The PREP Act and treason Part I of II

A most important interview of the last 5 years.

Disclaimer

I personally do not advocate any process or procedure contained in any of my Blogs. Information presented here is not intended to provide legal or lawful advice, nor medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, cure, or prevent any disease. Views expressed are for educational purposes only.

If you took the covid shot or not, this is a must know

From Jason Christoff
May 15.25

If the majority of people across the planet took time to watch the video or click the video transcript button, and summoned the courage to uplevel themselves, the world would soon change for the better.

Key elements

I tried to capture all key discussion points, some more detailed than others and not verbatim. A full transcript is available with the video in Part II.

Apr 24.25
Stephanie Weidle, Feds for Freedom interviews Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt.

13:31 mins Stephanie Weidle: The PREP Act, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, was enacted in 2005 under George W. Bush. It gave liability protections to pharmaceutical industries and health care providers during public health emergencies. What is particularly of interest in our discussion today is the ability this Act gives to rapidly produce and distribute medical countermeasures with no liability and with no need to provide informed consent. How does this usurp the U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions?

Treason

14:34 Katherine Watt: There are three sections of it where the core of treason sits. The overall section is 42 USC 247D-6D and the three sections are B7, B8, and B9.

B7 is the one that precludes all judicial review of an HHS secretary declaration or determination. They have a couple different names for a couple different types of things they do. One is the determination that an emergency exists, which they can do without any evidence. There's no requirement for any evidence. There's no standard of evidence. They just say that that exists and that is taken as a presumption that if they say it exists, then it does. Then there's declarations, which are built on that determination, and the declarations pertain to the products. That's them saying that given I, the HHS secretary, have said this threat exists, I am also declaring, unilaterally, also without any evidence, that I recommend ... the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, and use of covered countermeasures. So it covers the products and it covers the event that is the pretext for the products. There can be no judicial review of either of those things under this B7 section.

Then there's the B-8 section, which is the preemption of state law that says to all of the states, nothing you have in your laws or your constitutions or any other legal instrument in your state can be different or can impose different standards or can do different review type things for the things the HHS secretary has said about the threat existing and about the products.

The third piece is B-9, which is a report to Congress. It basically says the HHS secretary should report to Congress within 30 days why he has done this. But it doesn't say anything about, again, evidence. He doesn't have to produce any evidence. Congress has no authority explicitly. They don't explain or provide or have any provision for them to overrule or override or review what the HHS secretary has said exists, which may not exist at all. And in this case, it did not. And they have no ability to override what he says about the recommendation for these countermeasures to be produced and used.

17:16 Stephanie Weidle: What was going on in 2005 that made the states not rise up against this Act?

9-11 stepping stones

Katherine Watt: They were traumatized into compliance by 9-11 and so-called anthrax attacks of 2001. Those also were orchestrated. They were used as the pretext to put into place these laws and many other laws that had been written long before the events actually happened because they had been building up. That's how they do it. They do piece by piece by piece, adding on more and more layers. I think what the states were told starting in 2001, there is this huge bioterrorism threat. You must prepare your states for it, and you must submit your states to federal jurisdiction and authority in the event that these things happen.

18:18 Sasha Latypova: They were plainly just paid off. This money, the spigot of money that comes from the federal government, which said we're going to put this law and you're going to get all this funding for all these preparedness measures and so forth.

Poli-tricks

19:14 Katherine Watt: Part of that is that the Republicans slipped it into an Appropriations Bill on December 18th of 2005, which I think was a Sunday night. The other senators found out about it that night or later the next day. They were pretty quick about getting a legal opinion from Edwin Chemerinsky who's a legal scholar, and they entered that information, their objections, based on his very good constitutional analysis. He wrote his letter to them December 20th. December 21st, they had the only, as far as I know, debate or discussion of this provision because it had only been added three days before. That's when Kennedy and Clinton and Trump, these other Democrats did their speeches on December 21st. Then they had a vote on a motion to remove that section from the Appropriations Bill. That vote was actually kind of a party line vote. The Democrats did vote to remove it from the Defense Appropriations Bill. The Republicans voted for it, but it failed. And then they had the vote on the overall Appropriations Bill to which this had been attached, and they all voted for it.

Setting the stage

20:34 Stephanie Weidle: What was this Act used for between 2005 and COVID?

