search icon
Live chat

Exposing the Vaccine ‘Military Machinery’ Behind the Global COVID-19 Response: Sasha Latypova

“What we found is [that] the whole representation of what is happening is a lie … The U.S. government is representing to the public that this is a health event and the response to a health event. But in fact, … this is a military operation.”

In this episode, I sit down with former pharmaceutical executive Sasha Latypova. She emerged from retirement during the COVID-19 pandemic to become a whistleblower after she observed the government and vaccine manufacturers veering away from established clinical research and public health protocols.

“The total volume of adverse events and deaths was tens of times higher than [for] all the previous vaccine products combined,” says Latypova, referring to public data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

“We have all kinds of levels of protections—consumer protections—that should be triggered with this picture long before this extent of injury has occurred. Yet none of them were triggered,” says Latypova.

We discuss variability in different vaccine lots, and how the U.S. federal government militarized public health and weaponized gene therapy in its deployment of the COVID-19 genetic vaccine.

“The government was able to commandeer pharmaceutical companies to produce these non-compliant injectable products and distribute them,” says Latypova. “If you catch an official—a professional—lying about something straight to the public, what else are they lying about?”

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek:
Sasha Latypova, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Sasha Latypova:
Hi, Jan. Thank you very much for inviting me.

Mr. Jekielek:
I’ve been watching you talk about some very troubling things over the past months. You’ve become a whistleblower in the realm of Covid genetic vaccine manufacturing. What did you see that made you start wondering about a problem happening?

Ms. Latypova:
I became aware of this strangeness with the whole Covid pandemic response very early on, because I worked in the pharmaceutical industry and I had retired before Covid started. I sold my companies and I was enjoying a great life and spending time with my family and doing hobbies and traveling. But when Covid started, I was initially concerned like everyone was. We didn’t know what it was. We didn’t know about the illness.

But I became suspicious when the health authorities started an overt campaign against hydroxychloroquine, which I knew was a safe drug because I’m from the industry, and I had familiarity with it. I looked specifically into the issue that they were falsely assigning to it, which is QT prolongation and arrhythmias associated with drug-induced QT prolongation. It happened to be the area of focus of the last company that I had and worked with in pharma.

I knew what they were saying about this drug was absolutely not true. More importantly, the regulators knew perfectly well that they were saying things that were not true. That immediately gave me pause. I started thinking, “They’re professionals, they know this issue, they know this data, yet they’re saying things that are not true.” That led me to start questioning the whole thing. If you catch an official or a professional lying about something straight to the public, what else are they lying about?

That started my whole investigation into it. Also, I was a little bit familiar, not very deeply, but I did come across this mRNA class in the past, in my professional work when these products were in development for other different things, very severe conditions such as cancer. I knew that these products were inherently dangerous, which is not unusual in pharmaceutical research and development. We frequently work on things that are risky and can be toxic, such as chemoagents.

But there is application for all sorts of things and the risk-benefit profile is always a consideration. I knew that these products were inherently dangerous and inherently toxic. They were developed as a cancer product in the past. Yet, all of a sudden, our regulators were all gung-ho saying, “These are going to be prophylactic vaccines. They’re going to be given to children, pregnant women, and everyone, regardless of their health status, age, or risk profile with regard to Covid.” That gave me yet another pause. I became extremely suspicious about this whole situation, and that’s how I started looking into it.

Mr. Jekielek:
Please tell me a little bit about your background. You said you sold your company. What exactly were you doing and how did you get into it?

Ms. Latypova:
I’m originally from Ukraine. I grew up in the Soviet Union. While I was still in Ukraine, I worked in industries that contracted for health and IT. I also did a bunch of international translations of documentation and negotiations of companies that are coming into the market right after the Soviet Union collapsed. I had some familiarity with the topic.

I came to study in the United States for my business degree, and for my graduate degree. I went to work for the pharmaceutical industry right from the start. I worked in various capacities and eventually started several businesses that I co-founded, and they were all successful. The last one, as I said, was actually focused on cardiovascular safety testing in pharmaceutical research and development, looking at electrocardiograms, and looking at QT prolongation, the issue that they were falsely assigning to hydroxychloroquine.

That work is called contract research organization, which is a very broad term. There are a variety of contractors. Just think of if you want to build a very large and very complicated house, how many contractors you’re going to hire. It’s kind of like that.

We are involved in a variety of different specialty tasks. A variety of companies are working toward fulfilling these projects and clinical trials. That was my work. Ultimately, the companies were successful. I sold the last one, and I didn’t need to work anymore, so I was just having a good time.

Mr. Jekielek:
You were involved deeply in clinical trials, that’s what I want to establish.

Ms. Latypova:
Yes.

Mr. Jekielek:
From many different angles?

Ms. Latypova:
The last one was cardiovascular safety testing in humans. Previous ones dealt with oncology, imaging, studies, and arthritis. I actually worked in all therapeutic areas. My clients were a variety of pharma companies, large ones and small ones, Pfizer included. Pfizer was also our research and development partner.

We were developing technologies that they were interested in, applying it to their clinical trial space to make it more precise data collection, more accurate, and more reliable. We partnered with Pfizer several times. We worked with large companies; GSK, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and a variety of small biotechs. I was very familiar with the space.

Mr. Jekielek:
What about the manufacturing side of things? For most of us, this is a black box. You just assume it’s done and it’s done right.

Ms. Latypova:
Exactly. That’s a very big issue that people often don’t appreciate. The whole FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] regulation actually hinges on good manufacturing practice regulations. All they’re regulating is the compliance of the manufacturers with what the manufacturer claims about their product, and that what they claim on the label needs to be true, and needs to be reproducible in every pill, every bottle, every vial, and everything that the manufacturer ships.

In the United States and worldwide, and especially in developed countries, we have laws that are similar. In the United States, it’s called good manufacturing practices. It’s an extensive set of laws. It governs everything; the raw materials, the impurities, the potency, and the contaminants. It’s an extremely complicated structure that every participant of this industry has to comply with parts of or entirely. If you are selling a drug in the United States, then you’re responsible for your own compliance with all of it, including the compliance of all your vendors with all of it.
I had to comply with parts of this as a contractor that was performing work for Pfizer. We knew how difficult, how extensive, and how tight everything is regulated. That’s what people don’t really understand. The majority of the entire industry is engaged in some ways in compliance with these rules.

That’s extremely important to know, and it’s extremely important to follow. You have to prove that the product has certain ingredients and certain quantities. Again, they’re present in every single dose of the product. That’s why I was always focused on this, because I knew how important it was.

Mr. Jekielek:
You started digging around, and you noticed that things weren’t quite what they seemed to be. Where did you start looking? Where did you start finding problems?

Ms. Latypova:
In addition to looking at what was happening with hydroxychloroquine, I became suspicious once the mRNA products started coming on the market. Obviously, there were a lot of reports of adverse events and deaths, which I was expecting. As I said, I knew this product was inherently dangerous. I knew there were going to be a lot of problems.

There is the VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] database. The CDC maintains the VAERS database, and there are some others. There’s Yellow Card in the UK, and EudraVigilance in Europe and all kinds of other databases. They all started showing huge numbers of adverse events and deaths right away. The government was denying that those were associated, denying that they were happening, and they continue denying to this day.

Mr. Jekielek:
I want to discuss VAERS briefly because I had never heard of it until the pandemic. The way the general public was taught about Vaers early on was that it was a poor system that shouldn’t really be trusted, because it’s just self-reporting. I was shocked to learn that’s not how it was considered in the past.

Ms. Latypova:
No.

Mr. Jekielek:
Please tell me about that.

Ms. Latypova:
This is very interesting because depending on when you ask CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] officials about VAERS, it’s either an amazing bulletproof system that is so reliable, that always maintains this wonderful data set for them to monitor safety, or it’s completely poor and unreliable and usually the reports are made up. It just depends on how they want to answer the question. Historically, before Covid and before it got so contentious, it was considered a fairly reliable database. It’s actually a very important database.

They’re saying, “It’s not definitive if a report shows up for something that was caused by this product.” But even on their website it says it’s an important early warning system to identify unusual data patterns. That’s how I was using it. I was using it exactly for that purpose. I wanted to look at the data pattern that was coming across.

The first immediate finding was that the total volume of adverse events and deaths was 10 times and more higher than all the previous vaccine products combined. The database is very old, and I think it started in the nineties. It has reports for about 100 different vaccine products from hundreds of manufacturers. You have a very rich data set, and you see that historically, the level is here. Then, 2021 comes along and it’s like this. Of course, it’s a signal, and it’s undeniable. There’s a signal, it’s a pattern, and it needs to be investigated. But no investigation ever happened.

Mr. Jekielek:
We heard that they couldn’t find a signal. I’ve interviewed a number of people who have spoken directly with the FDA and HHS [U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services] and they said, “We’re just not seeing any signal here.”

Ms. Latypova:
And that was a signal for me, them not seeing the signal. Because if you have government officials staring at a very loud signal and telling you there is no signal, that’s a signal in itself. That was a big question for a long time, I could not understand how they were able to do this, how they were able to deny reality with a straight face, and nothing would happen. Nobody would be in trouble or investigated or prosecuted while we have the very loud and clear signal of huge injury and deaths occurring to Americans, including children and pregnant women. That was a big, big problem, and a big question for me. I couldn’t answer it then, but I can now.

Mr. Jekielek:
What did you decide to do?

Ms. Latypova:
I wanted to investigate data for myself first. I wanted to look specifically because I have experience in pharma manufacturing and good manufacturing practice compliance. I looked at the data, not just at the total number of adverse events and deaths, but also the patterns of the data across manufacturing lots or in batches.

All pharmaceutical products are manufactured in lots or batches. The lots are numbered, and you can look at them. If you go to the pharmacy and buy Advil, you can look at the box, and it has a lot number. Those are the lot numbers that can be recorded in VAERS reports, when people submit the reports.

They’re not always there because people who are submitting the reports; patients, their relatives, pharmacists, doctors, healthcare professionals, or nurses, they don’t always have that information. You may not remember what the batch number was that you were injected with. You don’t have your card with you or the physician doesn’t know.

In about 50 percent of the reports, those numbers are there. I was able to match those lot numbers with the CDC lot numbers. I have a list of them. I was able to see that not only were the adverse events high, but the variability of them by batch was absolutely extreme.

Mr. Jekielek:
Please explain variability.

Ms. Latypova:
The variability, meaning how many total reports are submitted for a particular batch number. Some batch numbers had two or three reports and some had 5,000 to 6,000. That should never happen, and you should never see that. Think about it, if you’re buying Advil today and you’re buying it a month from now, your experience a month from now shouldn’t be 1,000 percent different, because that’s really dangerous.

Even if you think Advil is safe medication or aspirin is a safe medication, or even if you buy an orange juice and your experience today and a week from now is 1,000 percent different, that’s going to be very dangerous. Just one of those instances is very dangerous. When you see a variability like this between batches of what is supposed to be consistently produced, and good manufacturing practice compliant, it means that the product is not good manufacturing practice compliant.

As a comparator, I didn’t have a baseline for this and I didn’t have information on the batch sizes at the time. I do now, and this story doesn’t change, but at the time I didn’t. I thought I should compare it to something known, and something known was flu vaccines. I extracted all the data for flu vaccines from VAERS. I looked at how flu vaccine data looks from batch to batch over a long period of time.

By the way, there are a variety of producers making different size batches. Historically, there are dozens of manufacturers of flu vaccines, and different sizes of batches. For flu vaccines, it looks as expected for a good manufacturing practice compliant product, which is straight line, very close to zero, all the batches line up, and there is very, very little variability, just a tiny bit.

When you compare them to these Covid shots, you can’t even put them on the same graph. The flu vaccine data disappears because the Covid shots’ variability is absolutely huge. At that time, which was toward the fall of 2021, I knew for sure they were not good manufacturing practice compliant. So, we have a not good manufacturing practice compliant product being produced, shipped in millions of doses, and injected in millions of people, including pregnant women and children. We have the CDC and FDA lying and saying, “There is no signal at all,” and this continues for a long time.

Eventually, I ran across research by my current collaborator, Catherine Watt. She’s done an incredible legal analysis of what set of laws the government and the healthcare agencies are utilizing to enable this subversion of the good manufacturing practice compliance laws, and being able to deny that there is any injury, any deaths, or any problem occurring with these products for a long time. This continues to date.

What we found is the whole representation of what is happening is a lie. Basically, the U.S. government is representing to the public that this is a health event and the response to a health event. But in fact, what they are doing is a military operation. These so-called vaccines, they’re not really vaccines, but these injections have been manufactured under defense contracts, utilizing the Defense Production Act, other transaction authority, and emergency use authorization under a public health emergency. When these things are used together, then good manufacturing practices do not apply to these products at all.

Mr. Jekielek:
Even legally?

Ms. Latypova:
Even legally, yes. There’s a law on the books, 21-USC-360bbb, that says, “Emergency use authorized countermeasures under public health emergency cannot constitute clinical investigation.” Clinical investigation is actually not possible for these countermeasures. If clinical investigation is not possible, then you cannot have clinical trials, you cannot have informed consent, you cannot have clinical trial subjects, or clinical trial investigators.

Utilizing the structure of emergency use authorization, public health emergency, other transaction authority, and the Defense Production Act, the government was able to commandeer pharmaceutical companies to produce these non-compliant injectable products and distribute them, calling them a medicine, when in fact, it’s not a medicine.

It’s an act of war. They’re using the Defense Production Act, its machinery, and the United States military. Even internationally, this is being distributed from this military to overseas militaries, not through the pharmaceutical distribution chain. They’re using the military machinery to distribute these non-compliant products, including biologicals, chemicals, and all kinds of ingredients we don’t really understand very well, and then, call it public health and medicine.

Mr. Jekielek:
First of all, this sounds so fantastic, what you just said. One thing I know for sure that is not crazy, which is the fact that it is the military that did the distribution. That’s official. That’s public knowledge, and that was announced. I know people who were responsible for the distribution and they’re very proud of doing the distribution, because they felt it was the only structure in society able to deploy this fast enough. I have that on record now. But what about these other parts? This is actually the U.S. government contracting these pharma companies to develop a countermeasure against what?

Ms. Latypova:
Countermeasure is a very important legal term, and I advise people to look it up. Countermeasure Is a very fuzzy term, first of all. Anything can be a countermeasure. A lock on the door is a countermeasure against the break-in. Calling something a countermeasure, you have already removed the precision of the legal definitions of a pharmaceutical, for example.

But we already know it’s not a pharmaceutical. What I am saying is not a conspiracy theory, definitely not, because the law that I just described is 21-USC-360bbb. It’s cited by everyone, including the FDA in their documents, the manufacturers in their documents, and by GAO [U.S. Government Accountability Office] reports that discussed this.

Recently, as you may know, Brook Jackson’s False Claims Act case was dismissed. You can read the dismissal of this case. The judge agrees with what I just said. He agreed with the fact that Pfizer wasn’t supposed to be compliant with good manufacturing practices per contract with the Department of Defense [DOD], that they were producing countermeasures, and that they were producing a large-scale manufacturing demonstration, which is how these things were ordered from the government. He essentially describes this in a more sophisticated hundred page document.

Mr. Jekielek:
Based on the contract.

Ms. Latypova:
Based on the contract that Pfizer produced.

Mr. Jekielek:
Right.

Ms. Latypova:
Pfizer produced their DOD contract, and since then, hundreds of Department of Defense contracts for Covid countermeasures were released through FOIA [Freedom of Information Act], although they’re partially redacted. I read a lot of them and they’re all online. I read the Pfizer/Moderna ones and some other vaccines, and they’re all essentially similar. They’re utilizing the structure of ordering countermeasures, ordering prototypes, with the Department of Defense ordering them from the pharmaceutical manufacturers under Defense Production Act, and under other transaction authority. Good manufacturing practices are not part of it at all.

This product, by statute, and by contract with the Department of Defense, does not need to be compliant with good manufacturing practices. Another additional part of this whole scheme is the public health emergency announcement. When a public health emergency happens, essentially the executive branch of the government absorbs the power from legislative and judicial. A public health emergency, by various legal amendments and acts over a long period of time, triggers this whole system where the HHS secretary becomes a de facto dictator.

The HHS secretary is the sole person who can deploy these products in the United States. The FDA need not be part of it. In the law, it says that HHS secretary, whoever that happens to be, it used to be Alex Azer under Trump, and now it’s Xavier Becerra. They can determine whether these countermeasures can be deployed in the United States based on available data, if available, it does not have to be available, and based on his own determination about the current risk-benefit profile and future risk-benefit profile. Again, he can take advice from whoever he wants to take advice, but the decision is up to him.

Mr. Jekielek:
That’s very interesting because it’s also counterintuitive. If it’s a DOD operation, why is the HHS secretary responsible for the deployment?

Ms. Latypova:
In the structure of a public health emergency, it’s a militarized structure, and they merge and it’s all the executive branch. HHS and DOD become one organization, and they also wrap FDA into it.

Mr. Jekielek:
In terms of this operation?

Ms. Latypova:
In terms of this operation, yes. The public health emergency becomes that trigger for invoking all these military-type of laws saying that now they’re one organization. There are also inter-agency agreements that go into this, where they determine confidentiality, and determine how they’re going to make these countermeasures.

The HHS secretary deploys them, and the DOD orders them. They get funding through the DOD, and through BARDA, which is an HHS agency. They’re all intertwined. Then, FDA rubber stamps everything and pretends that they’re regulating these things, but they’re not. They’re impersonating regulators basically, because there’s nothing in the law that says that FDA regulates countermeasures. They don’t.

Mr. Jekielek:
But you would think someone would want to know. I’ve had a number of people on this show who have had pretty serious vaccine injuries. The fallout from this scheme is that the idea that these people could be harmed is denied by society and certainly denied by the authorities.

There are admissions in the NIH [National Institutes of Health], but it’s rare. Mostly they say there’s no signal. Most people are diagnosed with anxiety and things like that. This seems to be linked to this idea that this is not a health response. I don’t know what your thoughts are on this.

Ms. Latypova:
I understand why the government denies it, clearly. I still can’t wrap my head around denial of this happening by regular physicians. I know that there is a monetary structure that incentivizes this behavior. There’s definitely payments from Medicare and Medicaid to the doctors to vaccinate, and bonuses for numbers of vaccination they administered. There are especially high bonuses to vaccinate somebody who hasn’t been vaccinated. There’s a high price on the heads of people who haven’t been vaccinated to get the injections in and to get boosters.

There’s a huge monetary incentive there. Essentially, the government extended its sovereign liability protection to everyone who complies with this system. Throughout this whole structure of producing these injections, distributing them, injecting them, then denying the injury, there’s not only a huge monetary compensation and incentive, but also liability protection through the PREP Act [Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act].

That’s also explicit in the DOD contracts with vaccine manufacturers. Not just vaccines, it actually goes with the entire Covid countermeasures production, which includes vaccines, therapeutics, monoclonal antibodies, blood products, diagnostics, masks, swabs, and even staffing and things of that nature. All of them have the PREP Act Liability Exemption Clause, which describes that if you are in compliance with all of this, then you are treated as a covered person under this act, and you are exempt from liability if you follow the orders. The last sentence of that clause says, “This is both civil and military application. This product is both civil and military application.”

By the way, the contracts are redacted with most common redactions. There are two redactions, B6 and B4. B6 has to do with if we reveal this information, it will hurt U.S. foreign policy or U.S. foreign relations. And B4, if we reveal this information, we are revealing information about state of the art technology in the U.S. weapons system. I’d like somebody to answer this.

I’m just listing a set of facts. You can make your own conclusions, but I’d like somebody to answer this question, “Why and what is being put in these injections? What are people being injected with?” Because we know there’s huge amounts of deaths and injuries, but we can’t address those injuries until we know what they were injected with. We still don’t know that.

Mr. Jekielek:
Ostensibly it’s synthetic mRNA, and a lipid nanoparticle envelope that activates production of synthetic spike in the body to create an immune response. It definitely does that, but there’s more to it. That’s what you’re saying, there’s more to it than that.

Ms. Latypova:
That’s what is claimed. What you just said is claimed on the label of the product. But as I’ve described before, we know for sure they’re not good manufacturing practice compliant, which means they can’t verify to themselves that is what they’re making. They’re probably making that in some instances, but there’s also a whole bunch of other effects and varieties. By the way, if the product is not good manufacturing practice compliant, it’s open to adulteration and falsification, whether on purpose or by accident. We have now this whole bunch of unknowns happening.

Mr. Jekielek:
I remember the hearing where Dr. Renata Moon opened up the mRNA vaccine insert, which Bobby Kennedy Jr. says is, “The one place where the vaccine companies tell the truth.” She opens it up and it reads, “Intentionally blank.”

Dr. Renata Moon:
I unsealed the box that the entire thing came in, and then I pulled this out and this is what it looks like. I’d like to show this to you. Sorry about that. It’s blank on both sides.

Dr. David Gortler:
Boom, there.

Dr. Renata Moon:
It says intentionally blank on it.

Dr. David Gortler:
That’s the data that pharmacists and physicians are basing on giving the injections outside of mainstream media recommendations. There it is right there. Here’s a good question. Why didn’t they just print that on a piece of paper the size of a postage stamp? Why all the theater of folding it up into a great big piece of paper like that? Why?

Senator Ron Johnson:
That’s what is passing for informed consent.

Dr. Renata Moon:
So how am I to get informed consent to parents when this is what I have. I have a government that’s telling me that I have to stay safe and effective, and if I don’t my license is a threat. How am I to give informed consent to patients? We’re seeing an uptick in myocarditis. We’re seeing an uptick in adverse reactions. We have trusted these regulatory agencies, I have, for my entire career up until now. Something is extremely wrong.

Mr. Jekielek:
To your point, you also have talked about the variation between the batches, which by some interpretations might almost look deliberate. I found that to be very strange.

Ms. Latypova:
Yes. This was one of the findings pretty early on when I was looking at the various data and looking at the variability of adverse events and deaths per batch number. In addition to seeing huge adverse events and death rates overall, we saw huge variability batch to batch. But that variability was also not random, meaning that it’s not just they don’t control their process and they’re producing random outputs. There’s some sort of a design going on as far as what’s in those vials in different batches.

For example, we saw clusterings by alphanumeric codes, both in Pfizer, and Moderna. Depending on the letters used in the alphanumeric numbering, which should be just random, it should be just some sort of a manufacturing scheme to keep track of things. But depending on the letters, we knew that this set of letters would produce higher toxicity and this set of letters would produce lower toxicity. That should never happen.

We also had clusterings by dates of manufacture, and this should also not happen. You should not have a difference between the product produced on the first of the month, or on the 30th of the month. Another colleague of mine from Denmark was recently published in the peer reviewed journal, the European Journal of Clinical Investigations. He published this data he had obtained from the Danish government. Denmark was Pfizer exclusive.

They got all the batch numbers for Pfizer and the adverse event data, and he was able to find three different patterns of toxicity, and they’re cleanly separated from each other. Again, we have variability of toxicity. It also aligns in three patterns and there’s nothing in between, meaning that this is not actually random by design. By design, they have three different levels, high, medium, and low. The fourth one means something as apparent as placebo, because those people who were injected and don’t submit any reports, they don’t have any adverse events.

We have at least four different levels of toxicity detected in the data from adverse events. Again, this should not happen. This should be explained. There should be an investigation. Once you see some variability of data like this, this huge variability of the clusterings of data by various parameters, there are numerous different safety protocols that should be triggered at the manufacturer.

Manufacturers themselves should detect it. Manufacturers should recall these products, should stop the production lines, and start investigations. That’s what they normally do. If the manufacturer is not doing anything about it, then the FDA has all sorts of enforcement powers. They can also force recall, and force investigations.

We have all kinds of levels of consumer protections that should be triggered with this picture long before this extent of injury has occurred, yet none of them were triggered. None of them worked. All of them fell apart simultaneously and that kills me. I feel like I’ve been screaming for the last two years in an empty space and nobody’s paying attention to this.

Mr. Jekielek:
Have you experienced any blow back?

Ms. Latypova:
I tried to post this on a more mainstream social media sites, and it was immediately banned and canceled everywhere. I still can’t get my Twitter account back. I can use it on my laptop, but I cannot have it on my phone. Instagram deleted my art website. It was 100 percent dedicated to art, and it had nothing to do with this. Yet they banned it, and I can never get Instagram back. But other than social media censorship, no, not really.

Mr. Jekielek:
You’ve been in the middle of the biopharmaceutical industrial complex, as some people call it. You’re aware of its size and power. Did you think twice about disclosing these things as you started?

Ms. Latypova:
I don’t worry about it. Yes, I know they’re powerful. If they wanted to kill me, they would kill me, but that doesn’t concern me. Because the evil that has unfolded in the last two-and-a-half to three years is unfathomable to most people. Most people prefer to deny it, rather than to deal with it. I don’t want to deny it.

I want people to have the knowledge that I do from my professional background and I want them to understand what’s going on so that people can stop. In fact, we have been successful so far, because the uptake of these shots now is practically zero. There’s a huge distrust of the pharmaceutical industry, and of the health authorities. People are questioning it.

By spillover they’re questioning the childhood vaccination schedule, which is a great development. They should question it, because the people who are able to do this with these shots, where else are they lying? What else is going on? You have to question all of this.

Appropriately, people are becoming very skeptical, very concerned, and very protective of their children. It’s a great development. As far as justice and investigations and the reform that should come, I hope it will, but that’s going to take a long time. At this moment, everyone should understand what happened, understand the truth, and stop taking these injections.

Mr. Jekielek:
Do you have a theory about what happened?

Ms. Latypova:
It’s pretty speculative to answer this question to the many people who are asking me why. I can’t get in the heads of the criminals. I can just tell you that this is what they’re doing. I have the backup to everything that I just said in terms of facts, in terms of the laws that are being utilized, in terms of the noncompliance that’s evident, the injury, the deaths, it all ties together. I can show you how they pre-planned this. Why are they doing it? We have to ask them. We have to put them on the stand and have them explain it.

Mr. Jekielek:
I’ve been hearing about this accelerated research in applying mRNA vaccine technology to livestock. People are concerned that this will be something that will enter the food supply. What are the ramifications? We don’t know. Hearing everything you just said, it adds an extra serious twist. If all this was created without the proper regulatory oversight, going far beyond the basic concept of EUA [Emergency Use Authorization], how has this triggered accelerated research into the deployment of such products for livestock?

Ms. Latypova:
That’s a great question. It’s not research, it’s just deployment. Have you seen the speed with which they just said, “Now, we’re going to put it into the food supply.” Recently, the bivalent boosters were approved based on eight mice. You don’t need any other conspiracy theories to come through to just understand this.

If I told you five years ago that there’s going to be an injected product forced on every man, woman, and child in the United States, which was approved based on eight mice data, would you think that I’m nuts? Yes, and I would think that I’m nuts at that time. But this is the reality, and this is what happened. Then, just by diktat, they decide, “We’re going to inject old cattle with this stuff.” There were no studies, and nothing was tested. They tested it on mice, but they’re going to put it in cows?

Mr. Jekielek:
I don’t actually know the state of deployment, but maybe you can explain that to me.

Ms. Latypova:
They’re basically putting a bunch of money in front of cattlemen associations and agricultural associations, and they’re saying, “Now, we are going to either convert the previous cattle vaccines or just use new mRNA shots for cattle.” For what reason? What is the emergency with cattle? Is there a pandemic of cows of some sort that we haven’t heard of? Why all of a sudden they need to be injected with mRNA? Somebody needs to answer that. I don’t know the answer to this.

Mr. Jekielek:
This has begun, or it’s planned?

Ms. Latypova:
Yes. There have been news reports that at least some of the cattlemen associations are going to be forcing this on the participants.

Mr. Jekielek:
On their membership.

Ms. Latypova:
Membership, yes. This is going to be regulated that the cattle vaccines are now supposed to be mRNA for some reason. And also they’re going to convert traditional vaccines for humans, traditional childhood vaccines, and vaccines like flu, and RSV, and some other indications, and also convert them into mRNA. That’s published in peer review journals, ‘We’re working on these Covid vaccines, and next, we’re converting all these vaccines into mRNA platforms.’

Mr. Jekielek:
Is it just a mania? Is it a mania because everyone thinks they were so safe and effective? There was this huge information blitz about safe and effective. They said, “You’re going to kill grandma if you don’t take it.” There are many, many pieces of messaging, with billions of dollars spent on it. People have just become obsessed with this technology because we’ve been told it was so great and the panacea.

Ms. Latypova:
Yes, it’s a great money maker for certain people, obviously. A lot of money has been thrown at it by the government. With the government also come the private investors, because they frequently co-invest. There are various types of investors, including private and public funds. They see this spigot of money that opened in this direction and of course, they all follow because it was such a great bonanza.

That creates a lot of financial momentum behind this. Technically, they’re claiming it’s much easier to make these vaccines because it’s by chemical reaction. You don’t have to grow any cultures and so forth, so they’re claiming it’s also technically easier to manufacture. I have not seen any benefit from them, I only see injury.

Mr. Jekielek:
By all accounts, these are actually failed products. It’s surprising that this technology would be deployed broadly in many areas or even the interest for it to be deployed broadly.

Ms. Latypova:
Yes. They’re not only failed, they’re also dual-use. This technology has always been designated dual-use, meaning civil and military, just as they’re stating in the PREP Act clause. It’s been designated dual-use technology since at least the nineties. Its current use is indistinguishable from its weaponized use, because as a consumer or even as a manufacturer, it’s very hard to ensure that that code that you’re coding is actually the correct code, the mRNA code in the vial.

Mr. Jekielek:
I see, right.

Ms. Latypova:
It’s very easy to subvert it, to change it, to introduce other codes, and to introduce other nefarious pieces of code into it. If you don’t know what was introduced, you don’t have an assay to test for it. It’s completely open to adulteration and falsification. Correct, the technology has been in development since the nineties, but no products have come to the market out of it.

There have been no successful medical products because of all these problems I’ve described. With the manufacturability of it, you can’t really make it consistently in good manufacturing practice compliant. It’s wide open to these falsifications and the weaponization type of approach. It’s also documented in a lot of literature, including NIH textbooks and military reports on bioweapons technology. This phenomenon is very well documented.

The use of it is indistinguishable between the supposedly medicinal use that has never been demonstrated, and the weaponized use that has been demonstrated. That whole obsession with this technology seems extremely problematic and very questionable. Somebody has to explain how you distinguish between weaponization use of this technology and what you claim is beneficial medicinal use.

Mr. Jekielek:
Yes, that’s a great question. I just want to clarify. When you’re talking about the code, you’re basically saying that the mRNA that goes into that technology that is then delivered the way that the mRNA vaccines were delivered, that code is subject to change. You can introduce some other mRNA, and you wouldn’t even know to test for it if you didn’t know what was put in there.

Ms. Latypova:
Yes.

Mr. Jekielek:
Since the whole system is a black box, it’s very hard to actually track and assay for it.

Ms. Latypova:
Yes, assay for it, and verify it. In fact, it’s been allowed by the regulators. Another thing I haven’t discussed yet, I think you’ve covered in your publication. At the end of 2020, there was a leak from the European Medicines Agency, and a bunch of Pfizer manufacturing documents were released at the time of the approval, and a bunch of emails between EMA staffers that were discussing this.

In these documents, it was clear that at the end of 2020, the European Medicines agency deemed Pfizer as not good manufacturing practice compliant. It was the number one objection from the regulators for their approval. And two, they found this issue of mRNA breaking down and creating broken pieces of mRNA code.

At the time, Pfizer told them that the standard for approval should be 50 percent of mRNA should be consistent with the declared code, and the regulators went along with it. The product was approved in Europe within weeks of this discussion. So, 50% of a mRNA should be consistent with the code that they declare for BNT162b2, and then the other 50% is unknown.

Mr. Jekielek:
Right, they lowered the standard.

Ms. Latypova:
They arbitrarily lowered the standard for themselves. Somehow, regulators miraculously agreed with that nonsense. That means that 50 percent is undeclared, and 50 percent can be practically any sequence. It could be any designer sequence you can make. If you made a designer sequence and didn’t tell anybody what it is, how are you going to make an assay to test for it? You can’t.

Mr. Jekielek:
Right. It just looks like another band.

Ms. Latypova:
It just looks like another band. It just looks like a piece of mRNA. We don’t know what it codes for, but you can introduce all sorts of different things into it, and that’s how you weaponize it. Actually, that’s described as a weaponization technique for gene therapies in an NIH book that was published. There’s a whole chapter on this.

There’s a textbook online that was published in 2018, and that’s exactly how it is described. That’s exactly what they put into the approval, and that’s what went on the market. Please, let’s discuss this openly. Somebody has to explain to us how they are determining that these vials are not the weaponized use, but the medicinal use.

Mr. Jekielek:
Any final thoughts as we finish?

Ms. Latypova:
Thank you for inviting me and for the great conversation. My wish is for this information to be discussed and shared. Challenge it please, and prove me wrong. Look at these documents, and prove me wrong. But more importantly, I would like some open, public investigations to start. How can we answer these questions? Because this information will help people who are vaccine injured. Because if we answer these questions, we will know what they were injured by.

Mr. Jekielek:
Sasha Latypova, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show.

Ms. Latypova:
Thank you very much.

Mr. Jekielek:
Thank you all for joining Sasha Latypova and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Read More
Related Videos