Sasha Latypova on COVID, Trump, CIA, and the military

This week, Jerm speaks with Sasha Latypova, former pharma executive, on why COVID wasn’t a biological event but a military operation — exposing political cover, pharma’s role, and the fight to challenge the official narrative.

More Jerm Warfare: More Jerm Warfare: https://www.ukcolumn.org/series/jerm-warfare

Episode Transcript

(00:37):
What's interesting to me though,is how few people want to
challenge their own views. And it's not just on COVID or,
or, or the, the, the quote UN quote pandemic, but it's on many
things. Have you noticed that only a
minority at any given time want to kind of hold up a mirror and

(00:59):
and and kind of look at really what it is that they believe and
why? Yeah, exactly.
That's that's been my experience.
I mean, it's, it's nothing, you know, I don't pass personal
judgement on people, although. People need to realize that
it's, you know, truth is independent.

(01:19):
Of. Whether you like somebody or you
don't like somebody, you know, and most people can't, just
can't, can't judge the facts andobjective reality independent of
the actors involved. So that's why you see
frequently, you know, oh, you know, this was under, under

(01:41):
Biden. And I'm talking about the US
now. Yeah.
This was under Biden. Everything is bad under Biden,
but everything is good under Trump, while exactly the same
things are happening exactly thesame and possibly even worse.
Yeah. And but it's not.
No, no, because Trump is doing it.
It's it's good, but you know it.And that's just, you know,

(02:02):
fighting it continuously is the most exhausting part of this
whole thing. And I'm sure you realize that
too, right? It's the most exhausting part
because you deal with people whopreviously you thought, oh, wow,
that, you know, he understands what they're what what's going
on, intelligent, very good analysis.
And then the political party switches and it's like this and,

(02:23):
and I'm like, what happened to you?
You know, and, and they're not necessarily, you know, bought
or, you know, money is involved or some kind of bribes or
blackmail. That's very, very rare when that
actually is there. It literally is.
People somehow just can't criticize somebody that they

(02:46):
politically support or like or follow or, and they, and they
just can't criticize their actions because there's like, Oh
my God, then I'm, I'm a bad person somehow.
No, you're not that person. You're just pointing to facts.
That's the thing about Trump. He's like a pied piper.
And I like some of the things that he says and does, and I

(03:08):
dislike other things that he says and does.
It's not binary. It's not I either love him or I
hate him. But he is effectively middle
management. He doesn't have as much power as
people think. I mean, the most obvious way to
see this is we can all agree that Joe Biden was, you know,
senile and he couldn't speak in full sentences.

(03:30):
And there's no ways that he was running the show.
So if he wasn't running the show, other people were.
So what makes you think that suddenly Trump is running the
show? That's.
Right, right, exactly. And I mean, the best way to
describe it is, is it's a, it's a theater or like they, they
call it kayfabe from, you know, the, the fights, the

(03:53):
orchestrated fights in this whole, you know, entertainment
genre. And yeah, because I think the, I
think the puppeteers behind the scenes or whoever control the
governments, which is clearly not people like Trump, not not
the visible political actors, nomatter how popular they are.
They're never in control. And so the puppeteers, they know

(04:15):
this tendency of people to, you know, fall in love with some
political character and then andthen use that to continue the
same agenda, the same narrative,the same actions, you know,
subversion of freedom, removal of rights, all that with now
with the new actor that you know, that the previous

(04:36):
previously the Democrats were all gung ho and everything that
Biden was endorsing. And then and the and the
Republicans were fighting. Now it's the time to switch the
actors so we can bring this thiscrowd of, of cattle now to where
we need them, right? So that that's exactly how they
like switch the actors. But the goal, you know they're.

(04:57):
Pushing the the the ball to the goal.
Together these both teams. You know, so and people just
can't wrap their heads around it.
And I'm asking everyone to, you know, don't you know, you can
hate me. It's fine.
Hate me all you want, but let's talk about facts.

