Transcript - Congressional acts legalizing camouflaged deceit and poisoningJune 5, 2025 presentation
Video (presentation starts at about 7:00-minute point). Slide deck. This video can also be used as an introduction or orientation to the contents of the St. Benedict Memo, similar to the use that can be made of the Biological product non-regulation video and transcript. Presentation transcript ...The working title of this slide deck is ‘Deceitful, deceiving, repealable U.S. federal laws that enable psychological, chemical, and biological warfare to be camouflaged as communicable disease control, pandemic preparedness and response, and vaccination.’ The outline of the talk, I’m going to say briefly an introduction to my background and what I’ve been doing, to do the research that I’ve compiled, what the purposes are for the legal authorities and funding as I understand them, a little bit about my research methods. Then I’m going to go really fast through a timeline of most of the laws that I am aware of at this point, that Congress passed and therefore Congress could repeal, and then a little bit of conclusions. But I’m going to go very fast through the list because it’s long. Then if people have questions during the Q&A, I can go back and talk about them more. I’m a writer and a paralegal. I went to Penn State. I got a degree in philosophy with a minor in natural sciences in 1996. And up until 2020, I worked as a reporter, as a paralegal, community organizer... Since 2020, I’ve been doing legal research on the laws that legalize deception in the communicable disease control arena and also enable acts of mutilation and homicide through vaccination and other things called medical interventions or countermeasures. I publish at Bailiwick News on Substack. There’s three years’ worth of material there. I’ve been assembling some of my stuff into book, PDF book forms organized by subject matter. With a colleague named Lydia Hazel, we’ve actually tracked the laws back to 1798. I’m going to talk about the ones from 1944 to now, today, but we have tracked it back farther. The main person that I work with is Sasha Latypova. She’s a, you probably know who she is, but she’s a former pharmaceutical company executive, entrepreneur, who understands how drug regulation and clinical trials should work. Her work dovetails with my work, because my work is about how those things don’t happen for biological products, including vaccines. In January 2023, I did a video presentation called Legal Walls of the COVID-19 Killbox. That’s one of about 50 video presentations that I’ve recorded mostly between June 2022 and February 2024. In that video, I kind of summarized it as saying “they needed to build in loopholes and the loopholes they built in were that, ‘we’re not going to do biological and chemical research and weapons development except for protective or prophylactic or defensive purposes.’ And that’s a false characterization.” I’ll talk a little bit more about that. In this presentation, I’m not discussing scientific misconduct in microbiology and virology and genetics and vaccination, although those are relevant. I have learned a lot more about those in the last year. I’m also not discussing data and statistical fraud, which is also important. I can give you names of people who I think their work is credible and useful. But both of those things reinforce the legal misconduct, which is the part that I write about. The key points are that the scientific misconduct hides that biological organisms are processes, not objects. They’re dynamic. They’re not static. Same with diseases. The laws are set up with the idea that there is a single cause, there is a single effect which is the disease, and you can use a product, a vaccine, based on that single cause, to prevent that single disease. That is not correct and they have known that that’s not correct, the people who promote this lie or fiction have known that’s not correct, for a very long time. In December 2023, I put together a repeal act covering seven of the laws that I had found by that time. I sent it to Senator Ron Johnson. Then by May of 2024, I had expanded the list to 10 and I did a post about that, the top 10 federal laws Congress should repeal. I find new ones all the time because they make, like, a web. The purposes of them, it’s helpful, I find, to divide it up into ostensible reasons, which are false, but that’s what we’re told is the reason for the laws, which is that we need these laws to help public leaders in the government and the military and to help society in general, civilians, to identify and prepare for and prevent and respond to infectious disease threats. Again, those are false reasons. The real reasons for the laws is to project the illusion that there are these specific threat-causing particles floating around that you should be scared of, to promote the illusion that governments and scientists and biomedical researchers should prepare for these things with biodefense programs, with disease surveillance, with diagnostics and tests, with vaccines. That one can kind of be summarized as take vaccines to be safe. Some of the laws, many of them actually combine those two illusions to say, be scared and take vaccines. That’s an oversimplification of what they do, but that’s how the basic structure works. I don’t frame not taking vaccines as a medical freedom issue. I frame it as