewing with a number of colleagues myself. How do we think about it? If they never had to produce them or produce them to quality of the clinical trial—if it’s not even a clinical trial, what do we think of them as?

Katherine Watt:
I think of them as a performance art. They had to do them only insofar as they had to make people believe that real ones were happening. And they only had to make people believe that—if they had been as successful as they wanted to be, they would’ve done this short, sharp, panic campaign, which is what they did in early 2020. They would’ve done these clinical trials in the shoddy, fraudulent way that they did them. But a lot of the people I think, like at the level of Brook Jackson and down, did not know that what they were participating in was fake. They actually were getting injections. They actually were having symptoms or not having symptoms. They actually were reporting some of them to the clinical trial sites. The clinical trial sites were actually reporting some of the things that happened to the collection like the sponsors. Because they needed to maintain that part of the fraud too.

If people had known very early on, Well, there’s not really clinical trials at all, then many more people would not have taken it. The problem for them is that a lot of people didn’t take it anyway, because a lot of people thought—first of all, people figured out, some of them, that the actual underlying SARS-CoV-2 was not as big of a threat as what they wanted everybody to believe. A lot of people had it or what they believed it was. And then they were like, I have natural immunity. So then they had to knock down, Well there is no such thing as natural immunity anymore. There’s no such thing as herd immunity anymore. A vaccine doesn’t have to prevent you from getting something anymore. They had to change all of these definitions and keep the thing going.

And the longer they tried to do that, the more evidence came out through like you said these other alternative media channels or people just knowing people who got sicker after they took it or whatever. But yeah, I think the whole point of it that, and I don’t—I say that partially because that’s how I understand the framework, but also I do think there’s useful data in those things. It’s just not complete. It’s not up to the standards that it would need to be, to actually like, you know far better than I do. It doesn’t meet any of the things that a normal pharmaceutical regulatory process would have done. But it still is data. And that’s why people like Naomi Wolf and Aaron Siri and Del Bigtree are able to have these crowdsourced analysis of the data and come up with information about what these things cause. Which then helps other people try to reverse engineer what’s actually in them to be causing this enormous range of neurological and reproductive and respiratory [injury] and all of the things that the injections cause. But yeah, the overarching purpose of them was to make it look like a valid pharmaceutical regulatory process had taken place when it had not.

Sasha Latypova:
By law, do they have an obligation to people to disclose, if you are issuing authorization for emergency use of the product, and you are issuing it under this Other Transaction Authority, under Public Health Emergency, where it’s a declaration by Alex Azar, do they have legal obligation to tell people that? Or is it okay under the law to lie and pretend that clinical trials are required for this?

Katherine Watt:
I think that they’ve set it up so that it’s okay because they’ve split them apart. They’ve split it apart as this is a prototype, this is not a clinical trial. And then they said in the contracts, the clinical trials are actually being done by—they’re not taxpayer funded—they’re done by Pfizer itself as the sponsor. I don’t know where—I think there are other contracts that would cover that. I have not seen them.

Sasha Latypova:
I haven’t seen them either. I don’t think they actually exist from the government.

Katherine Watt:
I don’t think they actually exist from the government either. And I don’t know where they would exist. But I don’t think they have—because they folded it under the EUA, because they folded it under the Other Transaction Authority, I don’t think they have any obligation to do anything as far as—

Sasha Latypova:
Exactly. So now that you said that it became even clearer in my head that I’ve seen those contracts and it was very puzzling—I’ve seen the DOD contracts—and it was a very puzzling way that they have carved out the clinical trial and anything that has to do with regulatory process from the money that was being paid, ostensibly for the large scale demonstration. And now it makes full sense because, literally they’re saying this clinical trial stuff and regulatory theater, this is a voluntary activity by Pfizer and FDA. They’re just playing, play acting together because they feel like it.

Katherine Watt:
Yes.

