“Contracts for Crimes” – Pfizer’s ATI-MCDC Technical Direction Letter – Part I

Spread the love

Loading

by SASHA LATYPOVA

An attorney once told me “you cannot contract for a crime”. I think this is very true, and I think ultimately the truth will prevail. In the meantime, let’s talk about the art of writing contracts for giving future crimes appearance of lawful acts. Here is a lesson brought to you by your government-military-industrial complex.
 
This post is Part 1 of the series that will cover publicly available Pfizer-ATI-MCDC-DOD-FDA-HHS contracts that have been disclosed to the public through Jackson v. Ventavia, Pfizer and ICON.
 

These agreements refer to a third, still undisclosed contract, called the “Project Agreement.”
 
Here is the overall structure of how I think these documents fit together. This is a long-term contracting framework where first an “umbrella” agreement is established and then specific projects are separately negotiated and signed-off.
 

 
DOD-Pfizer Base Agreement.
 
This agreement was signed on July 20, 2020 between Advanced Technology International (ATI), located in Summerville, SC and Pfizer, Inc., New York (NY). ATI is the Consortium Management Firm (CMF) managing several industry consortia for the Department of Defense purchasing various things that they need. An eye-watering amount of money flows through this company, which is a specialist in “Other Transaction Authority” contracts – i.e. a way of contracting favored by the DOD because accountability and regulatory compliance can be avoided, and lots of secrecy can be maintained. ATI manages consortia that primarily make weapons and things related to defense. There are two consortia that have “biopharma” and health related companies in it, working on so-called dual-use (civilian and military) technologies. The consortium that is responsible for making “covid countermeasures” managed by ATI is called MEDICAL CBRN [Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear] DEFENSE CONSORTIUM (MCDC).
 
Authority cited in the contract: MCDC Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) No. W15QKN-16-9-1002 and 10 U.S.C. § 2371b, Section 815 of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Public Law (P.L.) 114-92.
 
I will review some key sections of this contract – the ones I find particularly relevant to how we ended up with “legal” (on paper) mass genocide of Americans and global population through a pretend “vaccination campaign” and under largely faked “public health emergency”.
 
First the general comment. It is a convenient, knee-jerk reaction to blame “bad Big Pharma who captured the Government” and try to bring the pharma to court. Sometimes you can even succeed in taking big pharma to court! Even Pfizer – several times in the past! This typically happens when the government needs to utilize corporate vassals as a crumple zone and “prosecute their crimes” to satisfy the thirst of masses for punishing the evil corporate baddies. After that the government obtains even more power and even more regulatory authority and even bigger budget to protect us from future corporate malfeasance, of course. Win-win. The corporate baddies continue as if nothing happened but nobody seems to notice. This may even happen with covid crimes, and maybe even soon, I am not at all discounting this possibility. Notice that Woody Harrelson was allowed to talk about bad pharma that bought off the government on SNL already! Your masters have thought of everything and are preparing the escape ramps.
 
I agree that pharmas are very bad, corrupt, and are in the criminal cartel that’s committing worldwide murder. The head of the cartel is not the pharma, however, and I believe that a proper investigation and prosecution strategy must take this view. Note that I also do not think that the US DOD is the ultimate head of the operation – they are the executor, the global military enforcement structure. They are the Chief Operating Officer and the CEO is someplace else. The head of the snake is located somewhere towards the global banking area. My post is about the immediate structure we are dealing with: DOD-FDA-Pharma as evidenced by their own written agreements.
 
I hope you can see this structure through the review of the the DOD contracts for covid countermeasures (~300+ available today). These contracts are written by the Government, by the Department of Defense and not by private pharmaceutical companies. The discussion below relates to the specifics of what these contracts state.
 
Review of specific clauses in the “Base Agreement”.
 
