Viva Frei: "Brook Jackson files a qui tam fraud lawsuit alleging that the trials conducted by Pfizer in the development of the COVID-19 jibby jab were fraudulent, scandalous, totally, totally compromised, […] totally unscientific and garbage, but they got to the results anyhow by fudging their numbers. […]
Robert Barnes: "Yeah. She brought this to the Justice Department's attention while President Trump was still president. To take people back, the Pfizer vaccine received its Emergency Use Authorization based on the Defense Department approving a particular contract with Pfizer. What did President Trump's contract require? What was the deliverable, as they say in contract terms?
"Pfizer promised they would deliver a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 at speed and scale. In fact, they promised to deliver it prior to election day 2020. They actually had it available prior to election day 2020, but they hid that from President Trump.
[…]
"Why did Pfizer […] delay the announcement of the production of the COVID-19 vaccine? Because they didn't want President Trump to hold them to their contract. As the people around the world are discovering, Trump's going to hold you to account when it concerns American interest.
"Pfizer didn't want to be held to account because they already knew, based on what Brook Jackson had disclosed to Pfizer internally, that Pfizer's clinical testing was so radically inadequate, that it could not be any form of scientific basis to make any claim that the COVID vaccine was even a vaccine, least of all, safe or effective, or could prevent COVID-19 transmission or infection. That they couldn't in fact produce it at speed and scale. That that was in fact part of the problem with their clinical testing was attempting to do it at speed and scale, in ways that no vaccine had ever been approved in that time frame. […] In the contract, it says a vaccine is what we're paying for, that prevents the infection and transmission. […] We're not paying for a therapeutic.
[…]
"It wasn't a vaccine. It wasn't effective, because it didn't prevent any degree of transmission, infection. In fact, it had negative efficacy. What is that? It meant the more you took it the more likely you were to get COVID! Worst vaccine in history! And it sure wasn't safe. Pfizer's most recent list is like 25 different side effects, severe side effects you can get from the vaccine. They knew that at the time. […]
"So she goes in the Fall of 2020 and blows the whistle to the Justice Department, blows the whistle to the Food and Drug Administration. What happens? The same day she blows the whistle to the FDA, Pfizer through Ventavia, her direct clinical trial employer, fire her.
[…]
"Bill Barr hides this from Trump for the entire time frame. About almost a year into this whole process, […] I end up looking at the case […]
"We get the British Medical Journal, one of the most well-respected medical journals in the world, to independently vet and validate her allegations. They publish an article that goes global through Europe, but gets suppressed in the United States, saying that what she is saying is absolutely true and accurate, that these clinical tests cannot be trusted, and that this drug cannot be marketed as either safe or effective, or even a vaccine, given it's none of those at all.
"So we bring suit because this is a massive fraud on the American people that has caused injury to millions of people in America, including death, including disability, including discrimination, including severe injury. […] It looks like we're going to prevail and get to discovery. The Biden administration, at the very last minute, intervenes and demands dismissal.
[…]
"In their only ground, they cite no evidence. Not a single affidavit or declaration gets signed. They produce zero sworn testimony from anybody in support of it. They say, 'Judge, we're the United States government. So we get to have a monopoly over qui tam. We ask that you allow us to intervene so we can move to dismiss. We demand that you provide no evidentiary hearing of any kind for this. We demand you have no discovery of any kind for this. We demand that you require no evidence be produced for this. We require that you don't even disclose a legally sound reason for this. But we just want to do it and if we want to do it that's enough. It's against national health policy to question it.'
[…]
"The district court dismisses […] It goes up to the Fifth Circuit.
[…]
"Our argument to the Court of Appeals is this is inadequate for intervention. There's what's called an intervention procedure under the federal rules of civil procedure. It requires good cause. […]
[…]
"The judge said, 'No, you don't. The good cause is just the government wanting to do what it wants to do.' […]"
Viva Frei: "So which figurehead holds the power to reverse or change course? Is it HHS or the DOJ?"
Robert Barnes: "Multiple. So President Trump has the power to do it. Vice President Vance could have influence in that regard, then Attorney General Bondi has influence, Robert F. Kennedy Jr
@RobertKennedyJr (nprofile…2xll) at HHS has influence, and the newly appointed FDA commissioner will have influence. […]
"All five believe you should be able to challenge and question government corruption at any level, that you should be able to have a right to challenge whether a drug actually is a vaccine, whether it actually is safe, whether it is effective, whether it works for you as an individual. They believe in consent, which was always supposed to be required, informed consent as part of the EUA statute […]
"So what makes sense for them to do is to tell the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals they support Brook Jackson's complaint and want the case reinstated, not dismissed. […]"
Robert Barnes with Viva Frei @ 01:16:36–01:31:08 https://rumble.com/v6lj0vj-ep.-251-bogus-social-security-payments-doge-lawsduit-ws-maddow-defamation-a.html?start=4596
whygetfat / Why would I get fat?