(05:17):
Let's talk talk about actions. Let's not talk about Oh my God,
like another one. I, I just currently, I can't
stand this the, the new Maha Maha Make America healthy again
policy. It's a total propaganda piece.
And I called it out right again when, when they came out with it
in September 2024. So this is what while Trump was

(05:39):
still running before the election when RFK junior agreed
to to join his campaign at some point very shortly afterwards
they published this Make AmericaHealthy Again.
Campaign policy, which later became the, the, the House
policy. And that was immediately
obvious. It was, it was written by pharma

(06:00):
lobbyists and it was written by pharma lobbyists.
It was written by Cali Means, who's a pharma lobbyist and who
works for Susie Wiles, who's nowessentially running the
government. She's chief of staff for Trump
and she's also huge pharma lobbyist, you know, and it was
clear, it was clear as day, right?

(06:21):
And you know, I published and I said, you know, this is just
propaganda and, and it continuesbeing propaganda and still today
the people. That I previously.
Respected published an article saying, Oh my gosh, the ASIP
Advisory Committee on Vaccination Practices was
deceived by CDC. Look, they pulled the wool over
their eyes and you know, they all, you know, CDC lied to them.

(06:45):
Can you imagine? It's so shocking.
Who could predict that? Yeah.
And like, how much of an idiot do you have to be to fall for
this, Right? And these people call themselves
experts, epidemiological expertswho understand the data, who can
read the data. Yet, you know, CDC pushes total
garbage in front of them, which millions of people, lay people

(07:07):
have no problem picking apart and understanding what's what.
Somehow big experts can't. They were deceived.
They were deceived. They voted to approve monoclonal
antibody for all newborns in theUnited States.
All healthy newborns need to be injected on the first day of
birth with yet another poison. This is hugely poisonous

(07:27):
monoclonal antibody. It's it's, it's disaster.
They all voted yes. This product killed more babies
in clinical trial than the whatever was used for control.
That was clear as day. It was clear as day to all of
us. Yet this big group of experts
gets from Maha appointed by RFK junior get in the room, they get

(07:49):
put in front of them this complete piece of garbage and
they all want vote yes. So and everybody then hates me
for pointing this out and calls me for Michelle, calls me
controlled opposition, calls me a spy, calls me whatever because
I just said like, what, what arewe supposed to do here?
How, how, how, how can they callthemselves experts?

(08:11):
And that's my problem. So this like this all the time.
I appoint out these things all the time again, because people
are in love with their politicalfavorites and they can't get
together together. That doesn't matter what you
love who that who you love. Now they're part of the

(08:32):
government, now they're going tobe working for pharma and you,
your job is to call their BS now.
Speaking of being a farmer shell, what is your background?
Oh yeah. Pharmaceutical, yeah, no, I
wasn't very pharmaceutical, but I worked as a contractor in
Pharmaceutical industry. So I, I ran several companies

(08:53):
performing clinical trials for pharma companies for like, you
know, the pharma companies as clients.
And in a way I worked with FDA as part of this because you
submit data to the FDA. So I the, you know, my expertise
is I understand the, the regulations, the how they're
supposed to be done, what happens in practice in
regulatory environments. And you know, obviously how to

(09:14):
read the data from clinical trials.
And also, you know, anybody professional in the industry is
under no illusion that that manufacturers are, you know,
they again, you can't expect a manufacturer to be honest.
That's why we have regulators because manufacturers are biased
by definition by, you know, if they put the product on the
market, they make profit from it.

(09:35):
And that's why we have regulators to keep that in
check. And now we're being told that,
well, the manufacturer produced data that was copy pasted by CDC
and pushed in front of the experts.
Somehow it's insurmountable for an expert to look at it and say
I don't believe it and do their own analysis.