Sasha Latypova:
[What] we’re paying for is this other thing: other transactional authority, prototype, military prototype. So I think that that’s how they actually separated it. So that now these guys are performing theater here. But you’re correct. This data, the data that that’s been produced, is extremely important and valuable and we’ve been able to get at this fraud through these productions. So that’s extremely important for all of us.

Katherine Watt:
Right. And also important, I think we touched on it, but you were asking about how do we know it’s a bioweapon? How do we know DOD has complete control? Part of it is the fact that the people who have been able to actually get the vials either before injection or after, just using the residue, had to smuggle them from the chain of custody. Because like you said, you talked about some of the documents that Warner Mendenhall found, and other people, where it shows it’s considered a federal theft if you divert the product anywhere in the chain of custody before it goes into the person’s arm. And the fact that those diversions have happened anyway, they also have produced important data about what’s in them, which you’ve written about like way more than I have.

Sasha Latypova:
Yes. The the contract that Warner was mentioning, that’s the contract between CDC and the vaccination centers. It’s actually—people can read it that specifies this whole language about federal property until it’s injected. Oh—and this whole diversion language. Which I found ridiculous. I think ostensibly they wrote it because, Oh my god, these are in such short supply we need to vaccinate, as you said, they needed this blitz as fast as possible. Inject everyone because because people will realize sooner or later they’re being lied to. And so they were, Okay, they’re in such a short supply, you cannot divert them because every little vial counts. But here we are, couple years later, there are hundreds of millions of unused vials, hundreds of millions. So there’s no shortage of them.

And by the way, anything approved for market, formally approved by the FDA for market, and they come in fully approved, is—I worked in clinical trials. You can order it through licensed provider and do experiments with it, do studies with it as a third party independent researcher. It’s totally valid and okay. And everybody does it for competitive reasons and other things. So that was always positive. When I told my colleagues about it, they were like, What? No, we do this all the time but with approved products we do research. And I said, No, you can’t. This is a federal property.

Katherine Watt:
And also the internet—two things about that. One is, you also have written about, and I have written about the international contracts, which specifically put in there that no third party independent testing of the contents can be done. But the bigger picture of the combination of the adverse effect from the fraudulent trial that are helping people understand somewhat of what’s in them and the analysis of the smuggled vials before injection, which is also helping people figure out, gets to your bigger point that you make all the time, that nothing in the vials corresponds to what’s on the label. So we actually have literally no idea what is in any of these things. The only way we can get back to and reverse engineer and find out is by looking at how does it damage people and what does it, what are the properties of it when you look at it under a microscope or whatever.... That’s such a big aspect of the thing that people think that they know what they’ve taken and they actually don’t even know what they’ve taken.

Sasha Latypova:
No. Nobody knows what they’ve taken. Also, I try to caution my colleagues who are taking, as you know, face value, what’s written in, let’s say scientific journal about mRNA injections. They assume that it’s produced as it’s described in scientific literature. It couldn’t be farther from the truth. Then they make all kinds of assumptions. Oftentimes they’re very, very well-written papers and very thoroughly researched if you assume that this is the product. Right. But what we’re finding in reality—

Katherine Watt:
—You can’t make that assumption.

Sasha Latypova:
It’s a huge problem because I also work with networks of physicians who are trying to understand how to treat patients and without understanding what they got injured by, we can’t really figure out how to treat them properly. I mean, we know certain things. We know that for the most part, it’s poisoning of the blood and there’s particular characteristics that are exhibited in the blood. But that’s also the more convenient way to test people without huge equipment and expensive labs and so on versus a blood draw, right. That’s all we can do so far and try to manage symptoms with various trial and error of simple programs and generic products. But that’s nowhere near where this needs to be. We need full disclosure. We need full understanding of what’s in those vials, who got injured by what, so that we can properly treat the vaccine injured.

Katherine Watt:
Which is made even more complicated by the fact that it probably wasn’t the same stuff in each of the vials. And it goes back to the part where I think, I don’t know if it was CDC or FDA or who, but somewhere in the U.S. government shortly after the rollout said you should not do antibody testing of people who have taken the shots, because that’s not going to show you anything that would be useful to know. And maybe they even put a financial thing, like we will not cover tests. But that, I think that helps reinforce the point that they didn’t want people to be able to do pre and post -injections of their own blood work to see what was in their blood before and what was in their blood after.

