Interview de Alexandra Latypova au Comité Corona (transcription complète en anglais).

La traduction française est ici.

Source de la vidéo. Source de la session complète.

Viviane Fischer: We have a new guest. It’s Mrs Alexandra Latypova. She’s a former pharmaceutical industry executive. Hello.

Alexandra Latypova: Hi everybody.

Viviane Fischer: Hello, nice to see you. It would be great if you could maybe introduce yourself a little bit. What’s the most important things that you would like to share about your CV with our audience?

Alexandra Latypova: My experience is in pharmaceutical research and development. I spent about 25 years in the industry in various roles. Early on it was data analysis and later on I started working in clinical trials and in technologies that are used in clinical trials for various drug assessments such as imaging technologies, electrophysiology and many other techniques. I co- founded several clinical research organizations. These are companies that are contractors to pharmas, working in clinical trials. I worked eventually for approximately 60 pharmaceutical companies all over the world, mostly in the US and Europe but also in Asia. And Pfizer was my client and in fact they were my investor twice and we had an R&D collaboration around these technologies that can be used in clinical trials. And I also worked directly with FDA in the areas of cardiovascular safety assessments and participated in FDA industry consortia around methodologies to perform cardiovascular safety assessments in clinical and preclinical research. I retired from the industry a few years back and I wasn’t working when this whole Covid scam started. I became immediately concerned due to my knowledge that things were going very wrong, that the practices and policies that were being put in place just didn’t make any sense. I started looking into the situation more closely. I worked initially by analyzing CDC VAERS data set because it’s publicly available and then later on, now, I work on various documents that become available through freedom of information lawsuits. I review these documents and I collaborate with various groups trying to provide them expertise and interpretation of what’s in these documents so that various actions can be taken by public and also by law firms.

Viviane Fischer: So you have a lot of experience in this field, obviously. What results from all of this is that you think that all safeguards and regulations that were used, that the public relied on for years – and also assumed that they would continue to be in place – are basically abandoned. Could you maybe elaborate on that?

Alexandra Latypova: That’s the biggest lie about these so-called vaccines. They’re not vaccines, they’re not even pharmaceuticals and I will explain [that] in my presentation. But that’s the lie that was sold to everyone globally that this is a medicine but it’s not a medicine. And once the public was told this is a medicine, a vaccine, everybody’s expectation was that all these safeguards that we’re used to for medicines were in place and they were not. And they actually do not even legally apply to these products although that’s a question. You cannot contract for a crime, they have contracted for a crime and they’re committing it as we speak. And they’re calling it legal but it remains to be seen – and I can explain in my presentation. I have some slides if I can share?

Wolfgang Wodarg: Just share your screen.

Alexandra Latypova: The topic of my presentation today is to talk about these injections and specifically about regulatory and manufacturing fraud because not a lot of people have addressed this particular issue and this has been my focus.Through this investigation I realized that there’s a deep collusion between manufacturers, global regulatory agencies. It’s not just FDA, it’s EMA, all of them, and especially with the US Department of State. This entire program is headed by the US Department of State. This is a military action, a military program that has suspended all safety rules and regulations everywhere in the world effectively. And they’re colluding with pharmaceutical manufacturers to drive these deadly products throughout the world.

So far, this is overall a very high level summary of all evidence for these Covid 19 injections that we have today and I think most of us here will agree on these points. They were covered in your investigative committee also quite extensively.

So, first of all these products are toxic by design. There’s been numerous publications explaining how that is and overall the numerous mechanisms of injury designed into these products. They interfere with your genetic processes that are ongoing in your body all the time. While the manufacturers a claiming that there’s some sort of helpful protein that gets expressed, that’s not how the human body works. It really just breaks down the immune system leading to all sorts of catastrophic consequences. We now know that there is no safety of these products. The death and injury toll is simply horrific all over the world. It exceeds all previous high numbers from old publicly available databases. Yet nobody in authority is paying attention to it or when that point is brought up to them, they just plain deny it and gaslight the public. There is no efficacy of this product. I’ve yet to see anywhere that somebody could show a lasting protection from these injections. They don’t. Now the governments want people get injected every 3 to 4 months. That’s just ridiculous for something that’s called a vaccine and there’s absolutely no protection against Covid illness that these products can provide.

Now the focus of my presentation today will be mostly on manufacturing and how this fraud is committed from the framework, how this cartel formed, who are the participants of the cartel and what exactly they are doing. The bad manufacturing, few people have addressed it but this product is completely non-conformant because it doesn’t have to conform. It’s a prototype, it’s not a pharmaceutical so it’s highly non-conforming to its label and it’s extremely variable. It does not conform to good manufacturing practices and there is no enforcement of good manufacturing practices anywhere in the world where such laws exist. There is obviously malignant policy from the governments. We know that they’re lying, we know that they’re covering up, they’re gaslighting the families of killed and injured by these shots. They demonstrated very, very clear intent to harm through all these actions. At this point everything should be deemed intentional. All the injury and death toll should be deemed completely intentional.

Now let’s talk about manufacturing to just bring out the point what is good manufacturing practices. In the US, it’s a set of laws and rules and regulations which is in the code of federal regulations. It’s a very extensive set of laws that covers high quality, consistency, purity standards for drugs, vaccines, also covers food and beverage – mass produced. The expectation is that every batch of every new product is about the same as the previous batch of the same product and that they conform to the label, they don’t have impurities and they don’t have anything toxic. There’s also, in the case of these Covid 19 injections, the expectation that they’re even interchangeable between different brands although no testing have been done to demonstrate that. These rules and regulations exist in other countries and they’re very similar. In the US they were developed somewhere between the 1900’s and 1960’s and there’s a very extensive set of them. It was in response to a lot of people being poisoned and killed by badly produced products at the time and in fact it’s a severe crime to introduce an adulterated product, a product doesn’t comply to these rules into interstate commerce in the US or internationally.

When I first started looking at these Covid 19 injections, I wanted to understand how they look like versus something that was more traditionally compliant with our good manufacturing practices. Because we were talking about an alleged vaccine, I decided to compare it with the traditional flu vaccines and I took all the data from VAERS database that coved traditional flu vaccines. I plotted it on this graph. On the X axis we have all the lot numbers for flu vaccines. This is about a dozen manufacturers, different products, all injectable flu vaccines, and on the Y axis I have serious adverse events and deaths. I never include all adverse events because there’s a lot of administrative issues and maybe minor things so I just want to focus on serious and death. As far as serious and death, as you can see, these are very consistent products are they never vary much. The average is around maybe 3 or 4 serious adverse events per lot. Then we have some outliers – we only have 2 outliers here over many years and the largest was 37 reports per lot. This is approximately how a product in compliance with good manufacturing practices would look like for a vaccine product and that should be the expectation.

When I looked up the Covid 19 injections, the picture was dramatically different and this is extremely alarming. It’s so bad that it should have been a flag right away for any regulator on any level – federal state, local. We all have established regulators at all levels of the government that can flag issues with abnormalities, abnormal patterns with any products in their jurisdiction and then a recall can be issued. But nobody did that. We see this huge variation between lot to lot for all these Covid 19 injections. Here, by the way, I have all the verified lots from CDC, we have a complete list of lots that were issued in the United States with correct lot numbers, manufacture dates and expiration dates. So all of these are valid and yet you can see they are hundreds and thousands of times larger in variation compared to flu vaccine, which is all under this red line here, and all of these are so much higher. We have the range of up to 1 500 serious adverse events and that’s for a lot and then we have some lots that have very few and then we have a huge difference even between – you can visually see it – between different manufacturers. We have Janssen here, Moderna all these here, and then Pfizer – look at this. This was incredibly alarming and in fact there was one flag issued very early on in the rollout by Orange County, California. They detected on 1/18/2021, so just couple of weeks after the mass roll out of these injections, they detected one lot from Moderna that they said generated a substantial number of adverse events. However nobody else was alerted. This was in the news but no other health authorities were issued any communication. The manufacturer did not stop this lot, did not recall it, nobody from the health authorities forced a recall and this lot was continued to be sold all over the United States until it ran out in March. It also generated about a thousand of serious adverse events and close to 60 deaths. So all of those should be deemed intentional because the authorities did flag it, they did find that it was generating abnormal adverse events. Yet nobody did anything to stop it and they continued pushing it into people.

Viviane Fischer: In this Pfizer representation there, it seems if there’s a toxic lot, then it’s very toxic.

Alexandra Latypova: These ones, yes, they’re extremely high and they’re extremely toxic. Usually these ones generate a lot of deaths as well so I didn’t itemize death here but yes. We see these large lots generating a lot of deaths but it’s not always. Sometimes even a small one will generate abnormal number of deaths. They also vary by lethality as you can see. So there’s huge variation all over the place.

Wolfgang Wodarg: So you will for sure tell us something about the reason for those variations.

Alexandra Latypova: Yes, we found many reasons. People often told us, « You guys are conspiracists and that’s all just because of the size of the lots are different » and actually they are not that different. We later received just recently – there was FOIA data request information came out and they provided all the shipments of Pfizer products in the US by lot number and what number of doses. When I plotted them by date of manufacture here on the X axis, and we’re just looking at deaths – here it’s easier to see – so when adjusting for the lot size – here I adjusted by 1000 doses – we see this very strange picture. There is a huge variable – these are up to 12 times different from these. And look at the dispersion especially at the beginning of the year. Then this variability declined and toxicity declined but the variability is still unacceptable in this part of the graph. It’s just that it gets dwarfed by this part of the graph. All of this should not be there. The expected relationship should be like flat line, zero and as close to zero as possible. But here we have a definite statistical relationship, for Pfizer it’s both between the date of manufacture. Think about it, you should not have any difference in toxicity of a product depending on the date it was manufactured and also, the same relationship exists between even the alphanumeric codes for Pfizer and Moderna. They also cluster – I’m not showing it here – but they also cluster around different alphanumeric codes. We know which letters and numbers stand for what level of toxicity today. And we can tell it to people and in fact we have been, on our website.

That’s the situation that absolutely is alarming and absolutely obvious, has been obvious from the start and no health authority ever noticed it. That’s extremely concerning and again that points to intentional act.

Viviane Fischer: I don’t know if you’re going to come to that but I have a question, before I forget. In the beginning there was the elderly and the sick, already sick people maybe, who got vaccinated and then we had the younger people who were admitted. So when you see that until April 21 could it be that this has the variability because of more intense reactions, because of the age group that got vaccinated? Are you going to come to that question later?

Alexandra Latypova: Yeah, I have a slide on this in my backup slides in fact. That question was asked frequently and here is the answer – this is by the way by my German colleague and this is based on German data. Age doesn’t influence this as much as you think. We had 12 times difference which between the low lethality lots and high lethality lots. There were some older people but remember in the early roll out there were also healthcare workers so it was never just old people. The average age has always been fairly low. It’s not in the eighties, it’s much less. But here my colleague from Germany did analysis looking at the influence of age over these effects of death and these adverse events and it turns out age has only partial explanatory power, does not explain all of – it actually explains very little of it. So here we have something like 18, 13 percent explained by the age and the rest is not explained. And you can visually see it. If you did different tests on the lots that were shipped to Germany with the severe adverse events and deaths and you plotted them here, you can see for example here, it very clearly can be seen on this graph, the age here is less than 60, so this is maybe 58 year old, and you can see this vertical dispersion of the results of the adverse events. This means that for the same age they have the lots that were less toxic and far more toxic. This is a huge dispersion and it goes almost everywhere, you can see that. And you can see here 60 or 70 even, so there is this very not toxic and this is around 80 years and very highly toxic and it goes all over the place. So because the data exists in this cloud, it just tells you age doesn’t explain it – it explains a little bit.

Viviane Fischer: Okay, thanks so much.

Alexandra Latypova: [Let me go back.] And there are also other patterns of a strange variability also still unexplained. Another one of my colleagues put together this chart for the US. We have very strange geographic abnormalities in terms of how toxic these products are. So when we look at data in VAERS, that’s all 100 percent vaccinated populations so policies of local governors do not play a role here. Everyone who got vaccinated is covered by this. We look at death per hundred thousand vaccinated people in the state then we see this picture which is also quite strange. For example South Dakota is the worst state in the Union right now. It has 33 deaths per hundred thousand vaccinated people and the next worst state is Kentucky with just 24 per hundred thousand vaccinated people. And then we have states like Utah and California for example with only 1.7 and 1.9 so that’s a huge range. Again, there’s no way to explain this by normal demographics of the states. In fact, California has poor demographics if you think about homeless and drug addicted populations and so forth. So that’s unexplainable right now and nobody seems to be concerned about this. But to me it just says that the product is gigantically variable and whatever they’re shipping to these different states is extremely variable, too.

So given this variability of manufacturing, the manufacturer is producing highly, highly variable products and that creates these strange patterns abnormalities whichever way you look. I started next looking at the regulatory documents that I could get and I reviewed several packages of what’s called non-clinical summaries. They became available through FOIA and these were for Pfizer and for Moderna and those summaries contained – their own summaries of animal studies that they performed and that the FDA then used for approval of Pfizer’s injection product and Moderna’s Spikevax.

I’m going to talk mostly about Moderna for the interest of time but they are very, very similar both of them. First I looked at Moderna and I found a very strange thing about Moderna. Moderna apparently has two investigational new drug numbers which is strange to me because by rules, by regulations, there’s supposed to be only one investigational new drug number for each new molecular entity. And that number opens your application with the FDA and the similar process in European agency. That number opens your application and then you as a sponsor collect all the data for animal studies and then clinical studies and all the results and all the data sets, they get appended to that number. It’s like a case number and then that becomes a dossier that you use with the regulators to review and approve your product. And that works like this everywhere in the world where we use these systems, International Conference for Harmonization. And in Moderna’s case I saw two numbers. I still don’t know how this works but that’s my question that was never addressed. First of all that other number was opened first and then Moderna’s number second. The first number belongs to the NIH. They are the owners, National Institutes of Health and specifically it’s a division of microbiology and infectious diseases, DMID, and organizationally that group reports to Anthony Fauci. So they own this number, they opened this number for Moderna in February 2020 and then they also did – it may be on going – they’re performing a lot of animal studies for Moderna. Because they have these two numbers, that means that they are co-owners of this product and they have the rights for revenues and profits derived from this product. This is highly abnormal and a huge conflict of interest because this is well beyond a more standard ideal relationship where, let’s say, private manufacturer can license a patent from NIH or a patent from an academic institution and then they pay them small royalties when that technology is used in subsequent products on the market. But this is different, this is NIH actually getting revenues and profits from this product – or at least has the rights to – and also we should note that, of course, NIH and Anthony Fauci specifically were in charge of all these draconian mandates, coercion of people into injecting this product into everyone. So how is this that they’re then profiting from it directly? I’ve raised this question many times. This has never been addressed by anyone but I think people need to speak about it more.

Next I reviewed the packages for both Pfizer and Moderna with respect to what the standard testing would be in preclinical or animal experiments. And just to give you an overview, this is very, very high level, each of these boxes contains numerous studies. For a normal drug or vaccine or any product, biological, what you need to do is assess them in animal experiments first before you can give it to humans in a highly controlled clinical trial setting. This is in order to exclude major risks and make sure that the product is safe enough to then be given as experimental product to humans. And the categories of safety testing in preclinical will include three major components: pharmacology, safety pharmacology and pharmacokinetics. Pharmacology includes a couple of areas. One is primary pharmacology: you have to at least try to demonstrate mechanism of action that you declare for your product. For example, if the manufacturer is claiming « This product will create spike protein and then that’ll create an antigen », that needs to be demonstrated in those studies. Then secondary, any off target effects. So if while doing that, it’s doing something else, you also have to show that or exclude it or at least have some idea what potential off-target effects may happen. Then drug interactions also are an important part, especially if the product is supposed to be given to absolutely everyone then a lot of people already taking multiple drugs, they can interact in unknown ways so at least some idea needs to be given to what potential interactions and are there any counter indications for other products. Then the next category is to see how the product gets distributed through the body when you inject it – and that’s called pharmacokinetics. In pharmacokinetics we assess many things but important ones are absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion studies, those are standard. Then very, very important ones are toxicology. Toxicology means that if your product is detected in a certain area, let’s say, it gets into cardio-vascular tissue or it gets into liver tissue or it gets into the brain, in other organs, you need to then do the toxicology study for those particular organs and figure out what is the maximum exposure, what’s the exposure over time, when does it clear, what’s the maximum tolerated dose, where the toxicity starts because we want to develop what’s called a therapeutic window where you can give the drug high enough so that it elicits desirable response but it’s also low enough so that it doesn’t cross the threshold of toxicity. That’s the most important part of all these experiments, it’s to find that space. And that space was never found for these products, by the way. Also an other area here of course is reproductive toxicology, I’ll talk about it some more.

What happened with both Moderna and Pfizer, they use very similar strategy here. They did not do ADME studies, they did not do any secondary pharmacology, then they waived for themselves this whole area of safety pharmacology and they told the regulators that it doesn’t apply to them because of 2005 WHO guidance for vaccines, which is an absolutely preposterous claim because these products are not vaccines and especially in 2005, they were not considered vaccines, they were gene therapies. That ridiculous claim was accepted wholesale by the FDA and in Moderna’s case specifically, what I found is that about 50 percent of all the studies that they included into this non-clinical package contains tests for completely irrelevant articles. They just compiled a whole bunch of previously failed products that they had in the pipeline, appended them to this and they said « Oh, it applies to Spikevax ». It doesn’t apply to Spikevax. All the tests need to be performed with the exact formulation that you’re going to use in the ultimate clinical product, meaning your mRNA that’s going to go into the Spikevax and the lipid nanoparticle exactly as it going to be in the Spikevax. None of this was done at all. This was a hodgepodge of different studies from different years. For example, bydistribution, they included a study from 2017 for a cytomegalovirus and it was a concoction of 6 different mRNAs. None of them are the mRNA that’s in Spikevax. Then toxicology studies were not done. There was only one non-GOP – non good laboratory practice compliant – toxicology study and it wasn’t completed even at the time that the package was written. And there was only one GOP study in reproductive toxicology, I’ll talk about that. Genotoxicity, carcinogenicity was assessed only for one component, this chemical SM102 and only an in vitro-like cell line experiment. That’s completely unacceptable but the FDA, by the way, did not find any problem with this, completely accepted it. And that was for both Pfizer and Moderna. To me that told that there is a collusion between the regulator and these manufacturers, and in fact I believe the regulator, FDA, drove this road. They told them how to submit the documents because this is in complete violation of any [guidance]. If you look at the FDA guidances, it violates all of them. That is just so bad that if a manufacturer tried to do that and the FDA was following its own rules, none of this would fly. Yet somehow it just gets red carpet and they just waltz in with this garbage and that « Jimmy says the FDA told them to do it this way ».

Moderna also made this really bizarre claim – which now both of them are making – and now it’s being enshrined into regulatory practice as we speak. This is a slide from Moderna from JP Morgan conference in 2018. They were claiming that their product is a platform – which, by the way, every start up in every industry claims that their product is a platform so this means absolutely nothing. They’re claiming they have a platform where they can make these lipid nano bubbles and they can put whatever mRNA they desire into this lipid nano bubble and if it worked once, it will work again and again. I won’t dignify this but anyway, this is a very dangerous claim. They’re saying essentially [that] their product doesn’t need to be tested. Only the delivery vehicle needs to be tested. It’s like saying « Well, the truck that’s carrying food and the truck that’s carrying explosives is completely the same thing. Don’t pay attention. » Because this claim by itself would have never passed through normal regulatory practices as they are designed and regulations as they’re written, what they needed to do is to manufacture the crisis to push it through emergency use authorization, so that they could actually put this on the market – and they did. [Moderna] did not test the Spikevax and Pfizer didn’t test their BNT162 product either. The only test is [of the] delivery vehicle and all kinds of evasive tests not to actually test directly this combination of things. And now they’re both claming « We have a platform » and now FDA is allowing them to do a study in eight mice and then immediately put the product on the market. This has of course many problems. First of all, who wants the product which was tested on eight mice? I don’t know. The second is that now FDA, Pfizer and Moderna are a cartel. They established a cartel where for Pfizer and Moderna, they can do eight mice study and that’s it. For everybody else who even wants to work in mRNA, for example, any other startup – they’re all thinking « Oh my God, this mRNA revolution happened and we’re all going to be rich », they should think again because now they have to comply with all regulations to approve their platforms. But Pfizer and Moderna can only do eight mice study. So they have ruined the entire industry, pharmaceutical research and development by doing this and they have established government-pharma cartel by doing exact these specs.

Next I want to specifically address the reproductive toxicology study that Moderna did. It was a small study in about 40 rats and I’m not going to cover design. They had half of them vaccinated, half of them not vaccinated. By the way, the male rats were never vaccinated so we don’t know what happens with the male reproduction at all and nobody has addressed that. They only vaccinated females and then eventually they found that there was a strong transfer of antibodies from them to fetus and from them to pup – and the levels were high. They’re saying « antibodies » like it’s a good thing but if antibodies transferred, so did mRNA and spike proteins. We now know that spike proteins were found in breast milk, for example, and mRNA specifically was found in breast milk. These things, mRNA and spike proteins, they pass all sorts of barriers such as placenta, such as brain and blood so they will end up in the baby and it’s not clear what it does. We know it’s dangerous and the babies obviously have a small body and it’s developing. So this poses high risks to the developing baby and none of this was studied by anyone. Also, mothers experienced toxicity during gestation and it coincided with the day when they were expressing the highest levels of antigens so obviously this is related to the vaccination. They vaccinate them, they experience high toxicity. They were claiming that these effects were transient and not so bad but rats lost fur and they couldn’t use their hind legs. But Moderna said « Don’t worry, they were thriving ». I’m not sure how the animal is thriving when they’re losing fur. Because I don’t have access to full reports, this is only Moderna’s own summaries, their own words about their studies, I cannot tell you exactly what happened there but it looks to me like they’re whitewashing a lot of stuff. The most important thing was that they found that rats offspring had skeletal malformations. Here’s their own language: « mRNA 1273 » – that’s Moderna Spikevax – « related variations in skeletal examination included statistically significant increase in the number of rats with one or more of wavy ribs and one or more rib nodules » – which is extra ribs. Those are severe skeletal malformations and they were statistically significantly increased in the babies of the vaccinated mothers. That’s as clear safety signal as you get and those are standard studies for assessment of developmental toxicity.They also correlated that with maternal toxicity during the gestation on the same day. So obviously it’s related to the vaccine and obviously this product is causing damage to both mothers and their developing babies.

However FDA directly lied on the label and the regulatory documents on behalf of Moderna. What the FDA put in their summary for non-clinical pharmacology and toxicology which is part of labeling for Spikevax is that there were no vaccine-related fetal malformations or variations. And that was hidden, secret, for a year – more actually than a year – until it was released through court order and until I read it. We would have never known and they would continue pushing this on pregnant women worldwide and they’re continuing. They knew about this but they were knowingly forcing this on pregnant women. Remember the campaigns that were everywhere: CDC advertising, FDA advertising like pharma sales reps, just advertising this is totally safe in pregnancy and pushing everyone – and even forcing pregnant women if they were health care workers or police or school teachers. To me, it’s a crime, it’s a horrible crime what they did. And we know now that there are huge adverse events related to miscarriages to problems with babies, babies dying, lactating babies dying and that’s all recorded in VAERS. And again they’re denying it and gaslighting everyone.

Next I want to talk about what’s really happening with this product, why this variability exists in my opinion and what we’ve found through various now direct testing of vials and examination more closely on the manufacturing processes. So, as you know, each product has its label and even though Pfizer was trying to hide this particular information for a while, now it’s available. We know that they are declaring certain ingredients such as BNT162b2, it’s their mRNA sequence and then the rest of it is lipids, lipid nano, it describes lipid nano bubble composition, these ALC’s and so forth, cholesterol, and then some other products that balance it into injectable product. They’re also declaring quite precise quantities of each on the per vial and per dose level – because remember, they get shipped in multi-dose vials and then each dose gets prepared by the vaccine administrator at the site manually, in completely uncontrolled manner and outside of any good manufacturing practice compliance. Nevertheless each dose is supposed to contain 30 micrograms of mRNA, for example, and then some other components also very precisely described. But what I found by reading manufacturing documents for Pfizer specifically that were submitted to EMA, no tests were designed for testing of the ingredients especially at the vial level – and forget about the dose level. What they were describing as tests at the vial level were basically the vial weight at filling and some integrity parameters like how well it’s capped and so forth. But there were no test that said « We’re going to take random sampling of a few vials from each lot or from each line as it comes off and then we’re going to open them and we’re going to see if it does contain 225 micrograms of RNA or not ». None of that exists. All the ingredients specification tests are designed at the batch level – and the batch is a bulk product, it’s upstream manufacturing step. Per current government regulations, these tests need to exist at the dose level, at the unit dose level as it’s dispensed to the patient – and they’re not doing it, I’ll talk more about this. So far, our findings is that – and this is from random vial testing all over the world – so far we found that not a single vial conforms to this label or any other label of the manufacturers.

So what has been going on is independent testing of vials by many teams. This paper was recently published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. I know some of the authors and I am in correspondence with them and these teams of researchers and independent researchers all over the world – 16 countries, I believe – have gotten access to some of the vials, mostly Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen – but there’s some other ones as well. The summary of overall findings is that all these products are completely different, they differ from the labels, but there are some consistent findings. For example, when they’re able to isolate and sequence RNA from the vials, RNA sequence does not conform to the label. We have yet to find a match to what Pfizer says it should be. Then there are huge DNA impurities and protein impurities – gigantic amounts, I’ll show you that. There are also consistently other impurities found in large quantities and they constitute heavy and rare metals. It’s unknown origin or purpose of these materials inside the vials. Metals includes things like cobalt and chromium and aluminum which are very toxic to the body and neurotoxic. Rare things like thulium, which is bizarre, and antimony even was found in Moderna vials. Antimony is a metal used in semiconductor manufacturing, mined in China. It’s not clear what it’s doing in Moderna’s vials which is supposed to be produced in Massachusetts. There are also inclusions found, contaminations with structures of also unknown origin. They look like unexplainable blobs and particles and they’re large because people find them under standard optical microscope which means that they’re not nano scale, they’re larger than that. And crystals, they’re very characteristic: flat and very square and rectangular shapes with sharp edges. Also very characteristic fibers and ribbons, flat ribbons. There is assembly, a self-assembly process – chemical probably – movement visible immediately from the frozen state and this was videoed in single-take videos and so there’s very good documentation of it. Researchers take precautions and steps to exclude environmental dirt on the slides. They do controlled experiments so there are some high quality studies. Not all studies are high quality but some high quality studies found all these things – that’s what I’m summarizing. There is possibly different forms of graphene in these vials and also things like, for example, leftover magnetic beads. Remember though all those people who had like fridge magnets stuck to their arms post injection? That’s what it is. Magnetic beads are used in purification of RNA in manufacturing. They were left in the vials, not removed and then subsequently injected into people.

Here is an example of the RNA sequencing from a Pfizer vial. Here researchers showing the first green line is the declared Pfizer sequence and all of this, by the way, is by weight and that’s how Pfizer does it, too, or rather by length of the molecule. The first sequence is this BNT sequence, that’s Pfizer declared sequence, and it’s supposed to be like this green line. The next three you can see, those a possible matches but none of them actually match.There are some pieces of it and then some extra stuff at the end but the beginning is missing. And that’s what’s floating in that vial. What’s very concerning is these additional small RNA fragments and they were even described by the regulators in European Medicines Agency documents as process-related impurities and they were concerned about it. And they should be concerned about it. I call them shrapnel RNA, there are many, many names for them, microRNA, small interfering RNA, all kinds of things but you can think of it as shrapnel. When the glass breaks, it breaks into large pieces and small pieces and they’re all inpredictable – it’s like this. They’re not denying it. FDA dismissed them as a theoretical concern, it’s not a theoretical concern. MicroRNA’s have been designated specifically as a class of a biological weapon that can be used because they are interfering with the normal genetic processes. They do not have to code for proteins, they do not have to have a a length to code for anything but they can still interfere with the cellular processes dramatically and they can still aggravate the immune system and break it down to such a degree that over time you will have various types of malfunctions including cancer specifically and neurodegenerative diseases and all sorts of abnormalities. So this is in the vials. You can see, it’s almost half and half how much of this component has larger pieces of RNA that don’t match and then all these shrapnel RNA’s.

Then the researchers looked at several Pfizer and Moderna vials and they found large quantities of DNA. And DNA is also a process-related impurity, it comes from the beginning of the process where RNA is transcribed from a DNA matrix. It’s a raw material or input into the process. This DNA matrix is always not 100 percent transcribed, you have remaining impurity from this process and it needs to be removed. And here it clearly wasn’t removed because in three BioNtech vials and one Moderna vial they found DNA. In this test – and again Pfizer uses a similar test – you can see, this is a calibration band on the left of different sizes of DNA that are possible and these are matched with what’s in the vial. You can see that there are these stripes of different sizes that were found in the vials. Here it’s kind of smeared amongst different sizes. So they found DNA and they found it in various sizes in these vials.

And then they calculated the weight of it and it turns out that there’s huge amount of it in each vial. Pfizer themselves declared that acceptance criteria for the vials is such that the DNA can be present there only up to about 10 nanograms per dose. But what’s calculated here from the actual analysis is up to 2000 [times] that amount. That’s really, really, really concerning. Also I found these batches specifically in VAERS – although they come from Europe so VAERS is not complete for Europe – but I found them in VAERS and I found reports for serious adverse events and death for them in VAERS.

Another image was provided by my colleague, Shimon Yanovitz from Israel. They did some testing and this is under standard microscope. They were looking at the vials from completely frozen state and then waiting for them to unfreeze and photographing that process. What they found is, on the top line, here we see immediately from frozen state, this is imaged under standard microscope and you can see how many different types of inclusions and and blobs and some sort of particles are there. And they’re not nanoparticle because under standard microscope we’re seeing much larger structures. It’s not clear what they are. Then after some 20, 30 minutes after unfreezing, they photographed again and look, they changed to all these compositions. That’s what’s evolving and growing and self assembling. They kind of agglomerate, there’s something going on, some kind of chemistry that’s constantly moving and then collecting and coalescing in these other structures and even new ones appearing like these fibers, that one up in these images. It’s very strange, that’s unexplained and that should not be in this type of product. It’s a question, why do we have this?

These structures are not rare. Another colleague provided this image for me and they said that this is just from one drop of Pfizer product. After it sat for 72 hours they examined that at 100X magnification and you can see how much of the stuff, it’s basically just filled – and this is just one drop. It’s filled with this, with these strange structures, some are like particles and some like larger square pieces and it’s not clear what’s going on but there’s a lot of it, it’s kind of steaming with it.

Wolfgang Wodarg: Question: Could this be cholesterol crystals?

Alexandra Latypova: Some of them might be but the ones that are like square, rectangular, they don’t look like crystals. We’re also looking at normal images of cholesterol crystals and they don’t match that, they don’t look like that. They look like something else and there are even more much larger and weird structures that look like carts on wheels, it’s hard to describe. They also have circular things attached to square things attached to some fibers. We’re comparing to salt crystals and cholesterol crystals and, no. Some of it maybe but most of it not.This still remains to be explained by the manufacturers who are keeping extremely silent about it.

And what we also found – and this is almost good news for the victims – we found that when this product is broken, it’s safer. The slide on the left actually came from Germany. A recent report was published by one of these research teams, it’s called the German Working Group. And they did a number of very good, solid and high quality tests for these products. One of these tests was looking out the pegylation quality of the product. They had different Pfizer batches – each dot here is a batch – and they looked at the degree of polymerization, how homogeneous was the polymerization of these nano bubbles. The PEG is there to protect the bubble and to keep them separated. If you have small molecules and they’re all homogeneous, it’s like a mosaic, it protects these really well. When you have smaller and larger ones, that can lead to breakage of these nano bubbles. If it breaks then the mRNA will escape, get interacting with water and will also degrade. What they found is that this associates with degree of inhomogeneity. So how often those bubbles can break is associated with fewer adverse events so it’s safer for the victim. And then I found previously in my analysis of Pfizer documents that once mRNA escapes and breaks, if you have more broken mRNA in your batch – and these are also batches from Pfizer different that these – it’s also less deadly, so it’s safer. That’s just good news because obviously they cannot make this product stable, they cannot make it to their own specification and that turns out to be a saving grace because it doesn’t kill as many people as they were intending to.

Wolfgang Wodarg: Do you have information about the the dependence on storage temperature? Because I can imagine if you store it not frozen for a longer time in a higher temperature that there’s more degradation and that the toxicity will diminish then. Is it possible?

Alexandra Latypova: Yes, absolutely. So, storage, transportation, it breaks in all steps and even shaking. They’re saying to the administrator, the instruction is « Do not shake the vial, you have to invert it a couple of times ». If you shake it, of course, you’re gonna get more broken pieces. They’re not benign but they’re a bit safer.

Wolfgang Wodarg: So if you want to just show the people that is not so dangerous, that you don’t want the people to be alerted by toxicity effects, you just care for a little bit higher temperatures, it’s easier. You use the side effect.

Alexandra Latypova: Yeah, in Pfizer documents they use that method to degrade RNA as well for testing purposes. It’s very well documented. A couple more slides, a short part but actually we’re getting into a very interesting part. We talked about this, we [said] the tests directly from vials or directly from batches show that this product is designed to be toxic, designed to be deadly because it actually is the opposite when it’s broken and doesn’t conform to its specification.

What I found later… I started thinking about and reading more about the manufacturing of mRNA and I didn’t know much about it at the beginning. I now have connected with a number of experts and I understand it better and I have a lot of documents including from Pfizer about how this product is being made. What I learned from it is I frankly have an opinion today that it cannot be made at the scale that these people are claiming. That’s also part of a lie and part of a fraud. First of all, mRNA manufacturing is a challenge even in the lab scale. If you want to make some micrograms of it, it’s a challenge and people who have done it, they’ve described it to me. It has low yields so there are multiple steps of making it and each step creates some sort of not 100 percent yield. And you lose stability of the product at every step. For example, if you have a 5 step process and it has an optimistic yield of 80 percent, then at the end you have 30 percent of the final product and 70 percent of impurities that you need to remove. And if you have a yield of something like 60 percent you only have 7 percent, then you need to remove 93 percent of impurities. Also, of course, you will have to scale up all of your raw materials to achieve some sort of a target that you need, some sort of a weight of the product that you need. mRNA is very fragile, especially the ones that they are using now in these injections, they are large chains. Previously the only approved product on the market that’s using RNA is using a very small one, it’s called small interfering RNA. It’s something like 100 nucleotides in length. The ones that are in Pfizer and Moderna are 4000 and higher than 4000 nucleotides. So it’s very large and the larger it is, the more fragile it is. It’s not stable. They modified it with numerous modifications to make it more stable so that’s why it’s not human it’s just some strange sequence but it still is unstable. Also it needs to be capped and has a tail and those two are separate processes. Each one of them breaks the product as well, so it’s not in complete capping, it’s incomplete tails. LNPs we already discussed, they’re lipid nanoparticles, they can also break because of various things including pegylation imperfection and when they break mRNA also breaks. As we’ve seen before, there are large impurities process-related and some others can be introduced through bad practices and they need to be removed. But you can not aggressively remove anything from this product because it’s very fragile. So you cannot use the same centrifugation, filtration, mixing techniques that they use in chemical manufacturing. Now manufacturers are claiming – I have records that show that on average these batches are something like 200 to 300 liters which already stretches imagination, that’s for batch. Recently I obtained records that showed one batch of Pfizer was manufactured with 12 000 000 doses in it, which means it’s around 900 liters of mRNA. My colleagues at this point started laughing and they said « I don’t even know that there are bio bags that big being produced ». Why are they doing this? I don’t know what’s going on. Are they overdiluting, are they mixing multiple batches, are they mislabeling, are they just reenabling an old product? I don’t know. Any of this can be possible because, as I will discuss shortly, they have no rules that apply to them. When we’re talking about scale like this, the availability of raw materials is questionable. Again my colleagues are questioning « Can they get the enzymes at this scale? » because again you have to have everything multiplied by the yields to reach your final target. Also, these batches are produced simultaneously by numerous companies at the scale and the speed. I don’t know whether this is possible or not. Pfizer was already reporting chemical instability even at 37 liters. That was in the Pfizer European Medicines Agency documents that they said that enzymatic reaction to make RNA was already stopping at that level because at large volumes, chemicals don’t balance the same way as they [do] at small volumes. Now even if you can produce something like this at a large volume, what happens is it the product becomes super heterogeneous. We have problems in the small batch but when the batch is large, you have lipids in water. And lipids are floating in a huge volume so they start separating and they tend to go to the top and they also tend to form into clumps. Now you have the mRNA in very unstraighted quantities floating around in a large volume of other stuff including water. Then that huge volume needs to be filled into 0.45 milliliter containers, vials, and of course you will have a whole bunch of vials that are blanks or near blanks that don’t contain much of the mRNA at all. It may contain metal contaminations or whatever and then you will have some super concentrated mRNA deadly shots. And that explains the reality where we see most people seemingly fine after these injections – at least at the beginning. They may develop something later on, they might get Covid, this increases probability of getting Covid. But then we see also some people drop dead within minutes of injection. That’s what happens, this is the reality of this, because there’s this huge heterogeneity of the vials.

Wolfgang Wodarg: It’s not possible to homogenize it afterwards, to keep it like milk, it’s very homogene. The natural milk is not, you have the cream up and you have the water down. They have technical process to homogenize the whole thing but you cannot do it without disturbing, without destroying the RNA, isn’t it?

Alexandra Latypova: Right, exactly. With milk it’s maybe possible but even then if you look at homogenized milk in a microscope, you’ll see clumps and stuff. These products can not because they will break it. And it continues breaking throughout the whole process and all the impurities that they can’t remove stay continuously. It’s a huge mess, a complete mess. In my opinion, this product can not be made to good manufacturing practices and I suspect that they knew about it because they’ve tried for 20 years to put this on the market and they always ran out to, maybe, early human studies but that’s it. And then they couldn’t get any further because of the safety issues and because I suspect they couldn’t make it consistent. They knew that and then they decided « Okay, well now we have to push it through this big scam ». I’ll explain how they put it in their contract form. I’m pretty sure that these products cannot be made in conformity to the label at the scale and at the speed and the manufacturers are well aware of it and that’s why they’re not doing it.

Let’s look at the structure of this organization, the overall organization, the big picture. This is their organizational chart, it’s turned on the side but it’s still an organizational chart and this is from Vaccines and Related Biologics Advisory Committee meeting from 10/22/2020. This is all the operation Warp Speed meeting together and describing their organizational structure. Notice a couple of things. Who is in charge of this operation? It’s the US Department of Defense, Chief Operating Officer. Who is chief scientific officer? It’s HHS and FDA. Then obviously this part of the chart, it’s the top part and these are people in charge: US government, Department of Defense and HHS. These people are not in charge although they’re getting huge amounts of money so they’re happy and they’re keeping the plans going. Also, the top part includes manufacturing, supply, production, distribution, clinical trials. Now there are many contracts available that were made by the Department of Defense, HHS with all of these vaccine manufacturers and they reveal a lot of things about the structure. The contracts are available through Securities and Exchange commission disclosures to shareholders and I read a lot of them. It does reveal the structure where the government took over pharmaceutical industry by giving them huge amounts of money and signing these very restrictive contracts that control everything. But the government designs the clinical trials, the government designs everything about it and then the FDA just approves it – well, FDA is part of the government. Let’s see who is really making these products.

Here’s from the same meeting, another Power Point slide. This is Operation Warp Speed/BARDA. BARDA is a military biologics development agency and they’re saying « Well, here’s our vaccine manufacturing portfolio ». Again, through these contracts – and there are contracts for all of these entities listed here available – through these contracts it’s very clear that what they’re calling vaccine supporting efforts is in fact what’s manufacturing the vaccines. For example Emergent Biosolutions which I circled here, it’s one of the centers for manufacturing that BARDA set up a long time ago. The contracts that I read go back to 2012 where Emergent was established as a vaccine manufacturer, the Defense vaccine manufacturer extensively for flu vaccines at the time. They also said « We’re going to build this so-called surge capacity » so there were huge amounts of money given. The contract is from 2012 to 2037 in different options and then in 2020 they executed option to do Covid vaccines. Emergent was manufacturing both AstraZeneca’s and Janssen’s vaccines and they were supplier for them. And they were not following any good manufacturing practice rules, by the way. There are also other entities that are very important like Ology. Now it’s been converted into this new monstrous, it’s called National Resilience Company and this is DOD essentially buying a bunch of manufacturing plants from pharma companies and establishing their own manufacturing base. It’s millions of square feet, they have huge amounts of money and they’re manufacturing these products. Texas A&M, also another one. That one seems to be manufacturing for things like Novavax because they use some sort of insect line – I don’t know what that means. You can also see a lot of others. Complex manufacturing requires – it’s not just making something – it’s also having qualified staff, having all the equipment that you need, having supplies, disposables, access to raw materials, it’s a huge infrastructure that you need to have in place and it was not possible. It’s not like you can go to Ford Motor Company and tell them here’s 10 000 000 000 bucks, I need a 1 000 000 new cars in 6 months. Even Ford with already established manufacturing can’t do that because you can’t even secure raw materials in time. Now imagine the same scenario happens when the government goes to Ford, General Motors and Toyota and tells them all simultaneously to do that. No amount of money will produce this miracle in 6 months. It wasn’t. They just gave money to these companies and then directed them to go to these companies that they already established for a long time to produce the product. This is who is making the product and these guys are just a front. They have some aspects of manufacturing but for the most part it’s being done here. And all of this is controlled by the Department of Defense. Specifically the contracts included no accountability – let me go to the next page.

The bad news is that this is a Department of Defense product entirely. People don’t realize it. It seems like it’s a military operation, gets thrown around. It is actually military operation from A to Z. It’s not just that they used some military distribution for just speed and getting it to different states and using refrigeration. No, that’s not how it works. All of these contracts are with DOD. There are hundreds of them with all kinds of companies. All the contracts are with DOD, DOD is the purchaser, DOD gives them huge amounts of money. As I said, they already have established manufacturing base. For example the first contract for Pfizer was for $10 000 000 000 to deliver 100 000 000 doses of vaccine and up to 500 000 000 and there were bonuses for faster delivery which to me says « Why are they making 900 liters of it? Well, because they’re not accountable and they have bonus if they ship all these doses on time ». That’s one of the reasons. And there was no capacity to fulfill them on time except if you use the already established DOD vendors. And there’s no accountability other than the companies to make reasonable efforts, whatever that means. But the contract is extremely micromanaging on every step of operations. Also clinical trials are designed by the government, not by this pharma manufacturer. Regulatory interactions are completely taken over by the government. For example pharma cannot independently talk to the FDA in any way. If they have a meeting, the Department of Defense representatives needs to be in that meeting. That to me says it’s not an arm’s length relationship, it’s a total control of their relationship by the DOD.

Now another thing, the distribution of the product. The product gets shipped to the DOD. All of the vaccine doses in the US get shipped to the Department of Defense. They do not get shipped to independent and licensed and regulated pharmaceutical distributors as all normal pharmaceuticals go to. They’re taken out of that system also into this black box of DOD-only distribution. And in fact the contracts with the vaccinators explicitly state that this product is the Department of Defense property or US government property until it gets injected into the person. And that you can not independently test the vials, you cannot get independent access to the vials and it’s called diversion of government property. They’re prohibiting to test the vials and as I said before, the manufacturers are not testing the vials, neither regulators are testing the vials. Nobody’s testing the vials and you’re not allowed to. In the same contract, there’s a clause that exempts them all from any liability as long as they follow their orders and that same clause describes the product as civilian and military application. There’s also some ex-US contracts with other countries like European Union and Brazil and Albania became available. European Union contracts are still largely redacted but I’ve seen an unredacted Albanian contract and we were told that all the contract clauses were the same. Those contracts explicitly prohibit testing of the vials by foreign governments or anyone there. And in fact they also indemnify Pfizer for anything, provide huge liability cover. The government is forced to waive all the rules and regulations and good manufacturing practices, distribution practices, any controls that exist, in order to indemnify Pfizer. Also, they cannot change their national laws to make it otherwise. So by signing this contract they signed away their national sovereignty to a pharmaceutical company. How ridiculous is that? That’s how they’re avoiding all this liability and they’re prohibiting batch testing, prohibiting vial testing. However you can prohibit all you want. As you’ve seen, there is a large covert testing activity that’s been going on and we’ve found all these answers already. We found that these products are dirty, contaminated, do not conform at all to what the label says and they’re hugely toxic and they’re toxic by design. But this explains to you how they can all get away with it and how they can just not follow any rules: because these rules do not apply to them, this is a military product, made by the military, for the military, distributed by the military and injected into people and it’s a total secret what that is.

So in conclusion what I would like to say is that these injections are definitely not pharmaceuticals and people should stop thinking of them as [such]. They should have stopped thinking about them as vaccines a long time ago but they should stop thinking about them as pharmaceutical or medicine or anything that has to do with that. They are not. US government/DOD/pharma collusion enabled this violation of all established rules and safeguards. These products are deadly by design, intentional, and they cannot be produced according to good manufacturing practices. These people who are claiming « We can recode your genes and cure any disease », it’s total garbage that they’re making. Nobody can do that. That whole mRNA revolution, it’s a scam in my opinion, and they should all be stopped immediately and this should be investigated properly and we should bring those responsible to justice, to accountability. Until that happens, we cannot move on from this and I completely agree with the previous speaker when she said « It’s not that all mandates are over and now let’s all go on vacation and we can forget about it ». No, because they’re doing it more and more. They’re converting all existing vaccines into the mRNA platform. And guess what, this is not going to stop at the vaccines, they’re gonna start producing all kinds of medicines with this platform because now they can. Now they can only do eight mice study and declare it safe and effective. That’s why we have to focus on this more and focus especially on prosecution and bring those responsible to justice.

Viviane Fischer: Naively one could think if this operation is so giant and it’s so important for them to bring these vaccines to everyone that […] for this giant logistical task, we need to get the military involved because they have logistic experience and they have all these contacts. Could there be – I guess not – but could there be a naïve answer to why the military is so much involved?

Alexandra Latypova: Yes, it is a naïve answer but then if the purpose of it was a good purpose, a benign purpose to try to make people heal and cure this disease then the safety guidelines should be followed and they don’t follow a single one of them. So you can’t just say « Well, because it’s such a disaster we have to do everything wrong and produce more death in the process and that’s okay ». It’s not logical in my opinion. It just creates one huge mess. I don’t see any benefit of doing it that way. It’s not like the military has some kind of a more miraculous capability versus private manufacturers. Private manufacturers make lots of products, very high quality products at huge speeds. They have in fact incredible experience in this. The military is not critically required here [more] than the domestic way to do this.

Wolfgang Wodarg: It looks as if the military is just blind that they help shooting their own people.

Alexandra Latypova: Exactly and we do have a lot of very brave whistleblowers inside the military operations, who were stalked, like Theresa Long for example who was trying to stop this. And they’re bringing this up to attention and they’re reporting this and they’re saying « I will not give it to my to my people, I will not give it to the soldiers in my base ». They’re facing huge repercussions but they’re still speaking up and explaining how this is wrong and you shouldn’t do it. Yes, it is damaging our military also as we speak because they’re pushing it on the soldiers and pushing it on the pilots especially. It’s hurting them and that’s another reason why it should be stopped.

Wolfgang Wodarg: I just ask myself, what is it with NATO? You spoke about the European Union but the European Union just has the role to get the money, to collect the money and provide the industry with money. But the function of the military which is working together cooperating in the NATO, there should be some advice for German troops in Germany who are member of the NATO. If it is a big thing coming from the Department of Defense and we are partners in NATO so we had this observation that when the whole thing started, when they started to distribute the the vials, that was the German army going to institutions and there were some higher doctors who applied then the vials. There were no normal doctors but this was an action where the German army was employed to care for the distribution, who was in charge of keeping all this stuff. And normally when the German army does something, the Parliament has to decide on everything the army does. I don’t remember any decision of the German parliament.

Alexandra Latypova: Exactly. The US Department of Defense just went to the German army but I’m sure they went to all other NATO militaries and they said « Here, you will inject it into your people. By the way, you can’t know what’s in it ». How is this okay? And that’s what’s going on and that’s the crime that’s being committed. They’ve contracted all this, they created this legal on paper structure but, guess what, it’s not legal to contract for killing and injuring people. For that reason, this needs to be investigated and stopped.

Wolfgang Wodarg: It is so important that we have all of this outspoken. It’s so important that it’s documented. It’s so important that everyone could know. Thank you very, very, much for your work. It’s great.

Alexandra Latypova: Thank you for inviting me, guys. Anyone can reach me through you if anybody has questions or wants to see the actual documents. All I’m showing is available publicly. It’s from publicly available materials.

Viviane Fischer: We have to we have to publish a list of all these documents. I think that would be important so everyone can really look at that or maybe you have a source. I’m actually pretty shocked because this makes it seem like it’s all connected. It’s not people rushing along for being the first in the market and then maybe doing little mistakes or larger mistakes in the production process. It seems to be well orchestrated kind of effort in the way that you presented here.

Wolfgang Wodarg: International controlled operation.

Alexandra Latypova: International controlled operation, exactly. Also, these suppliers that I was showing, the manufacturers, they’re all over the world. A lot of them are in Germany as well and then in Belgium and Italy and all over, India and China. China is participating in a large way, here I didn’t have time to cover but it’s all connected all over the world.

Viviane Fischer: What role does Russia play in this?

Alexandra Latypova: I haven’t seen that Russia in these contracts. What I’ve seen is definitely China, Germany, US connection and investments into the same entities and then DOD giving them $10 000 000 000, you just gave ten billion dollars to something that where CCP is an equity holder. Those are definitely connected. I have not seen Russia there at all but they have their own vaccines.They’re making the same thing but in parallel – playing the same game but in a different sandbox.

Wolfgang Wodarg: This is a very interesting question because we have this Ukraine conflict, we have the conflict with energy. I think it’s a very, very big chess game and it’s a very big game where all those powers are trying to get the best out of it for themselves. So it would be very interesting to get to know more how are the plans of Russia? They are earning a lot with the energy, they just cut down one line but they sell it on the other side to other nations. It’s a very global play which is very difficult and very complicated to understand. I think if we go on trying to find out, we can learn a lot about this and we have to learn a lot about this so that such thing can never happen again.

Alexandra Latypova: Yeah, exactly.

Viviane Fischer: Well thanks ever so much. I think we have to really dig deep into this. It’s pretty shocking and amazing. Thanks so much for your hard work.

Alexandra Latypova: Thank you for inviting me. Have a good evening.

Votre commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:


Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s