self-defense. And that’s mostly because, to the extent the whole project is about projecting an illusion or putting on a theatrical performance, when... anyone speaks about vaccines as medical products and speaks about communicable disease as a real threat from airborne particles, they are participating in projecting the illusion. They become part of the performance team, and so I think it is not wise to do that. It is wise to not participate and to refer to them as just poisons. They have been poisons since the start of the modern vaccine era, which was in about 1798 with Jenner. The toxic effects have been known for a very long time and very carefully suppressed by the orchestrators. So doctors, nurses, pharmacists, targets may not have known, but the people who put the programs together definitely know and have known for a long time. My research method is basically, I read the laws and I follow the connections. When a law mentions another law, I go to that other law and I read that law. And I’ve been doing that for about four years to build up a kind of a mental map of how the laws fit together and how they developed over time. You can do that by looking at public laws, which is the acts of Congress and the numbers. For example, the one that had the PREP in it is Public Law 109 (for the 109th Congress) 148 (that’s the 148th law that they passed). Then those get compiled into the Statutes at Large with page numbers, so you can refer to it as 119 Stat. 2818. You can refer to them by the section of the overall federal program that they are a part of. For the PREP Act, it’s a part of the Public Health Service Act, which was passed originally in 1944 and has been amended many many times since then. In 2005, when Congress added the PREP Act provisions, they put them in at Public Health Service Act Section 319-F3 and F4. Then the last kind of citation tool you can use if you’re doing legal research is the U.S. Code citation. After the law is passed, different parts of it get stuck into different subject matter sections of the total body of U.S. law. The PREP Act provisions went into that U.S. Code at 42 U.S. Code 247d-6d. That’s “targeted liability protections for pandemic and epidemic products and security countermeasures” and 247d-6e, which is the “covered countermeasures process.” That’s the fake compensation scheme. As a side note, I’m also in this slide deck not covering the actual agency regulations that implement these congressional acts. I’m not covering contracts or treaties or court cases. I’m not covering state laws which mirror the federal laws, but all of those things do fit together into this web or prison made out of these laws. This slide is just a list of some of the titles. For example, the Public Health Service Act, 1944. 2002 was a really big one. They used the momentum from 9-11 and from the so-called anthrax attacks to pass a law that they had written a long time before, because they sort of developed them over time and build on the previous pieces that they’ve put into place. In 2002, they passed the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act. That, as far as I can tell, is the main organizing framework that got plugged into the Public Health Service Act for how to run these theatrical productions of pandemics and of vaccine development. 1944, Public Health Service Act. Here we’ll start to see the titles, like Title 42, Public Health and Welfare, are the broad category chapters where other things are put under. This is where they started the regulation of, it’s not where they started it. It started in 1902, but then they put it into this 1944 chapter, consolidation of public health law. And it’s about licensing of vaccine manufacturers. And sometimes there is a section about production of products by the Public Health Service itself. The key points in this fake regulation system is that the HHS Secretary now, it used to be other titles as it’s gotten moved around, but now it’s the HHS Secretary, designates establishments as licensed and supervises the pretense of product manufacturing regulation that is performed by the FDA and the drug companies together. They work together, with Guidance for Industry documents, with Biologics License Applications, with approval letters, to project the illusion that there is a stable identity for the products that they’re talking about, which are vaccines, and that they can be standardized and purified, and that they can be shown to be effective and safe. And none of those things are true. You can’t do that because biological organisms in their relationships with living or other biological organisms are dynamic. There is no stable thing, but they need to project the illusion because that’s how you get people to take vaccines, thinking there is a specific cause for a specific named disease and this specific named vaccine will prevent it or prevent transmission of it. That’s the foundation of the whole lie system. In that 1944 law they also put into place more formalized versions of quarantine and inspection programs and in this section you find that the president is the person who designates what is a communicable disease subject to public health control by executive order. No physical evidence is required. There’s no process for anyone to assess any physical evidence to say, “yes, that really does cause disease. No, it doesn’t.” And the reason — this is another theme