“Section 1.03 Scope” (emphasis mine):

Under the OTA [Other Transaction Authority] and associated Project Agreements, the Government along with the Consortium member entities, shall perform coordinated planning and research and development prototype efforts in support of the JPM-MCS mission [Join Project Manager for Medical Countermeasure Systems] through the development of products in three (3) major Medical Countermeasure Systems (MCS) objective areas:
 
Detection: Systems and devices to identify CBRN [Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear] agents and assist in making medical decisions
 
Prevention: Prophylaxis, pretreatment, and post-exposure prophylaxis
 
Treatment: Therapeutics (post-exposure, post-symptomatic)
 
The Government will determine which endeavors to pursue and projects to fund.

This states that the Government and the consortium members (Pfizer and other manufacturers) coordinate the R&D, but THE GOVERNMENT DECIDES what projects are going to be funded. The Government is calling the shots (no pun).
 
“Section 1.04 Goals/Objectives” as it relates to therapeutic products:

Deliver therapeutic MCM [Medical Countermeasures] prototypes targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DOD. MCM prototypes are drug products that have completed all or part of the activities required to support FDA licensure. This may include meeting warfighter requirements of protection against an aerosolized route of exposure.

Wait, what?? You mean toxins are a thing to be worried about? Not “engineered viruses that escape from labs”? You don’t say!
 
Even more interesting here: the drugs produced under this framework do not have to comply with the FDA regulations for pharmaceutical drugs – they can be partially tested, if at all. What does “part of activities” even mean – a cell culture? An 8-mouse experiment that failed? It is not surprising to anyone paying attention: this is an OTA contract, no regulations are necessary. And of course when one is making a prototype, it does not need to be fully baked. What is a prototype? Here is an example – a prototype of a new Ford vehicle being sculpted out of clay.
 

Ford Evos Concept - Clay Modeling - Car Body Design

 
Nobody is expecting to drive this vehicle! Prototype is a mock-up, a rough draft, something that helps visualize or plan a product, not a fully functioning, fully usable (especially not on mass scale) product. So why would you expect a prototype drug (or vaccine) to be safe and efficacious, or protective? Yet, curiously, the Government keeps using “protective”, “safe and effective prototype” language in these contracts. This is important:
 
Without the “prototype” language, the DOD could not use the OTA funding and contracting mechanism at all. They would have to use proper, accountable and regulated contracting methods instead.
 
To be compliant with Armed Forces Research Project rules, the project team must ensure that:
 

  • The project includes a prototype per the statute and the transaction will: “carry out prototype projects that are directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces;”

Tra nslation: we can order a bunch of stuff-n-things under OTA as long as we get them as prototypes, i.e. pretend, mock-ups, non- or partially functioning stuff-n-things.

Here is the language about “vaccines” that would be ordered through this contract structure. They are ordering another research-y/prototype-y thing, but they call it a “manufacturing platform”:

Develop vaccine-manufacturing platforms that offer early stage manufacturing flexibility and diversity using a deep knowledge of protein(s) expression in a biological system that is reproducible and scalable, and preferably with direct FDA experience. The goal is to manufacture and test identified protective molecule(s) and target molecule(s) (along with associated reagents and standards) in multiple scalable, flexible manufacturing platforms encompassing a diverse array of manufacturing systems (e.g., insect, mammalian, live viral, plant, E.coli, yeast, etc.) for use in appropriate animal model(s) and in Phase 1 trials.

Note that the goal of this effort is not fully tested vaccines that comply with cGxP laws. Instead it’s “flexible manufacturing platforms” encompassing “diversity” of manufacturing systems. Huh? What does that mean? None of these terms are defined, so this is an eye-of-the-beholder thing, open to interpretation, disputes and ultimately probably unenforceable. This part just requires many of systems of different kinds. Sounds like many manufacturing facilities filled with many types of equipment, vats, biobags, computers, cell lines and cultures, assay kits, etc. etc. etc. and located in many places.
 
Incidentally, the DOD/alphabets have been building out this enormous capacity aiming for every state of the Union and many international locations. They come up with cute names for this, like National Resilience (alias “Ology” here is the contract, alias “Nanotherapeutics” – another oh-oh name). The Government seems very interested in buying EXTREME MANUFACTURING COMPLEXITY, for no clearly stated purpose that would justify the complexity. I think they want it to look something like this:

Read more
 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Pfizer Kills People