The PREP Act and treason Part I of II
and, The PREP Act: Repeal is an uphill battle Part II of II
I am indebted to Our Greater Destiny Blog for formatting both of the above posts which contain extensive transcript material taken from Stephanie Weidle’s Feds for Freedom interviews with Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt. A monumental amount of important information is contained therein that all readers are encouraged to review in detail. A link to the full interview which appears at Bailiwick News under the title, The PREP Act: An act of treason is also provided for your convenience. It is impossible to overestimate the importance of the information contained herein.
The PREP Act and treason Part I of II
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 Leahy?, 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 co-ops 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 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.
The PREP Act: Repeal is an uphill battle Part II of II: Colossal deception disclosed
Repeal the PREP Act
34:00 Stephanie Weidle: If repealing the PREP Act cannot happen through the courts, how can it happen?
Latypova: We're focusing on this right now with a number of colleagues. The PREP Act must be repealed however this is a difficult uphill battle, which the current administration so far has expressed no interest in even acknowledging it’s the problem. The ultimate objective is to get rid of this evil law. It's illegal. It's unconstitutional law. The public and professionals, especially health care professionals and legal professionals, anyone with interest in it, doesn't matter which side they're on including the evil side. I'm happy to talk to anyone. Our children and grandchildren are going to be subject to this ultimately, so everyone needs to be educated about the monstrous illegality of all these EUA countermeasures being pushed as safe and effective approved FDA vaccines.
Bait and switch
35:33 Sasha Latypova: Peter Marks, head of CBER [Centre for Biologics Evaluation and Research] just resigned. He is the key guy who needs to be in jail, who needs to be on trial for his life, for committing mass murder because he was the one who fronted that bait-and-switch scheme. He was the one who went on record, even in court declarations and in other venues, he fronted this bait-and-switch. So EUA countermeasures are all these products and the PREP Act, and the current PREP Act declaration they can push out medicines or activities or whatever rules, masking, vaccines. They're not regulated and you can lie about them.
So, Peter Marks and his position of authority as head of CBER FDA, when a couple of his colleagues resigned because they wouldn't sign off on approval of these vaccines he took it on, this whole thing, instead. Took their jobs and played this FDA approval. Well, there was no approval. There's no legal approval applicable to this. And then he validated the fraud. He signed off on the fraud issuing these approval letters in August 2021 so that all of these things could be mandated. Under PREP Act, EUA countermeasures cannot be mandated. That's very clear. He did the bait and switch. He went on record, said these are fully FDA approved and then all the mandates.
Covid emergency is ‘not’ over - three calls to action
37:10 mins Katherine Watt: It would be useful if people looked back at the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr. because his analysis was largely based on the idea that the laws themselves were illegal. And therefore, the only appropriate way to respond to them is to refuse to obey them because they are immoral.
39:05 Sasha Latypova: Another thing, so there are three.
1] Repeal of the PREP Act
2] Education about EUA countermeasures and lying about fully approved status by Peter Marks and FDA and everybody else
3] We all need to call on RFK Jr., our current HHS secretary, to terminate current PREP Act declaration for COVID emergency extended by Xavier Becerra outgoing HHS secretary to last until December 31st of 2029. Nobody knows this, which is by design.
They want everyone to think the COVID emergency is over. It's not. It's fully extended. It's fully operational. And the law, the PREP Act, says that HHS secretary it's only his opinion. Nothing else matters. He doesn't have to take into account any data, any science, nothing. So it's only his opinion that there is a current emergency of COVID. So right now, we are supposed to interpret this as it's personal RFK Jr.'s opinion that we have a COVID emergency and we need to have those EUA countermeasure biologic shots on baby's vaccination schedules. That's his opinion. Until he terminates that PREP integration, which all it takes is a memo into the Federal Register, just a memo, just him saying I don't think so anymore. Thank you.
Self defense issue
42:12 Katherine Watt: If the people in Idaho went back and tried instead to amend their criminal codes, to add vaccines to things like gun and knife in assault with a deadly weapon, criminal statutes, because it gets more at the fact that vaccines do not have a medicinal purpose, they only have a poisoning purpose and the state has an interest in letting the people know what counts as a deadly weapon by adding vaccines to that list. Because in my view, it's not a medical freedom issue. It's a self-defense issue because these are not medical products. These are weapons.
44:05 How use of the phrase ‘unavoidably unsafe products’ in relation to vaccines strengthens the PREP Act.
46:21 How the people who pushed the COVID measures committed treason.
48:55 Freedom of Information [FOIA’d] requests reveal no record of ‘oaths of office’ for high-level officials in the first Trump administration and the Biden administration. Many health and related high level officials did not have oaths office executed while they were doing this.
Treason and the law
49:36 Katherine Watt: There are several laws related to that main treason one. It is also a crime if you know of treason not to disclose it. It's a crime to incite rebellion, which you can construe what the HHS secretary has been doing as a form of rebellion or seditious conspiracy. Another one prohibits advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government constitution and laws. That's Congress … basically did overthrow the U.S. government constitution and laws by passing the PREP Act and by not repealing it. Every day that goes by they are sitting in there and they know about this, which they do, and they don't put forward bills to repeal it they're adding their own ratification of the treason.
Militarized public health
51:16 Katherine Watt: They’re not hiding anything. They merged public health with the military. That's one of the nuances. I have a slightly different perspective on what Sasha and Debbie Lerman put together with the COVID dossier, because I think that... they say COVID was not a public health event, but I think it was a public health event to the extent that public health and military are the same thing. They have been the same thing for many, many decades. The public health part of it is the chemical and biological warfare part of the U.S. military. And so, yes, they're going to keep using it. They're going to keep pretending there are threats that don't exist and they're going to say that they do. They're going to keep pretending what they've developed is a remedy in some way or a preventative for the threat that does not exist. And the remedy itself is a poison. And they're going to keep using the whole package.
Covid is a military campaign
52:23 Sasha Latypova: I recently read a very detailed account of an official U.S. government biological warfare program going on before Nixon terminated it. It went on for 27 years and the scripts … developed back then … all these approaches of fear mongering about non-existent threats and coming up with remedies and solutions, which only evolve into more power and more money to the people who are implementing these things … that was back there. They renamed everything but it's the same thing.
Covid 1.0 and Donald Trump
54:38 When the original COVID emergency declaration was issued during Trump administration March 13th or something of 2020, it was made retroactive to February 4th, 2020. What happened on February 4th, there was a phone call coming from DARPA, DOD, to the pharmaceutical consortium that had been previously established since the beginning in 2012 to manufacture these, to create this manufacturing base for vaccines, for pan-influenza vaccines, and they've been funding it all this time.
They called them on February 4th and told them that COVID has been declared a national security threat. The person placing the phone call, or at least in charge of this notification, was Colonel Matt Hepburn of DARPA. He's the mastermind of the pandemic preparedness plan, which was the plan for the DOD to identify pandemic potential viruses based on nonsense like PCR and computer modeling, and for the pharma companies to make vaccines and therapeutics within 60 days to which the person on tape, VP of monoclonal antibodies for AstraZeneca, Mark Esser said, initially, I thought it was science fiction.
On February 4th, DOD, DARPA specifically, Matt Hepburn went ahead of the president of the United States declaring this and distributing a humongous amount of money. $50 billion already went out of the door before Trump could even blink under all of this. Jennifer Santos who was head of purchasing pushed the button, Trump got enraged, fired her. She was immediately moved to the Navy, but there was a big drama about this.
They went ahead, screw Trump, we don't need his approval. They went ahead, distributed money, gave orders, declared a national security threat. Then at some point, I think Jeffrey Tucker actually at Brownstone traced this through Trump's tweets that at some point on March 10th or 11th, Tucker Carlson went to Mar-a-Lago and convinced Trump somehow, I don't know how, that he needs to go along with all of this. They brought him on board. He declared the Stafford Act Declaration and that's why they made it retroactive to February 4th when DOD declared it, not Trump. So that's why we're saying it's a military campaign. It's driven from DOD somewhere. I don't know exactly where, probably DOD and CIA together, I would think, and DARPA and BARDA and all those other acronyms.
Tucker Carlson in Mar-a-Lago
Mar 18. 2020
Since Carlson’s visit to the Mar-a-Lago, Trump declared a national emergency over the coronavirus and requested an $850 billion stimulus package to combat the economic impact. See this article in Washington Examiner Online.
Solutions
58:30 Sasha Latypova: I recommend praying and meditating, reading the Bible and stories that tell you to do the right thing regardless of the circumstances or outcome. You have to think about it and meditate on this and do the right thing every day and all the time. The right thing includes, yes, absolutely civil disobedience with this illegal monstrous attack on all of us. In addition to vaccines, refuse Real ID, refuse biosecurity measures, refuse digital money, programmable money, refuse all those 15-minute cities and all those acts they try to implement mostly through public health measures you notice, because this whole structure now hinges, I agree, it's a campaign that is using public health to install fascism. Where they try to dictate things in schools, try to dictate things to you in civil life and businesses, you should find those hallmarks of where this is all going in one direction, refuse those and refuse to comply.
Request for help
If you have time and resources to spare, help us, help us do this. A nurse, Laura Desmarais is organizing all these meetings and county commissioners. We have a whole procedure of how to go and talk to your county commissioners about them and encourage them to issue declarations. That can be done by activists, by people on the ground, by people who have some resources to contribute to this. Lawyers, please help us. That's what we can do. We can rebut this.
Please consider circulating this to all your contacts.