On misconstruction of EUA countermeasures and vaccines as medicinal products, rather than weapons and poisons, and on legal-judicial system role in sustaining public ignorance and submission.

Katherine Watt

Jun 24

READ IN APP

Orientation for new readers - American Domestic Bioterrorism Program - Tools for dismantling kill box anti-law

On lawsuits challenging the practices of administering remdesivir, sedatives, ventilators and other hospital homicide Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) countermeasure products and protocols without obtaining “informed consent” from patients as comprising medical malpractice not subject to PREP Act preemption and defenses (I read another of these complaints this morning):

I hold the view that none of the products classified as “countermeasures” and incorporated into NIH treatment guidelines are intended to help or heal patients.

The products are weapons intended to harm patients, and the people who use them on patients are military contractors engaged in intentional killing.

EUA countermeasures, and routine and EUA vaccines, are chemical and mechanical abortions to kill adults, adolescents, children and babies at any time after birth (and before birth, when given to pregnant women), and they’re legalized, just as abortion was legalized nationwide in 1973 through Roe v. Wade, and (post-Dobbs, 2022) is still legalized in many US states.

So traditional legal principles and precedents about medical treatment, informed consent, medical malpractice and medical product liability are inapplicable.

I also hold the view that Saldana v. Glenhaven (cited in many complaints claiming to challenge PREP Act) stands for the proposition that PREP Act is written to drive medical practitioners into criminal activity (intentional battery and homicide) by imposing liability exposure only on practitioners who do not use NIH-CDC-FDA-CMS directed products and protocols [weapons] as directed and incentivized by NIH-CDC-FDA-CMS and hospital administrators, for the purpose of intentionally harming and killing recipients, and PREP Act therefore offers “complete” preemption in the sense that the HHS-Office of General Counsel argues in its legal memos.

These cases may drag on for another 5-10 years, and can be seen as intentional legal-judicial system distractions to allow military-financial-Congressional biological products weapons-systems and covert military-financial-Congressional biological-product warfare to continue under the cover provided by being falsely presented to the public, and widely misconstrued by the public, as medicinal products forming components of health care practice.

I have not written a detailed analysis of Saldana v. Glenhaven yet. I mentioned the case in an Oct. 2023 post, as another example of the pattern (legally funneling HCWs into committing otherwise criminal acts by providing indemnification only for the criminal acts HHS-DoD wants to induce them to commit) that also includes Nowacki v. Gilead.