that goes through all of these laws, making them into this structure — there can’t be requirements in the laws for physical evidence, because if they allowed or required physical evidence to be demonstrated, and if they authorized evidentiary review procedures, the stories fall apart. That’s where I said before, I’m not going to talk a whole lot about the scientific misconduct, but there are people who are now and have been for decades, picking apart the scientific papers and the methods to show that it’s garbage. But the president designates the communicable disease. In 2002, again, through that key organizing law, they added terms like “qualifying stage” and “pre-communicable stage” to authorize detention and isolation of people who don’t have any symptoms. This is where some of the asymptomatic stuff comes from, during the “incubation period,” which again, incubation period is a fiction, but it’s a fiction that has been very successfully projected. In 1969, President Nixon and other people in the world were saying that they were going to stop doing chemical and biological warfare research. They did not stop. They just relabeled it as being only for defensive purposes. And the law where they put that in is Title 50. Title 42 was Public Health and Welfare. Title 50 is War and National Defense. This law has been amended many times to shift around the parts, but always to keep in place the Department of Defense, and any of its contractors and public health officers and universities and hospitals, can do any kind of this research and use any kinds of these products as long as they say it’s for protective or medical or pharmaceutical purposes. 1973, this is Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse. It was the start of a program for population planning and health programs. And the main piece of it was to get vaccination going in low-income countries of babies and children and women of childbearing age. In 2022, this is the section where Congress added in the International Pandemic Preparedness Programs, which are related to the Global Health Security Agenda that is pushed by the World Health Organization through the International Health Regulations, which James [Roguski] talks about in much greater detail than I ever can or will. That 2022 bill gave a whole bunch of money to strengthen vaccine readiness and reduce “vaccine hesitancy” in other countries. It’s money going out of the US to get people to take vaccines elsewhere. 1983 is when Congress introduced the term “public health emergencies.” It was very short in 1983 and then in 2000, they repealed that one and put in a much more expansive version of it. This is the subsection under which the PREP Act is located, which I talked about before. They don’t need physical evidence. The [HHS] Secretary just unilaterally says “a public health emergency exists” or there’s “a credible risk of a future emergency.” Department of Homeland Security Secretary and Defense Secretary can do similar unilateral determinations, and from those determinations, follow the declarations, PREP Act declarations that apply the liability protections to the makers and users of the countermeasures. 1986 was when Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and a new law about exportation of partially processed biological products. 1986 is also the beginning of putting the crime of terrorism into federal law under Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure. This is a slide about how they sort of developed the position that it is now, which is that there are some people who do have lawful authority to use biological agents, toxins, vectors, and chemical weapons, again because they’re categorized — without physical evidence, without evidentiary review — as being for a purpose that is peaceful or protective. In 1987, to fund the compensation program for the [National] Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, they passed another piece of the Internal Revenue Code. This is Title 26. And the tax code is, I have learned, this was one of the most surprising things to learn all the way out, there’s no physical definition of vaccine in federal law in the public health section or in the terrorism section or any other section at all. The only definition of vaccine is in the tax code, and it’s defined as “any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of one or more diseases.” And again, there is no physical aspect to that. It’s based on the intent of the designer. There’s actually no designer of vaccines either. In 1990, you’ve probably heard about Dr. Francis A. Boyle, has done tremendous work, has now passed away. He’s a legal scholar and constitutional expert in all kinds of things. He was one of the people who helped to draft the biological weapons crime law in US law that implemented the UN Convention on Biological Weapons. And here’s an example of, in this law, when it was passed in 1990, it specifically says “the term for use as a weapon does not include...any biological agent...used for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes.” I know I’m repeating myself, but this is the theme because this is where the deception sits. At the same time, they set up under Title 10, which is Armed Forces, the Biological Defense Research Program. Then they expanded the preparedness sections of Title 50 to add preparedness for weapons of mass destruction and then