Case law reality check: PREP Act is the governing law for covid shots and other "countermeasures".
The license to lie, steal and kill withstood all attempted litigation, no matter what the FDA says about "full licensure".
This article is too long for email, please read in app or browser.
Announcement: if you are following the relevant case law, you may be interested in attending the court hearing in Brook Jackson’s case v. Pfizer. Oral arguments are scheduled on December 3, 2025 at 9:00 AM Eastern in the 5th Circuit’s En Banc Courtroom. This is a public hearing. You can attend in person in New Orleans or listen to the livestream. Link (active during hearing only): https://ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/court-calendars/Details/1901/
Now, to my main post.
As partial motivation for the slog it took to compile this report: I get constantly accused, attacked and bullied by prominent “freedom fighters” and “freedom scientists” alike that I am wrong to point out that federal drug/biologics regulations and law are inapplicable to mRNA vaccines and other “covid countermeasures” for the duration of the PREP Act emergency declaration for covid, now extended to end of 2029. They call me all sorts of vile names on social media and insist that the FDA must find “contamination” of the vaccines with “DNA” a sufficient basis for removal of these products from market. Somehow FDA can’t “find” the “contamination” with “DNA” despite this being replicated finding, published in peer review, including by the FDA themselves. FDA is laughing at this issue as I type this. Yes, correct, the covid shots are an unregulated river of toxic sludge from chemical factories, however, precious SV40 is THE thing everyone must worship because Kevin and Jikky say so!
This article should disabuse you of any notion that the covid shots and other covid products are “fully approved”. They remain EUA in disguise, despite fake labels stapled to them. As a reminder, it is legal for “covered persons” to lie (misbrand) “covered countermeasures” per US law:
No, “FDA approval”, “BLA license”, etc. claims do not matter. Not even a little...
Background
The “legal preparedness” for faking and profiteering off the global pandemics by the Biodefense Public Private Partnership took several decades. A key event on that timeline is the passage of the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act with its ironclad liability shield for any harm, injury or death resulting from use of “countermeasures” by “covered persons” as long as they follow the orders of the HHS/DOD. The PREP Act, a federal statute, served as practically impenetrable wall against civil liability for all entities engaged in the faking of the pandemic and profiteering off the response. Since the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) first invoked the Act in March 2020, with retroactive dating to February 4, 2020, thousands of claims—ranging from product liability suits against pharmaceutical giants to negligence actions against local pharmacies and constitutional challenges against school boards—have been systematically squashed by the Act’s broad immunity provisions.
This post provides a non-exhaustive report of the dismissals and liability protections afforded under the PREP Act through 2025, including the data from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), appellate court rulings, and state supreme court decisions. This analysis demonstrates that the PREP Act has functioned exactly as designed: diverting the vast majority of injury claims away from the civil tort system and into a dead-end federal administrative process.
The CICP has denied or dismissed over 98% of the more than 14,000 claims filed, primarily due to strict statutes of limitations and high evidentiary burdens. In the civil courts, a “wall of immunity” has largely held firm. While federal courts have occasionally remanded “inaction” cases (such as nursing home negligence) back to state jurisdictions, state courts have increasingly applied the PREP Act as a substantive defense to dismiss claims with prejudice. To date, the only divergent decision in state supreme courts regarding whether federal preemption can extinguish fundamental state constitutional rights is the rulings in North Carolina’s Happel case versus Maine’s Hogan decision:
Full Report
Section 1: the PREP Act
1.1 The PREP Act and the Declaration Mechanism
Enacted in 2005, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d and 247d-6e, authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to issue a declaration that provides immunity from liability for any loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration or use of a “covered countermeasure”. This immunity is triggered only when the Secretary determines that a disease or other health threat constitutes a public health emergency.
On March 10, 2020, Secretary Alex Azar invoked the PREP Act, declaring COVID-19 a public health emergency retroactive to February 4, 2020. This Declaration activated the liability shield, which protects “covered persons” from suit and liability under both federal and state law. The statutory definition of “covered persons” is expansive, including:
Manufacturers: Entities that produce the countermeasure (e.g., Pfizer, Moderna).