21:26 Sasha Latypova: Up until 2020 it's never been used nationally. They were using it essentially as a kind of money laundering mechanism. They would order these poisonous concoctions and things from their crony companies. The government is the sole buyer. It goes into stockpile. They used it on service members. They used it on military, the anthrax and all that but they never applied it nationally. I think those were like practice runs to get everyone accustomed for 20 years that we're just buying things for national stockpile. Maybe sometime we'll need it. And then it was the whole shock in combination with the Stafford Act declaration done in all 50 states, which has never been done before. All this enormous campaign and then forcing everyone, all the civilian population, and then also lying.

The feature in this law is that you can lie about countermeasures, which are not regulated, no consumer protections apply to them, and you can lie about them. Misbranding is legal under this law. Lying about the fact these are fully approved medications, that they're safe and effective, all of this is legal. That has never been used for good reason, because it would have been caught and terminated, right? So they wanted to use it, but only when it mattered, which is now.

EUA countermeasures

23:08 Stephanie Weidle: How do they say the line ‘we can lie about it’ phrased in the PREP Act?

23:13 Sasha Latypova: It says specifically that regardless of anything that happens, these products, EUA countermeasures, shall not be considered adulterated, meaning anything goes, they're not regulated, can contain any ingredients. Or misbranded, which means lying is okay. They're not regulated for honesty in marketing or honesty in claims and safety claims, efficacy claims. None of it is applicable. It’s okay to lie about them.

23:44 Katherine Watt: And the other piece of that are omissions from the law. There is no provision that requires anything to be pure, or demonstrated pure, or unadulterated, or demonstrated unadulterated, or accurately labeled and demonstrably accurately labeled. They don't have those provisions, which means you can't be found in violation of a provision that doesn't exist.

Emergency relief funds

24:14 Stephanie Weidle: Do you have records of the money given to the states under the PREP Act?

24:20 Sasha Latypova: Yes, I have some examples of intergovernmental contracts. There is a huge amount of those. Original appropriation was like two trillion, but I think it was more like four trillion spent on this.

Masking

Sasha elaborates further on contracts directly with states, municipalities, school districts, big corporations. Katherine talks about the CARES Act, early congressional acts to funnel funds, emergency relief funds with strings attached, and Stephanie’s stunned response to measures the state and/or the district would take to try to bribe home schoolers and home school coops into masking their children

27:45 Sasha Latypova: You know why they were so set on masking? Masking was one of the most important pillars of this whole thing because we're just now finding out from another collaborator who's working on identifying all these PCR tests and so forth, masking induces acidosis because you're re-inhaling your own CO2. In fact, it induces acidosis within 30 minutes of masking. You re-inhale your own CO2 and depending on your health status and vulnerability, age and so forth, and it's more prevalent in children and in elderly, you're going to get dehydrated, you're going to get acidified and your mouth and nose are going to get acidified and that triggers positives for PCR. That's the thing that PCR measures is acidity levels. So that's was their mechanism too. And it also can trigger a vulnerable state in the winter for some people, it can trigger a cold. Actually it is the mechanism to induce common cold and to undo it is to deacidify quickly. That's demonstrated in clinical studies. And they knew it. That was the mechanism to make people sick and trigger false positives for those people who were not sick.

State vs. PREP Act conflict

29:54 Katherine Watt: North Carolina Supreme Court ruling late March 2025. I tend to think the Supreme Court is going to come down on the side of yes. Congress intended with the PREP Act to void the Constitution, to shut down all of the state legal instruments that might have gotten in the way or might in the future get in the way of getting these poisons into as many people as quickly as possible. And that will be like another ratification layer. I do think it's a good case and I do think it sets up a good opportunity to clarify the disaster that the PREP Act is for a lot more people.

License to kill

32:49 Sasha Latypova: The PREP Act is a license to kill. Obviously, if you want to run a deception like this, you know that by force you're not going to get very far. You're going to get stopped. So you need to deceive people into voluntarily submitting to those injections. And then with all this fake theater and COVID pandemic fear mongering and Johns Hopkins’ tracker of COVID all over the place, that's what they were doing … so people voluntarily run in and get those injections.

https://substack.com/@sashalatypova/posts
https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/archive

Part II

Repealing the PREP Act is an uphill battle.
https://www.ourgreaterdestiny.ca/p/the-prep-act-repeal-is-an-uphill

Without prejudice and without recourse
Doreen Agostino
Our Greater Destiny Blog
lawusa