we get to 1997, where they set up the “expanded access to unapproved therapies and diagnostics program.” This was basically a lateral move because they were trying to get people to think that they were stopping use of experimental products on military personnel. So they took the, some of the sections that were about this subject out of the military laws and put it into the Food and Drugs title, Title 21, through the FDA Modernization Act. This also has been amended and expanded many times, and this is where the emergency use authorization or EUA products section was put in in 2003 and 2004 and then expanded from there. This is a slide about how they’re related to each other, what I just said about this substitution. Then in 1998, Congress passed the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, similar to what the biological one had been in 1990. Again, it had exemptions for uses claimed to be for peaceful, protective, military, law enforcement, research, pharmaceutical, medical, and agricultural purposes. They set up a new part of the criminal code for chemical weapons specifically. That’s just a summary slide of what I just said. And that’s a summary of no physical definitions or evidence are required to distinguish biological agents and chemical toxins that are capable of causing harm from drugs and devices that are legal under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Acts or from EUA products or from biological products under the Public Health Service Act. The reason why is because biological organisms combined with chemical toxins, combined with delivery systems like carrier molecules, lipid nanoparticles, syringes, which is what vaccines are, is essentially bloodborne toxins injected into a living organism on purpose, which is a weapon. They don’t want people to know that, but they want to be able to do it. I’m getting towards the end. This is the one I talked about at the beginning, the [2002] National All-Hazards Preparedness for Public Health Emergencies and the Biological Select Agents and Toxins [BSAT]. This is one of the ones where they combined, like I said, some of the laws are about telling you to be scared and some of the laws are telling you…to trust the government and take the products that they say will protect you against the thing that you are being told to be scared of. And the point is you shouldn’t be scared of those things and you shouldn’t take the products. Homeland Security Act had a ton of stuff about this. I talked about the PREP Act already. In 2006, under Title 6, Domestic Security, which is the Homeland Security title, they more formalized the idea of a national emergency management system and preparedness systems. This had a lot to do with training state and local people to participate in federal management programs. Then in 2022, they added a Global Catastrophic Risk Management section, which is, again, taking this method they’ve been doing over time, making the coverage area for these laws or legal fictions to get larger and larger. So it went, using the momentum from Covid, they’ve expanded it from national to global and put that into US law and into the laws of other countries. This is the last law I think that talk about...the National Biodefense Strategy was put in in 2016 and through it, Congress basically told the Secretary of Defense and the HHS Secretary and the Department of Homeland Security Secretary and the Ag Secretary to get together and develop biodefense strategies including descriptions of what they were going to call, and do call, biological threats, biological warfare, bioterrorism. That list that I just went through is a list of laws and programs that Congress does have the authority to repeal and should repeal. They passed those things, so they can repeal them, because they’re based on false premises. They’re not needed for national defense or for public health or for any of the reasons they claim that they’re needed. However, those laws are very much needed for projecting the illusions that they want to project, to get people to be scared and to get people to take vaccines. So they probably will not repeal any of these laws. They worked for a really, really long time to put them together and they gain huge benefits from them. So I don’t talk about repeal as much as I used to. By about the middle of 2023, I realized that Congress is in on it. Presidents are in on it. Cabinet secretaries are in on it. Then I realized that judges are in on it. And then I realized that most of the lawyers are also in on it or supportive of it or too scared to talk about it. So I changed my focus to helping people, regular people who are not in government at all, not participate. To be able to see through the performative farces and understand that there is nothing airborne that they should be afraid of in social contact or ordinary life, and that they shouldn’t participate in projecting those illusions by talking about whatever the latest threat is that the government wants you to be scared of. You shouldn’t participate in projecting the illusion that vaccines are somehow medical products because they’re not. You shouldn’t take diagnostic tests. You don’t need to wear masks. You don’t need to distance yourself. You don’t need to take any of the products they recommend. And it’s a good idea to publicly ignore or challenge or ridicule people who do further the performance... Q&A transcript, excerpts. James Roguski:
KW: I don’t think the Constitution does have a provision that allows Congress to sideline itself or to sideline the judiciary. I think they did it anyway and I think the only reason it continues is because Congress accepts that the previous iterations of itself sidelined the current ones and because the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, accepts that those previous congresses sidelined the judiciary. And as long as they just go along with it, that’s how it works. But it’s not that it’s constitutionally legitimate, because it’s not constitutionally legitimate. It’s just, and you have found, several years ago, that thing about things that pass through the World Health Assembly by silence procedure, I think you called it, and it’s similar to consensus procedure. It’s an invention of parliamentary procedure where all you have to do for an illegitimate law or an illegitimate proclamation or whatever to move forward is keep quiet. And so that’s what they do. They keep quiet and all of these things continue to sort of run. The flip side of that is that, to the extent people realize that and stop playing along with the farce, it doesn’t work as well. The reason why it worked as well as it did, and to whatever extent it’s still working really well, is because all the people that you live with in your town are like, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, I believe there’s a big thing happening. I believe that we should take this stuff.” But if more people don’t even believe it and just have contempt for it, whether they go out and picket anywhere or not, it doesn’t work anymore because they really, really, really want people to voluntarily just go get these things. They really, really, really do not want to use the cards that they have to bring in the military and make it real obvious that they’re attacking people. I probably went off topic there a little bit, but no, I don’t think it’s constitutionally legitimate. It’s just carries on because Congress doesn’t stop playing along and the courts don’t stop playing along... Dr. John Montalvo:
Katherine Watt: I’m going to answer that by saying, I was aware from the beginning of the virus versus no-virus, no-isolated-virus-has-been-found argument. And I set it to the side because…all of my capacity was taken up with figuring out this legal stuff. Then in June 2024, I got a little bit of breathing space and was able to start processing some of it more and I had a look at, there’s a woman on Substack named Conspiracy Sarah who did a summary of Jamie Andrews’ work with the Virology Control Studies Project. And from that basis I looked at things by another woman by, named Tracey Northern, who has passed away, and a few other people, because I was trying to unravel for myself, what do they mean? What is meant by the word ‘virus’ when people use that word? And what is meant by the argument about whether it exists or not? The position that I have come to from that, which is open to change if I learn more, goes back to Antoine Béchamp and Louis Pasteur and their conflicts and things in the mid-1800s. And the concept of, or the term microzymes as an organism, that is an organism. They’re called that because they’re organized. Pasteur and other people were saying, the cell is the smallest living organism. And Béchamp said, there’s something even smaller and it’s the microzyme. Part of what I understand from him and from Jamie Andrews and from other people is that you can say viruses exist if what you mean is some very tiny living organisms that are in dynamic process, that things come off of them, like exosomes or proteins. Things are absorbed into them, like nutrients. But because they are dynamic, there is no fixed thing like a virus, like a single virus. There is this infinite number of microscopic, sub-microscopic living organisms that are always in relationship to other organisms in time. I’m not, I’m definitely not trying to evade what your question is. It is true, what you’re saying: they have never isolated a single virus and said, “here it is, a virus.” Dr. John Montalvo:
Katherine Watt: I don’t agree with that. I don’t agree with that. I think there is a false binary between the two of them, but I think there’s a lot to be said about the relationship between the work that both of them did… Bob Fiedler:
KW: I have spent the last few years reading on the side about Catholic social justice theory and political theory and economic theory because I want to prepare to write more about those things. I have not got to the point where I can succinctly answer questions like that. I’m not there yet because I’ve been spending the last few years doing this legal work and then doing the, trying to understand the scientific side of it. So I’m hoping to come out of that, those two tunnels and write more about Catholic social theory in the future, but I can’t do it right now. Sharon Ward:
KW: I know of him, and I’ll leave it there. These kinds of documents, because of the research that I’ve done, I interpret them as stage directions or theatrical scripts. They are capable of making events that follow the script, they are capable of making events that look like they’re following the script, even if the level of harm that they inflict is not at the scale that is in the script. So that’s how I would interpret that and how I interpret how what happened in 2020, happened. People talk about Event 201 and then interpret what actually happened after 2020 as, “oh, it really happened.” And I don’t look at it that way. I look at it as, they had a script and they projected the illusion, and they could project the illusion because they had the pieces in place to do it. Things like the PCR test, things like masking orders, things like business shutdown orders. So to the extent people look at the scripts and say, “That’s a fictional scenario that they want us to believe, because if we believe in it, we will go along and be participants in whatever happens.” If you can see it that way and then look at what happens and say, “Much of this, some of this, all of this is just an illusion. I do not have to be scared. I do not have to cooperate with whatever they’re asking us to do. I do not have to accept the invitation to be a participant in the performance” — I think those are good things to do… Charles Frohman:
KW: I think it’s all three of those things. And I think it’s been all three of those things since it got...The first nationwide campaign was the polio campaign, as far as I know, in 1955. And since then, they just ramp it up and add more and more. I think their highest priority, sometimes when I’m thinking about it, I think their highest priority is just to keep the channel open. Keep the concept of vaccination as something that people trust and cooperate with so that they can use it more or less at any given time to make people sick, so they have to spend more money on health care, to bankrupt the country from health care expenses and take productive resources out of commission because they’re going into taking care of disabled people or pensions, to reduce pension costs by having people die earlier, to control people by fear. So all of the things you said, but at the highest level, sometimes I think about it as, and this is related to why they can talk about, we’re going to “make America healthy again.” But the one thing they can’t talk about or commit to ending is vaccination programs, because it is such a useful device or deception. It’s like a spigot. They can use it to just drip poison into people over and over again as long as people don’t think about it and as long as people don’t stop taking them. So I think one of their goals is just to keep it, even if they have to back off slightly at any given time, they really want to keep that particular method of poisoning because it’s really, really effective. Charles Frohman:
KW: I stay with the nuts and bolts. I don’t actually think the nanotechnology has a lot of credibility to it. And part of — Sasha sort of summarized it as “junk is not technology.” Shoot, there’s a third one. Junk is not technology. Damage is not control. And I can’t remember what her third one was [micro is not nano]. But because I know that they don’t have the scientific techniques to make the vaccine products — even in the way that they say, they’re talking about them, as microorganisms or inactivated microorganisms specific to a disease that will prevent something, that’s all nonsense — I also know that they don’t have the technological capacity to do the nanotechnology in an electronic way. What they do have is the ability to project the fear and make people behave as if they have done some kind of mind-control thing and they do that through words. They don’t — Sasha talks about this too — they don’t do it through [electronic, wireless technology]. A sick person is more susceptible to being manipulated just because they’re weak and they’re sick. And they can poison you. They can cause organ damage — that’s the anaphylaxis thing that Sasha talks about and the induction of turbo cancers — it induces dependency on the government… I definitely don’t think by taking vaccines, they can block your connection to God. Your connection to God is because you have a soul, because He made you. And that’s not something that other human beings can interfere with. You can interfere with it by your free will, by rejecting God or turning away from God. But it’s not that somebody else comes in and makes you not have access to God… Dr. John Montalvo:
KW: I have not run into that specific, scientific papers on that subject, but that certainly fits with the way that the population control and the national security memoranda that Nixon was circulating in the 70s and the Club of Rome, all that stuff, they have wanted for a long time to reduce fertility. And vaccines are a really good way to do it. You can put anything you want in them. Nobody will know what it is you put in them. …Many of the things that you put in them, as we saw with some of the studies, to whatever extent you can believe the studies that are circulated, concentrate lipid nanoparticles and whatever their payload is in the ovaries. And so that damages fertility. I definitely think that vaccines are used, but no, I haven’t seen that specific paper or study… That was what I was talking about with the 1973 law. It was population [control]…they send the vaccines or they send the starter material for vaccines to the other countries and they attach money conditions, ‘you will get aid from the United States if you cooperate with this and hit your benchmarks of numbers of women and children and babies that you hit.’…
All content is free to all readers.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment