Why Did HHS "Partner" with DOD?

Review of Article by Debbie Lerman for Brownstone Institute

Here is a key piece of legal history examined by Debbie Lerman. She is also now on Substack, please subscribe to her Debbie Lerman’s Substack. I will be quoting from Part 2 of the series of articles on Brownstone website here, Part 1 is linked to it.

As you may recall, Operation Warp Speed was advertised as a “partnership” between HHS and DOD:

“One Government Entity” was an odd choice of words. We have separate branches of government and separate federal agencies for many reasons. Importantly, this was envisioned by the framers as a system where federal agencies’ authorities are limited, and where different branches of government serve as checks or limits to each other. All those reasons apparently could be disregarded seemingly in an instant, under a manufactured “emergency”.

At the time of the OWS announcement I thought it was odd that there was a need to bring DOD into this activity at all. What do they know about making drugs? Close to nothing. What do they know about pharmacy distribution chain in the US (which is fast, traceable, regulated by the states, very experienced, and is already established everywhere) - also not much. I later learned about the real role of the DOD in the “covid” mass murder exercise. I wrote many articles about it here, here and here, and made several presentations on this topic here and here.

While it is now very clear that the DOD has been leading and funding the mass killing of civilians and own service members (to be replaced by imported mercenaries via southern border trafficking), to date, the reasons for the DOD-HHS partnerships remained vague. We knew the criminals needed the fig leaf of a faked “public health emergency” to issue the PREP Act declarations and EUAs (here, here and here), but the topic of the “partnership” remained largely unelucidated.

Debbie Lerman, a journalist writing for Brownstone Institute, did some outstanding digging and analysis to uncover a really important piece of evidence of a carefully pre-planned, coordinated attack by the US federal agencies working in concert. It appears that one of the main reasons this “partnering” needed to happen was the use of Other Transaction Authority (OTA). It turns out, quite reasonably, different federal agencies have different scope of the OTAs. The scope of HHS’s OTA did not permit manufacturing pharmaceuticals at scale, especially not before satisfying regulatory requirements for safety.

To summarize the predicament of Other Transaction Authority/Agreements with respect to civilian authorities, in general, and Covid mRNA vaccines, in particular:

• OTA was written and codified as a way for the military to acquire weapons and other necessary systems and equipment without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. It covers research and development, prototypes, and subsequent manufacturing.

• The only OTA for a public health agency is for the HHS and it only covers Research & Development, not prototypes or manufacturing.

• Even the R&D OTA given to the HHS still requires products to be manufactured “in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements” for drug and vaccine safety.

In other words: There is no way HHS could have used its very limited OTA to sign contracts for hundreds of millions of novel medical products.

So what did HHS do?

As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in its July 2021 report on “Covid-19 Contracting:” HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities…which HHS lacked.” (p. 24)

Acting as separate federal agencies within the limits of their authorities, neither HHS nor DOD would have been able to order 100 million doses of unapproved, untested, previously thoroughly failed “vaccine”. So they “partnered” in order to break the constraints of their authorities:

While the HHS OTA requires adherence to extensive development and manufacturing regulations, the OTA pathway for the DoD to develop medical countermeasures requires only “FDA licensure.”

Thus, using DoD Other Transaction Authorities, it would theoretically be possible to bypass any safety regulations – depending on the requirements for FDA licensing of an OTA-generated product. As we will see, in the case of the Covid mRNA vaccines, Emergency Use Authorization was granted, requiring no legal safety oversight at all.

Another very useful insight from Debbie on EUA Countermeasures law is that the utilization of EUA in this “partnering” scheme is evidence in itself that the relevant US Government officials never believed covid was a viral pandemic. They knew it was a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) agent or combination of such agents. That is because the EUA law does not include naturally occurring viral outbreaks (if you believe those exist in modern sanitary conditions, I don’t). The fact that the senior government executives lied by pumping mass propaganda about the “wet market zoonotic jump”, utilizing massive network of DHS and intelligence contractors to censor any social media mention to the contrary, prosecuting and smearing any credentialed person who pointed to the holes in their narrative, performing endless clown-show Congressional hearings about whether it was a zoonotic jump or a Wuhan leak, and currently continue to pretend covid was a viral pandemic only points to one thing - this attack being perpetuated by those who lie and cover it up, i.e. the US Government officials themselves:

The wording of the EUA law underscores the fact that it was intended for use in situations involving weapons of mass destruction. Here are the 4 situations in which EUA can be issued:

1. a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents;

2. a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of Title 10 or Title 50, of attack with—

   1. a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or

   2. an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces;

3. a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or

4. the identification of a material threat pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad.

Nowhere in these four situations is there any mention of a naturally occurring epidemic, pandemic, or any other kind of public health situation that is not caused by “biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear agent/s.”

On What Legal Basis was EUA Issued for Covid mRNA Vaccines?

It would seem, based on the laws regarding EUA, that none of the four possible situations described in the law could be applied to a product intended to prevent or treat a disease caused by a naturally occurring pathogen.

Nevertheless, this law was used to authorize the mRNA Covid vaccines.

Given the four choices listed in the EUA law, the one that was used for Covid “countermeasures” was:

“C) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents.”

When applied specifically to Covid, this is how it was worded:

“the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)…”

There is no doubt here that “the virus that causes COVID-19” is deemed to be the equivalent of “a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents.”

It is also important to note that the EUA “determination of a public health emergency” is completely separate from, and not in any way reliant on, any other public health emergency declarations, like the ones that were made by the WHO, the US government, and the President at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic.

So even when the WHO, the US government, and the President declare that the pandemic is over, there can still be Emergency Use Authorization if the HHS Secretary continues to claim that the situation described in section C) exists.

Katherine Watt on how to prosecute this using the laws as material facts:

One possible scenario includes motions for summary judgment, asking the federal judges to review the evidence and arguments presented, and rule that there is no dispute as to material facts: that the evidence against the US Government is so clear, the cases don’t need to move to trial.

Plaintiffs will be arguing that the US Government has criminally built an illegitimate statutory, regulatory and executive authority framework to theoretically de-criminalize acts of terrorism and use of chemical and biological weapons against the American people when committed by the US Government itself through the Department of Defense behind the false front of ‘public health.’

And that starting in January 2020, named officials within the US Government actually used those illegitimate legal frameworks to turn real bioweapons on the people.

The US Government’s primary defense will — in all likelihood — be based on its arguments that everything done by defendants was authorized by Congress and US presidents through the same statutes, regulations and executive orders.

Which means that on the basic issues of material fact, there is no dispute.

The only questions are the moral and legal questions: can a government lawfully kill off its own people?

Judges can and do summarily grant relief to plaintiffs on the basis of solid pleadings, early discovery and lack of dispute over material facts.

The cognitive mind-fuckery the globalists set up is that there’s usually a difference between the facts and the law during litigation.

But in this case, the material facts are the laws.

Art for today: Angels and demons, 16x20.