Sasha Latypova:
Yes. And there are only a handful of studies that I’ve seen where it just happened that there was a big Italian study, it just happened so that the person was going to the clinic for blood work.

Katherine Watt:
Yes. I saw that.

Sasha Latypova:
And there’s only literally like four or five people—

Katherine Watt:
I know, right, yeah. Where they have the pre and post and they can look at them together and be like, Oh, okay,

Sasha Latypova:
Uh huh. Yes. But yes, those, those changes are quite characteristic that we’re finding and there’s a lot of research going on there. I will be speaking more about it in the coming days, but yeah. So before we leave off, I just wanted to find—do you have any recommendations for people who are trying to prosecute cases or trying to complain about their vaccine injury or mistreatment or mandates? Do you have any recommendations today?

Katherine Watt:
Yeah, we have put together, it’s still under construction, but there are useful things there called Five Small Stones, five with the number five, and then the word small stones.com.
[There are now two sites: 5smallstones.com and 5smallstones.wordpress.com. See Katherine Watt’s Five Small Stones Campaign Updates, 8 Nov 2022.]
It’s an allusion to the David and Goliath bible passage about a relatively smaller weaker force using faith in God and five small stones to take out a much larger opponent. So the idea is that millions, hundreds of thousands of people, as many as possible, could be filing all kinds of self filed things because there are not enough attorneys to handle the amount of damage, death, and injury that has been done and is still being done. So we have some sort of one and done things where it’s like a notice to a school district or a local government office or a business owner or whoever, that what they’re doing by enforcing any of these things is participating in war crimes and putting them on notice that you know that what they’re doing is a war crime and that you want them to know that you know and that you are going to continue pursuing this as the months go on.

There’s another one that’s an Affidavit of Noncompliance, which you can take to a county courthouse and file a new civil case called a civil miscellaneous case. It basically puts something into the judicial record that says, I understand what’s happening and I am not complying with it. The idea there is partly just to get it in the public record, partly to get people thinking through, Where is my line? What is it going to take for me to decide that I’m not going to cross the line anymore? But partly to get it closer to the prosecutors at the county level and the sheriffs at the county level who have been completely AWOL. There’s massive, massive crimes going on everywhere and they’re just ignoring it for whatever reason. Probably because they’re afraid. But letting them know that there is a growing number of regular people who understand what’s going on and want them to take action is a useful thing to do.

Then there’s some other more complicated templates there about medical malpractice and wrongful death to file at the state level. We’re working on adding to that collection. Then the highest level of complexity are the federal cases that I write about mostly at my website which get at the biggest crimes of treason and sedition and genocide. So there’s a bunch of different cases in the development stage right now on those. And I keep posting about them as they, as they unfold.

Sasha Latypova:
Wow. This is a lot of material. I will link the site Five Small Stones. This is a self-help resource so you can file these complaints and try to communicate with your local county persons.

Katherine Watt:
Everybody.

Sasha Latypova:
Everybody. It takes all of us to push back on this and exactly too, because—

Katherine Watt:
And it gets back to the information piece being the primary battle front that there is because that’s the place where the fear meets the population at the information thing. So the more people are putting out information that reduces fear, the better.

Sasha Latypova:
Yeah. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Katherine. Thank you for all your work. As one of our colleagues said, doing the most important legal work in the country today.

Katherine Watt:
Thank you.

Sasha Latypova:
So yeah, this is definitely worthwhile to go and read about and I’ll post a bunch of links. So this will be on Trial Site News, but I will also post it on my channel and hopefully we’ll speak again and I’ll have another interview with you in the future.

Katherine Watt:
Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you for everything you do.

Selected analysis by Katherine Watt on Bailiwick News:

back to Pandemic Parallax View | rat haus | Index | Search | tree