Distributors: Entities that supply the countermeasure (e.g., McKesson).
Program Planners: Entities that supervise or administer a program for dispensing countermeasures (e.g., CVS, Walgreens, state health departments, school districts).
Qualified Persons: Licensed health professionals and other individuals authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense countermeasures.
The statutory language dictates that courts “must dismiss” claims brought against covered entities. This mandatory dismissal provision is the primary driver of the high failure rate for plaintiffs in this domain. The Act effectively strips civil courts of subject matter jurisdiction to hear tort claims, converting what would ordinarily be lawsuits for negligence, battery, or malpractice into administrative petitions.
1.2 The Scope of “Covered Countermeasures”
The definition of “covered countermeasure” has been a critical factor in litigation dismissals. The Declaration defines these as any antiviral, drug, biologic, diagnostic, device, or vaccine used to treat, diagnose, cure, prevent, or mitigate COVID-19.
The HHS Secretary issued twelve amendments to the Declaration, expanding the scope of coverage to include practically anything remotely imagined touching “countermeasures”, including flu shots (even though the authorities insist that covid is separate “novel virus” and not influenza), including telehealth providers, pharmacists and interns (and unlicensed medical students), thereby preempting state licensing restrictions; and extending immunity to manufacturers of NIOSH-approved masks and respirators, and including anything that is used to treat covid vax injuries too! (see discussion below).
These amendments broadened the “kill zone” for civil litigation. By explicitly naming pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and interns as “qualified persons” and expanding the definition of countermeasures to include routine childhood vaccinations administered during the pandemic, the HHS effectively ensured that even wider array of civil claims would face immediate dismissal under the federal preemption doctrine.
1.3 The “Willful Misconduct” Exception
The sole statutory exception to PREP Act immunity is for death or serious physical injury proximately caused by “willful misconduct”. However, proving willful misconduct is exceptionally difficult to impossible. It requires “clear and convincing evidence” of:
Intentionality: An act taken intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose.
Lack of Justification: Acting knowingly without legal or factual justification.
Disregard of Risk: Disregard of a known or obvious risk so great as to make it highly probable that harm will outweigh the benefit.
Furthermore, a plaintiff cannot simply file a willful misconduct suit in state court. Such claims must be filed exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and only after the plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies through the CICP. To date, the only case that has attempted this pathway is:
The case is pending appeal.
It is very important to realize that “fraud” is not “willful misconduct”. The intentional procedural bottleneck set up by the PREP Act to preempt any legal recourse for harmed, injured and bereaved Americans has resulted in the dismissal of numerous cases where plaintiffs attempted to allege “fraud” or “gross negligence” in state courts to bypass immunity, only to find their claims preempted because they did not meet the strict federal statutory definition or procedural requirements of willful misconduct.
For further reading, the extensive briefing on the PREP Act and its legal history are here.
Section 2: Administrative Dismissals via The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP)
The most significant volume of “dismissed” cases to date has been accomplished by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). The PREP Act sends all non-willful misconduct claims to this “no-fault” compensation fund. The data reveals that the CICP acts as a virtually impermeable barrier to compensation, functioning essentially as a dismissal mechanism for the vast majority of applicants.
2.1 The Volume of Claims and Denials
As of November 1, 2025, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) reports the following statistics regarding COVID-19 related claims:
Total COVID-19 Claims Filed: 14,027
Claims Denied/Dismissed: 6,030
Claims Found Eligible for Compensation: 86
Claims Actually Compensated: 41
Claims Pending Review: 7,911
These figures indicate that of the adjudicated claims, approximately 98.6% have been denied or dismissed. This represents the largest single tranche of “dismissed” cases related to COVID-19 vaccine injuries.
The high rate of dismissal within the CICP is driven by strict evidentiary standards and statutes of limitations. The breakdown of the 6,030 denied claims is as follows:
Missed Filing Deadline 2,466 (41%)
Medical Records Not Submitted 2,120 (35%)
Standard of Proof Not Met 1,186 (20%)
Not a Covered Product 258 (4%)
Statute of Limitations (2,466 dismissals, 41%): The PREP Act imposes a strict one-year statute of limitations from the date of administration of the countermeasure. This is significantly shorter than the three-year window typically allowed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) for other vaccines. Consequently, nearly half of all dismissals occur because claimants failed to file within this narrow window, often because they were unaware of the program’s existence or the diagnosis of their injury was delayed.
Evidentiary Failure (1,186 dismissals, 20%): Claimants must prove their injury was the “direct result” of the countermeasure based on “compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence”. Unlike the VICP, which utilizes “Injury Tables” that presume causation for certain conditions (e.g., anaphylaxis occurring within 4 hours), the CICP places a heavy burden of proof on the petitioner. This has led to the dismissal of thousands of claims where temporal proximity (getting sick shortly after vaccination) was insufficient to prove causation without a specific biomarker or established medical consensus linking the vaccine to the injury.
2.2 The “Black Hole” of Litigation: CICP vs. VICP
Legal scholars and plaintiff attorneys have characterized the CICP as a “black hole” where claims go to die. The program differs from the VICP (another black hole) in critical ways that facilitate dismissal:
No Judicial Review: Unlike the VICP, where petitioners can appeal determinations to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, CICP decisions are final administrative actions generally not subject to judicial review. This lack of oversight means errors in adjudication cannot be corrected by an independent judiciary.
No Attorney Fees: The CICP does not pay for attorneys’ fees or costs. In the VICP, attorneys are paid reasonable fees regardless of whether the claim is successful, provided it was filed in good faith. In the CICP, claimants must often proceed pro se or pay out of pocket, leading to procedural errors—such as failing to submit medical records (2,120 dismissals)—that result in denial.
Compensation Cap: Even when successful, the compensation is limited. For example, only 41 COVID-19 claims have been paid out, totaling a fraction of what would be expected in tort litigation.
The sheer volume of these administrative dismissals—over 6,000—dwarfs the number of civil lawsuits filed. For the purpose of counting “cases dismissed due to the PREP Act,” these administrative denials constitute the bulk of the data and represent the primary mechanism by which the Act limits liability.
Section 3: Judicial Dismissals in Product Liability Cases v. Manufacturers
In the civil court system, lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers (Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca) have faced near-universal dismissal. The PREP Act preemption is most clear-cut in this arena, as the core purpose of the Act is to shield the creators of medical countermeasures to encourage rapid innovation during a crisis.
Litigants attempting to sue manufacturers for adverse events, failure to warn, design defects, or deceptive marketing have found the federal courts to be deaf, blind and unreceptive. The PREP Act preemption is interpreted broadly to cover all aspects of the product’s lifecycle, from design to marketing. The following is a review of the most notable cases to date:
State of Texas v. Pfizer, Inc. (2024): In a high-profile attempt by a state attorney general to bypass PREP Act immunity, Texas sued Pfizer alleging misrepresentations concerning the efficacy and transmission-prevention capabilities of its COVID-19 vaccine. The state argued that these “deceptive trade practices” fell outside the scope of “administration” of a countermeasure. In December 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the entire complaint in a succinct two-page order. The court ruled that “as a matter of law... the Defendant is entitled to immunity under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act.” The court further held that the Act preempts state enforcement actions just as it does private tort suits.
A similar case, State of Kansas v. Pfizer is pending in state court: The case was originally filed in June 2024 by Kris Kobach, Attorney General of State of Kansas. The lawsuit alleges that Pfizer, Inc. misled the public about the safety and efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine, in violation of the state’s consumer-protection statute. Despite making many poorly substantiated claims, the case has so far fared better than AG Paxton’s case (TX v Pfizer). Pfizer initially removed the case from state court to federal court (District Court for District of Kansas). On May 13, 2025, U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree granted Kansas’s motion to remand the case back to state court, rejecting the federal-court jurisdiction invoked by Pfizer. Thus the case has been sent back to Kansas state court, where it will proceed under state-law claims. I have written previously about this case here.
J.C. v. Pfizer, Inc. (2024): The Middle District of Florida dismissed product liability claims against Pfizer, ruling that the plaintiff could not meet the stringent requirements for a willful misconduct claim and that all negligence-based theories were expressly preempted by the Act.
Diaz v. Moderna US, Inc. (2024): The Western District of Washington dismissed a product liability claim for injuries sustained from the Moderna vaccine. The court stated that Congress intended for the CICP to be the sole remedy for such injuries, regardless of the severity of the alleged harm.
Gieser v. Moderna Corp. (2024): A pro se prisoner’s claims for personal injury were dismissed by the Eastern District of California. The court noted that willful misconduct claims must be brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and require exhaustion of administrative remedies, neither of which the plaintiff had satisfied.
These dismissals demonstrate that there is virtually no path for a state-law tort claim against a COVID-19 vaccine manufacturer to survive a motion to dismiss. Courts have consistently held that the PREP Act “occupies the field,” meaning it completely displaces state laws regarding vaccine safety and efficacy.
Even creative legal theories have failed. In T.C. v. Pfizer, Inc. (affirmed by the 9th Circuit in 2024), the courts rejected attempts to frame the case as “fraud,” “battery,” or “unjust enrichment” to avoid preemption.
3.1 Ongoing Litigation Using Contract Law Theory: Dressen v. AstraZeneca
Brianne Dressen, a participant in the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial in 2020, suffered a severe neurological injury shortly after the injection. Unlike typical plaintiffs who sue for tort damages, Dressen sued for breach of contract. She alleged that the Informed Consent Form (ICF) she signed was a binding contract in which AstraZeneca promised to “cover the costs” of medical treatment for any research-related injuries. AstraZeneca refused to pay, citing PREP Act immunity against “all claims for loss”.
In November 2024, the District Court of Utah denied AstraZeneca’s motion to dismiss, ruling that a “breach of contract” is not a “claim for loss” in the tort sense; rather, it is a claim for the enforcement of a promise.
In November 2025, AZ argued in the 10th district court that the PREP Act immunizes them for “all claims”, including contract claims. This court decision is pending.
I have written about Dressen’s case previously here:
Section 4: Theories of Fraud and Consumer Protection
With tort avenues blocked, plaintiffs’ attorneys turned to fraud statutes to try to hold manufacturers accountable for alleged data manipulation and misleading marketing.
The False Claims Act: Jackson v. Ventavia: Brook Jackson, a former regional director for Ventavia (a contractor running Pfizer’s Phase III trials), filed a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act (FCA). She alleged that Ventavia unblinded participants, falsified data, and employed inadequately trained staff. She claimed Pfizer used this “fraudulent” data to secure FDA authorization and billions in government payments.
I have written extensively about this case. This case was key in uncovering that covid is a global military campaign and not a public health matter at all:
The District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed the case, and the dismissal was under appeal in the Fifth Circuit throughout 2024 and 2025. The dismissal relied on the Supreme Court’s Escobar standard of materiality. Under the FCA, if the government continues to pay for a product after knowing of the alleged fraud, the fraud is not “material.” The court found that the FDA was aware of Jackson’s complaints but continued to authorize the vaccine.
The Fifth Circuit is reviewing whether the “government knowledge” defense applies at the motion to dismiss stage, but historically, this defense has been a formidable barrier for whistleblowers in the pharmaceutical industry.
Oral arguments are scheduled on December 3, 2025 at 9:00 AM Eastern in the 5th Circuit’s En Banc Courtroom. This is a public hearing. You can attend in person in New Orleans or listen to the livestream. Link (active during hearing only): https://ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/court-calendars/Details/1901/
Section 5: What About Medical Malpractice?
Besides the manufacturer liability, the most litigated area involves the administration of vaccines by pharmacies, clinics, and school districts. Plaintiffs have tried to argue that errors in administration—such as giving the wrong vaccine, vaccinating the wrong person, or failing to obtain consent—should not be covered by the Act, as they constitute simple negligence rather than emergency response. However, these claims, too have run into the brick wall of the PREP Act preemption.
5.1 The “Wrong Vaccine” and Administration Error Cases
A frequent litigation scenario involves a patient requesting a flu shot but receiving a COVID-19 vaccine “by mistake”, or vice versa. Plaintiffs argue this is a “medical error” unrelated to the pandemic. Courts have largely disagreed, dismissing these cases under the PREP Act.
Cowen v. Walgreen Co. (2022/2023): This case serves as a primary precedent. The plaintiff went to a Walgreens pharmacy in Oklahoma intending to receive a seasonal influenza vaccine. Instead, the pharmacist accidentally administered a Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. The plaintiff sued for negligence and battery, arguing she never consented to the COVID shot. The Northern District of Oklahoma dismissed the case, and the 10th Circuit effectively let the dismissal stand. The court ruled that the injury was causally related to the administration of a “covered countermeasure” (the COVID shot). Crucially, the court rejected the argument that the plaintiff never intended to use the countermeasure, holding that the Act covers the physical act of administration regardless of patient intent.
Storment v. Walgreen, Co. (2022): In this case, a plaintiff fainted in a pharmacy parking lot after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, sustaining injuries from the fall. She sued regarding the safety of the premises and the failure to monitor her for the required 15-minute observation period. The District of New Mexico dismissed the case, reasoning that the fainting and subsequent fall could not be “divorced from the administration of a covered countermeasure.” The court held that the observation period is part of the administration process, and thus any negligence during that time is shielded by PREP Act immunity.
5.2 A Rare Win in Court Leads to HHS Scy Broadening the PREP Act Coverage Even More.
Some success was achieved in court where the medical provider tried to hide behind the PREP Act in case of a “non-countermeasure” medical error.
Goins v. Saint Elizabeth Medical Center (6th Cir. 2024) In January 2024 the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit limited the scope of PREP Act immunity in the context of medical malpractice. The plaintiff, Lisa Kay Goins, received a COVID-19 vaccine and subsequently experienced fluctuating blood sugar levels. She sought treatment at St. Elizabeth Medical Center, where physicians, allegedly baffled by her symptoms, performed a pancreatic biopsy to investigate. Goins claimed the biopsy was negligently performed and caused severe injury. The defendants argued that the PREP Act immunized any medical professional providing care to a patient who suspected a vaccine reaction. The court ruled that PREP Act immunity requires a “causal link” between the claim and the administration of the countermeasure. The court noted that “vague speculation” by doctors that symptoms might be vaccine-related does not convert standard medical care (a biopsy) into the administration of a countermeasure
I believe it was due to this case that the extensions of the covid emergency declarations broadened the scope of the PREP Act immunity coverage to infinity and beyond. It now includes any “health provider” such as medical students who have not graduated or obtained licensure, include seasonal flu shots, and also include treatments of the injuries induced by countermeasures, and anything used to treat “viruses mutating from SARS-Cov2” so that the line of prosecution used by Goins would be cut off for future plaintiffs as well. The latter category, the “mutating viruses” is pure genius. Any PCR test after any procedure, spitting out whatever nonsense can therefore “immunize” the medical staff from any butchery they commit. Wow. Current HHS Scy, RFK Jr, refuses to even acknowledge that this represents any particular problem with respect to the quality of healthcare medical practice in the US. He has not indicated that he plans to terminate the PREP Act declaration of covid emergency or any of the nine currently outstanding non-existent “emergencies”. God help us all.
5.2 The Violation of Parental Consent
A major subset of administration cases involves the vaccination of minors without parental consent. The PREP Act’s preemption of state laws requiring consent has been a powerful tool for dismissal.
Politella v. Windham Southeast School Dist. (2024): The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit where a school “mistakenly” vaccinated a 6-year-old child against COVID-19. The parents had expressly refused consent. The parents sued the school district and state officials for battery and negligence. The Vermont Supreme Court held that the school officials were “program planners” and “covered persons” under the Act, stating that because the claim arose from the administration of a vaccine, PREP Act immunity applied, regardless of the lack of consent or the error involved.
