Journey

Militarization of Global Health: Brook Jackson’s Pfizer Court Case

Rumble | Telegram (5mins)

This is the Other Transactions Authority, and this was something that actually got brought to the lexicon, and we will have the actual court documents, court records, filings in the actual links that we’re providing for this podcast, but there was a whistleblower, and the law we call this a qui tam relator. ^{(01) Case 1:21-cv-00008-MJT Document 2 Filed 01/08/21 https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-02/Brook-Jackson-FCA-Ventavia-lawsuit.pdf}

So, basically, Brook Jackson, who had 20 years of clinical trial experience for pharmaceutical and biological interventions, was working for a contractor of the main vaccine producer of 2020, and you can see that basically in response to her False Claims Act, she had been testing medical protocols and therapeutics for 20 years. She was a part of a subcontractor to Pfizer‘s work. This is all public record, and she documented that the clinical trials were failing traditional medical protocols, and specifically named how they unblinded the study after a short amount of time, which is a complete no-no. ^{(02) Up-to-date Timeline on Brook Jackson – Pfizer Whistleblower https://totalityofevidence.com/brook-jackson-pfizer-whistleblower/}

So, she felt that they, as a contractor subcontractor, were not completing the correct information, and basically, were not being diligent as required by law. She had been used to this for 20 years and followed the False Claims Act.

The federal judge ruled that she could continue, and Pfizer’s response was that they did not have to follow traditional FDA testing because they were contracted through the Department of Defense under their OTA (Other Transactions Authorization). ^{(03) Case 1:21-cv-00008-MJT Document 70 Filed 10/04/22 https://bailiwicknewsarchives.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/2022.10.04-jackson-v.-ventavia-us-gov-intervene.pdf Pfizer’s Response is mentioned by US Gov response on, p.6}

OTA is an agreement to develop prototypes for the defense department that are outside the scope of traditional medical testing. In other words, they argued that they were not required to follow normal medical testing protocols due to the way the contract was executed; it was not a traditional biological contract to execute with certain medical-grade testing.

That was quite alarming, but what is even more alarming is that the federal government filed a motion in support of that argument in October of 2022. So, we’re talking about the last quarter of last year when the federal government agreed and signed on to that argument, stating that the ability to come up with this therapeutic under this mechanism that happened in 2020 and 2021 did not follow those protocols. It was authorized outside of traditional medical testing protocols. ^{(04) Case 1:21-cv-00008-MJT Document 70 Filed 10/04/22 https://bailiwicknewsarchives.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/2022.10.04-jackson-v.-ventavia-us-gov-intervene.pdf}

Now, we’re going to talk about the OTA authorization. This is 10 USC 4022 and authorizes the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects. ^{(05) 10 U.S. Code § 4022 – Authority of the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4022}

This is what I really want you to see: subject to paragraph 2, the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) or the Secretary of a military department, or any other official designated by the Secretary of Defense, may carry out prototype projects that are directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platform system components or materials proposed to be acquired, developed by the Department of Defense or to improve platform systems components or materials used by the Armed Forces. The authority of this section may be exercised for a transaction of a prototype project and all of the follow-up and pursuant follow-up.

This is exactly the legal argument that Pfizer has put forth in this False Claims Act that is in federal court right now in the Eastern District of Texas. The United States government has agreed that this particular law is implicated in what happened in 2020.

So, the later part we call our whistleblower and a qui tam legal action, Brooke Jackson’s case is exactly what we’re talking about here.