Three true things that are really important to understand, and also very difficult to accept.

Katherine Watt

Jul 29

READ IN APP

There are three things about the ongoing worldwide poisoning program conducted through vaccination and immunization, that many readers of my work and Sasha Latypova’s work struggle to understand and accept.

The infliction of deceptions, injuries, sterilizations and deaths is intentional. The harms are deliberately caused. Communicable disease and other public health emergencies (overpopulation, climate disruption) are faked. Public officials have known and lied about fake public health emergencies for a very long time. Products described as preventatives and treatments are neither. These products are toxic, poisonous. Manufacturers and regulators know about the toxicity and have known and lied about it for a very long time. The damage is not accidental; the harms and injuries and deaths are not side effects.
The US military, including the Public Health Service branch of the US military, and the other branches, organizes and runs the programs.
Under current US law, the deception, injury and death programs are legal. They are beyond legal challenge and legally unstoppable, because current US law authorizes them.

Charitable, faithful, hopeful, just, prudent, courageous and temperate responses available to targets of intentional, military and legalized sterilization and killing programs — until the enabling laws are repealed or nullified and all vaccination programs are entirely shut down — are to stop taking vaccines, stop vaccinating babies and children, and help other people understand the intentional, military and legalized nature of the programs, so that they also stop taking vaccines and stop vaccinating their babies and children.

Comment exchange at Andreas Oehler’s post:

July 27, 2024 - Crystal Ball Challenge

KW comment:

Just got an email from a reader linking to HHS Secretary’s legal public health emergency (PHE) determination so that it now covers H5N1 and any other alleged avian influenza.
It’s an extension/expansion of a 2013 PHE for the specific (alleged) H7N9 avian influenza strain.
The extension/expansion is in effect as of July 18, 2024 and creates the legal conditions for a blanket EUA declaration to come next, and then for specific EUA Letters of Authorization for the countermeasures under development, that will now be eligible for PREP Act coverage and EUA status because they’ll be connected to this specific, active PHE determination.

Reader reply:

I'd like to see a lawsuit against HHS that challenges the continued legitimacy of an emergency declared in 2013. No findings can be made to substantiate a public health emergency now. Attack the legal foundations…

KW response:

Those lawsuits are preempted/blocked by the same laws through which Congress authorized HHS Secretary to have the unilateral power to make PHE determinations.
42 USC 247d-6d(b)(7): “No court of the United States, or of any State, shall have subject matter jurisdiction to review, whether by mandamus or otherwise, any action by the Secretary under this subsection.”
That’s why they haven’t been filed, and that’s why I focus attention on getting Congress to repeal the enabling laws.
May 23, 2024 - Top 10 US federal laws Congress should repeal to end worldwide vaccination, mutilation and killing programs.

Andreas Oehler:

Isn’t this one branch cancelling preemptively the other branch?
How is it constitutional?
We’ve locked ourselves in the cell and thrown the keys out through the grates?

KW response:

It’s not constitutional, but the effect, in terms of legal mechanics, is to auto-suspend the constitution, through the public health emergency programs.
Congress has locked itself in the cell and thrown the keys out through the grates, but Congress could pull the keys back in the cell and unlock the door by repealing the enabling acts.
Some of my early attempts to articulate it:
April 7, 2022 - Re judicially-unreviewable
Nov. 2022 video discussion - American Domestic Bioterrorism Program
...Sasha Latypova:
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...
...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 the 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 [Congress] 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 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...are deferring and not challenging these things. They’re just saying, "Whoop, that happened."...
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.