M.T. v. Walmart Stores, Inc. (2023): The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed a lower court and ordered the dismissal of all claims brought by a mother whose minor daughter was vaccinated at Walmart without parental consent. The lower court had allowed the claims based on “parental rights” to proceed. However, the appellate court ruled that the PREP Act preempts state parental consent laws when a covered countermeasure is involved.
Hogan v. Lincoln Medical Partners (2025): The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the dismissal of a similar case where a 5-year-old was vaccinated without consent at a school clinic. The court held that federal law conferred immunity and preempted state tort claims regarding battery and interference with parental rights.
These cases illustrate a judicial consensus that the “administration” of a vaccine is a federalized activity under the PREP Act, insulating providers from state tort liability even when they violate state laws regarding consent or standard of care.
Section 6: Constitutional Challenges
The most recent development in 2025 is the emergence of constitutional challenges that survive dismissal. While the PREP Act effectively blocks tort claims (negligence, battery), recent rulings suggest it may not block claims based on fundamental state constitutional rights.
In March 2025, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued a ruling in Happel v. Guilford County Board of Education that diverged from the national trend of dismissal. The case involved a 14-year-old boy, Tanner Smith, who attended a football practice where COVID-19 testing was required. Despite his objection and the lack of parental consent, a clinic worker administered a COVID-19 vaccine instead of a test.
The court, in a 5-2 split decision, affirmed the dismissal of standard tort claims (battery) under the PREP Act. However, it reversed the dismissal of state constitutional claims. The majority held that the PREP Act’s immunity extends only to tort liability and does not preempt claims alleging violations of the state constitution’s “Law of the Land” clause, which protects bodily integrity and parental rights.
This decision represents a significant “crack” in the PREP Act shield. It implies that while plaintiffs cannot sue for money damages under tort law, they may be able to pursue constitutional claims against governmental entities (like school boards). This reduces the total “dismissal count” by allowing a narrow category of cases to proceed.
Additionally, on June 2, 2025 Hogan SCOTUS petition was filed challenging the ruling by the Maine Supreme Court, which held that 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d (the PREP Act) preempts state common-law claims, including battery and constitutional injuries, when a federally declared “countermeasure” (such as a vaccine) is administered to minors without parental consent. The Petitioners argue that the PREP Act’s immunity provisions, as interpreted by the Maine court, are unconstitutional.
Conclusion
To date the PREP Act has functioned exactly as designed by Congress: it has prioritized the profits of the pharma-military-industrial complex over individual tort compensation, trashing the US Constitution and any protection of the bodily autonomy, consumer safety, parental rights, employment rights, drug/medical device regulations and many other things besides. The wall constructed by the US Congress in 2005 has caused immeasurable harm and death to the American public while enriching members of Congress, their families/friends and their accomplices in pharma via swift dismissal of thousands of legal claims. While some employment mandate-based cases resolved in favor of plaintiffs, for the vast majority of litigants—whether they are claiming a manufacturing defect, a pharmacy error, or a nursing home failure—the PREP Act remains an insurmountable barrier, resulting in the almost inevitable dismissal.
Bottom line - anyone claiming “mRNA vaccines are really BLA (fully FDA approved) and regulated” are 1)ignorant about the governing law - PREP Act; 2)controlled opposition; 3) grifters; or 4)all of the above.
Art for today: Lifting Fog, oil on panel, 12x12 in.
"Adulterated"...what a nice word - like "oops" we got some dirt in the batch...
Thanks for keeping on keeping on Sasha, and shining a light on the darkness.
Oh dear Lord, Sasha. This is just... I had no idea the extent to which this PREP act just eviscerates the United States Constitution.
How do the Judges live with themselves. Not to mention lawyers defending the PREP act.
The rage I feel when reading this article scares me when I think of how I would react if my child was given a cvid shot without my knowledge. Really, it scares me.
Thank you for providing all of this material, again, for us.
This is a totalitarian dystopia.
I'm a bit hesitant to listen to Brooke's arguments next week. I have visions of my laptop sailing through the window.