npub1jl…8v44k
2025-02-17 20:47:16
Author Public Key
npub1jlgfk2cf0qdc6wsdgkcpyz2rs8kzh6rqxhgta6fca0st89j0gscq28v44kPublished at
2025-02-17 20:47:16Event JSON
{
"id": "a9e373a1fbdcec79d8169effa0bdae45770ace94073f2937ab9b38d2064ff702",
"pubkey": "97d09b2b09781b8d3a0d45b012094381ec2be86035d0bee938ebe0b3964f4430",
"created_at": 1739825236,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"28a18e28ed93afd0e7108dee504a9619cb7edc1adfcd47b6004f946398c063f4",
"wss://nostr-relay.bitcoin.ninja/"
]
],
"content": "Viva Frei: \"Brook Jackson files a qui tam fraud lawsuit alleging that the trials conducted by Pfizer in the development of the COVID-19 jibby jab were fraudulent, scandalous, totally, totally compromised, […] totally unscientific and garbage, but they got to the results anyhow by fudging their numbers. […] \n\nRobert Barnes: \"Yeah. She brought this to the Justice Department's attention while President Trump was still president. To take people back, the Pfizer vaccine received its Emergency Use Authorization based on the Defense Department approving a particular contract with Pfizer. What did President Trump's contract require? What was the deliverable, as they say in contract terms? \n\n\"Pfizer promised they would deliver a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 at speed and scale. In fact, they promised to deliver it prior to election day 2020. They actually had it available prior to election day 2020, but they hid that from President Trump. \n[…] \n\"Why did Pfizer […] delay the announcement of the production of the COVID-19 vaccine? Because they didn't want President Trump to hold them to their contract. As the people around the world are discovering, Trump's going to hold you to account when it concerns American interest. \n\n\"Pfizer didn't want to be held to account because they already knew, based on what Brook Jackson had disclosed to Pfizer internally, that Pfizer's clinical testing was so radically inadequate, that it could not be any form of scientific basis to make any claim that the COVID vaccine was even a vaccine, least of all, safe or effective, or could prevent COVID-19 transmission or infection. That they couldn't in fact produce it at speed and scale. That that was in fact part of the problem with their clinical testing was attempting to do it at speed and scale, in ways that no vaccine had ever been approved in that time frame. […] In the contract, it says a vaccine is what we're paying for, that prevents the infection and transmission. […] We're not paying for a therapeutic. \n[…] \n\"It wasn't a vaccine. It wasn't effective, because it didn't prevent any degree of transmission, infection. In fact, it had negative efficacy. What is that? It meant the more you took it the more likely you were to get COVID! Worst vaccine in history! And it sure wasn't safe. Pfizer's most recent list is like 25 different side effects, severe side effects you can get from the vaccine. They knew that at the time. […] \n\n\"So she goes in the Fall of 2020 and blows the whistle to the Justice Department, blows the whistle to the Food and Drug Administration. What happens? The same day she blows the whistle to the FDA, Pfizer through Ventavia, her direct clinical trial employer, fire her. \n[…] \n\"Bill Barr hides this from Trump for the entire time frame. About almost a year into this whole process, […] I end up looking at the case […] \n\n\"We get the British Medical Journal, one of the most well-respected medical journals in the world, to independently vet and validate her allegations. They publish an article that goes global through Europe, but gets suppressed in the United States, saying that what she is saying is absolutely true and accurate, that these clinical tests cannot be trusted, and that this drug cannot be marketed as either safe or effective, or even a vaccine, given it's none of those at all. \n\n\"So we bring suit because this is a massive fraud on the American people that has caused injury to millions of people in America, including death, including disability, including discrimination, including severe injury. […] It looks like we're going to prevail and get to discovery. The Biden administration, at the very last minute, intervenes and demands dismissal. \n[…] \n\"In their only ground, they cite no evidence. Not a single affidavit or declaration gets signed. They produce zero sworn testimony from anybody in support of it. They say, 'Judge, we're the United States government. So we get to have a monopoly over qui tam. We ask that you allow us to intervene so we can move to dismiss. We demand that you provide no evidentiary hearing of any kind for this. We demand you have no discovery of any kind for this. We demand that you require no evidence be produced for this. We require that you don't even disclose a legally sound reason for this. But we just want to do it and if we want to do it that's enough. It's against national health policy to question it.' \n[…] \n\"The district court dismisses […] It goes up to the Fifth Circuit. \n[…] \n\"Our argument to the Court of Appeals is this is inadequate for intervention. There's what's called an intervention procedure under the federal rules of civil procedure. It requires good cause. […] \n[…] \n\"The judge said, 'No, you don't. The good cause is just the government wanting to do what it wants to do.' […]\" \n\nViva Frei: \"So which figurehead holds the power to reverse or change course? Is it HHS or the DOJ?\" \n\nRobert Barnes: \"Multiple. So President Trump has the power to do it. Vice President Vance could have influence in that regard, then Attorney General Bondi has influence, nostr:nprofile1qys8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttjv4kxz7fwvf5hgcm0d9hzumnfde4xztcpzamhxue69uhkzarvv9ejumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcpzpmhxue69uhkztnwdaejumr0dshsz9nhwden5te0dehhxarj9ekkzmrfdchx7mnv9uq3gamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wv9ekge3wd4uz7qpq9zscu28djwhapecs3hh9qj5kr89hahq6mlx50dsqf72x8xxqv06qzk2xll at HHS has influence, and the newly appointed FDA commissioner will have influence. […] \n\n\"All five believe you should be able to challenge and question government corruption at any level, that you should be able to have a right to challenge whether a drug actually is a vaccine, whether it actually is safe, whether it is effective, whether it works for you as an individual. They believe in consent, which was always supposed to be required, informed consent as part of the EUA statute […] \n\n\"So what makes sense for them to do is to tell the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals they support Brook Jackson's complaint and want the case reinstated, not dismissed. […]\" \n\nRobert Barnes with Viva Frei @ 01:16:36–01:31:08 https://rumble.com/v6lj0vj-ep.-251-bogus-social-security-payments-doge-lawsduit-ws-maddow-defamation-a.html?start=4596",
"sig": "d9524770e75f1614cccd65c1f4d2f220d535de27e3986a0a32f5027e144f639f4f7ebcbcae728106239ad582dc0a8310b1f205d393555b671e4dbdb6e36c7fc6"
}