(09:59):
If they're independent analysis experts should.
Well, Speaking of expert analysis, tell me what happened
in the Netherlands. All right, so, so this is an
ongoing case or rather 2 cases. So this was 2 cases in the
Netherlands, one was started about two years ago and it's

(10:21):
ongoing. It's for the for seven victims
of COVID injections who got together and this law firm is
prosecuting the case for them ingeneral.
It alleges that the government officials in the Netherlands
colluded with pharmaceutical companies and NGOs and WHO and

(10:43):
other governmental non governmental organizations to
conduct genocide or demosite. And it's extensively documented
as as very, very good set of evidence.
People have been injured, peoplehave been lied to by the
government officials. It names several government
officials in the Netherlands, including the Prime Minister,

(11:03):
Mark Rutte, who is now actually head of NATO, and the other
health health officials, and also Albert Burla, the CEO of
Pfizer and Bill Gates as defendants.
And this is the case where the judge actually ruled that Bill
Gates can't get out of this case.
So he's still part of the prosecutor, part of the

(11:25):
different defendants. And then the second case was
started. There are additional 3
plaintiffs who wanted. So there is a legal procedure in
the Netherlands, which I was told by the lawyers that really
you can't even lose that procedure.
So you are allowed to bring a set of experts to the judge.

(11:50):
And experts would testify that, for example, you know, there's
this case, we are looking into our options of how to prosecute
this case. And that's why we're bringing
the experts to the judge to get advice.
So it's kind of like you're seeking legal advice from a
judge, which in principle, nobody should refuse.
And I was told historically, this is, you know, you can't

(12:12):
lose this. Now we.
The the the lawyers proposed that the experts include myself,
Catherine Watt, my colleague, she publishes on publishes on
Sub stack Bailiwick News and shehas a extensive collection of
U.S. law primarily on related tovaccinations and going back 200

(12:38):
years. It's a legal encyclopedia on
this matter. And then Mike Eden in the UK, he
was formerly high level executive advisor, so very
experienced in toxicology and drug development.
Again, regulatory affairs. And Catherine Austin Fitts, who
is a publisher of salary report.She's former government U.S.

(13:01):
government official under Bush, she was in the housing
development and now she that shewas an investment banker.
She's very experienced in finance.
And so she, she now writes her own publication, which is very
popular. And then Doctor Joe Simpson in
Florida. And so, so the 6th expert was

(13:26):
Professor Francis Boyle. He's AUS, he's academic, and he
was expert on bio weapons law because he helped draft several
bio weapons, international bio weapons prohibition conventions.
He agreed to testify in this case that specifically on the

(13:46):
question that these measures andCOVID shots were bio weapons.
And you know, his agreement in three weeks after he agreed to
that he was suddenly dead. And we don't know why.
We still don't know. Nobody knows his cause of death.
But he died three weeks after heagreed to testify in this case

(14:09):
and on behalf of the of plaintiffs.
And he was perfectly healthy as far as we knew.
He was in his 70s and he was teaching full time.
So that so then, you know, the lawyers submitted this request
to the judge saying we have these three plaintiffs who would
like a speedy decision on this. Here, the experts that willing

(14:31):
to testify mentioned that Francis Boyle suddenly died and
this is very concerning. And the hearing was last week
and the judge, judge refused to hear us as well as experts,
which is very, very unusual. Again, as I said, this is a
procedure that technically just,you know, you just.
Get in front of the judge and they advise you how to file your

(14:53):
case. In this case, they didn't want
us to even, you know, they didn't want anything to do with
this. They refused.
So we knew we were anticipating that they would refuse.
And so we are now, you know, following another strategy.
It's going to be much more publicly.
Visible with Before we were staying quiet.

(15:15):
We didn't want to influence the judge's decision, but now that
that she's decided, we are goingmore public and there's going to
be more public communication about it and the cases will
likely emerge that these, these two cases, the seven victims and
three additional victims. So that's that's where we are
right now. But this is a very big deal and
very big case, and people shouldpay attention to it.

(15:39):
I can't believe Francis died. I didn't know that.
I think he was on my show when Iwas when I was still at TNT
Radio. Yeah, yeah, he died.
Yeah, we don't know. I'm just looking it up now.
Yeah, I'm just looking it up now.
I can't believe it. Yeah.
So I think it's, it was in February, end of or end of

(16:00):
January, I forget the date exactly.
Gee. Hey, Sasha, that's crazy.
Uh huh. Yeah.
So that's that's my, that's my point.
How serious this is, right? Do you think he died

(16:22):
mysteriously? To me this is very mysterious
because when a, you know apparently healthy person who is
working full time, teaching fulltime, speaking, agreeing to
testify, 3 weeks later is found dead and we don't know how, this
as suspicious as it gets. Sure.

(16:43):
That's derailed me a little bit.Yeah.
Actually, let's just take a segue.
Yeah, for those in my UK column,audience that don't know you or
your work, just very quickly, what is your background all?
Right. So, you know, as I said, I spent
about 25 years on pharmaceuticaland medical device research and

(17:04):
development, clinical trials primarily and you know, running
different clinical trials in oncology actually across all all
disease categories and oncology a lot and in cardiovascular
disease a lot and cardiovascularspecifically, I worked several
years in safety. So assessments of safety only.
So that cuts across all the therapeutic areas because

(17:26):
there's specific requirements for cardiovascular safety
assessments, which I can tell you totally were completely
ignored in case of these COVID shots.
And actually they are completelyignored in case of all vaccines.
Then they don't even apply to vaccines.
So that's how that's how safe they are.

(17:46):
They can't even test them for safety.
And I didn't know that. I didn't know that prior to 2020
because I never worked in vaccines.
I worked in drugs and I assumed,like a lot of my colleagues,
including my kid and also very high level executive advisor, we
all thought that all of the, allof the stuff that we have to

(18:09):
comply with applies to vaccines.It turns out no.
And actually, you know, that there's a, it's a longer story,
but it was never applicable and by design.
And then, you know, I, I, as I said, I ran several companies.
I sold them. I retired fully around maybe

(18:29):
2017 and 18. I just didn't need to work.
I didn't, you know, I wasn't interested in that anymore.
And I just, I was just having a great time.
I was, you know, enjoying myself, you know, doing sports
and art and just traveling and, yeah, living my life.
And then in 2020, I became increasingly concerned with the

(18:51):
government actions, particularlywhen they started suppressing
generic drugs for treatment of, of whatever covered illnesses.
You know, people argue about that.
It doesn't matter, you know, if people are ill and there are
generic drugs that are known very, very safe with long
history on the market. We always prefer those.

(19:11):
We prefer something that is known and very and you has been
used for a long time and is welldocumented to something
completely new. And so when they started saying
that, Oh, no, you know, can't use hydroxychloroquine, but you
have to wait for this mRNA shot,I was always like, whoa, wait, I
have to pay attention to this. And I, and I started paying

(19:32):
attention. I was, I started looking into
this and my, my first sort of, so I, I first was concerned and
I just kind of saw that it's BS and they are overreacting when
they started rolling out these mRNA shots.
Well, I personally know, knew that they were super toxic drugs
and from my history in pharma and I was like, there's no way

(19:53):
in, in, in hell. I'm touching this and my family
is not touching this. So I don't worry about myself,
but I was just concerned that they're pushing this on the
public. And I started doing analysis of
theirs data because that's the only publicly available vaccine
adverse event reporting system from CDC.
And I started analyzing it and I, I was the first person who

(20:16):
discovered the batch variabilityso that these mRNA shots had
humongous, I mean unbelievably humongous variability in terms
of. Toxicity batch to batch.
Because some batches had, you know, very few adverse events
and deaths and some had thousands.
And that should never ever, everhappened for any pharmaceutical

(20:36):
product or mass produced productof any kind.
Because you, you don't want to go and you know, get a beer and
a bar and this this week and next week you go there and it's
1000 * 1000 times alcohol, right?
It's going to kill you. So for that reason, you know,
all the consumer products are tightly controlled.

(20:59):
You, you should never see this type of variability yet this was
the, the magnitude of variability that we saw with
these shorts. And so I was the first one to
publish in it. I was the first one to, you
know, promote it and we build a website and you know, it became
very popular. It's it's a well known fact now,
but the FDA has not addressed itever.

(21:23):
They never acknowledged it and they since have never addressed
it. Nothing has been done about it
under any administration. I remember coming across your,
your sub stack a few years ago and I, I actually didn't take it
very seriously because I saw your art and I wasn't quite sure

(21:44):
what I was looking at. And I think it took me maybe
about another year or so to go back to your sub stack and start
actually reading some of your, your articles.
Well. You didn't like my art?
No, I did like your art, but it didn't.

(22:06):
No, no, what I what I mean is that it it wasn't joining any
dots for me. OK, until I started reading
your, your, your articles on on the sub stack and suddenly it
felt like there was a whole new paradigm that nobody was talking
about what you were talking about.

(22:27):
And there was one other person, Debbie Lerman from Brownstone,
and but very few other people were actually suggesting that
the whole COVID event was actually a military operation.
Yeah, quickly summarize that forme.
All right, so first, you know, for the, for the longest time,

(22:48):
myself and Catherine Watt, we were, you know, we don't run
subtract together, but we like we were collaborating because
she was providing a lot of law information and I was looking
from the regulatory perspective.So we were the only people who
were publishing on this at all. And I, I originally published
the intent to harm. I think I, I, I realized that

(23:11):
this was a military operation when I, I was talking to Brooke
Jackson and she's a whistleblower.
She's, she was prosecuting, She is still prosecuting this case,
but it's kind of like very, you know, not going anywhere.
She was prosecuting case againstPfizer and she's also from
pharma industry. And at some point she sent me

(23:32):
these files that were produced by the CDC or FDA or somebody as
part of the legal proceedings and they included a PowerPoint
from presented at the vaccine advisory committee of the FDA
sometime in late 2020. And when I read this PowerPoint,

(23:53):
it became obvious to me from oneslide.
They put organizational chart ofOperation Warp Speed.
And this organizational chart was kind of funny.
It was turned on the side. You know, usually it's like CEO
and then you have this pyramid, right?
They turn the pyramid on the side to make it less obvious.

(24:16):
But on the side, the chief operating officer of this whole
thing was the Department of Defense.
So there's this logo of the Department of Defense and then
next to it it says HHS, which isHealth and Human Services
department is advisor. While to the public it was

(24:37):
always presented as this is a public health event.
And you know, it's all about virus and illness and vaccines.
And you know, you just you're bad person if you're endangering
your grandma without wearing themask and all that, right?
So and that and that. But that org chart said
completely the opposite thing. It said that this is a military

(24:59):
controlled exercise where HHS isalone for the right and
providing, you know, advice, butit's being managed by the
Department of Defense. And furthermore, there was a
whole executive layer to this org chart that consisted
entirely of the US government, mainly executive branch

(25:20):
departments of the government, including various state and
security and things like that. So I, when I, when I looked at
it, I was like, wow, this is just really strange.
I've never seen anything like this.
You clearly military is in control.
And then I started digging into that and Debbie Lerman was the

(25:41):
person I found through this. You know, she's also writing on
subsets. She was writing at Brownstone
Institute publication at that time, and she wrote one article
where she found documentation from the, again, from the United
States government. It was somehow it was this
document was very obscure. It was linked to a New York
Times article. That's where she found it.

(26:04):
And it's called Pandemic Action Plan.
So U.S. government at some pointput together action plan for
what? What happens if we have a
pandemic? And that action plan was
originally written as a public health document with more or
less normal public health things.
And it said something like, well, you don't do lockdowns and

(26:26):
masking is not helpful. You just advise public not to
panic, wash their hands and stayhome of sick.
So normal things like that. They don't close the schools and
you know, so it was normal, moreor less normal public health
document. And sometime during maybe
shortly before 2020, literally months before 2020, the document

(26:49):
was changed somehow. No, nobody still knows how she
is, by the way, still trying to FOIA how that happened.
But it she's have this has been like years and she's having a
really hard time. And you know, that document was
changed and now it's called pandemic action plan adapted who
adapted it and how they how you know what process?

(27:10):
We don't know, but the adapted plan was completely opposite.
So all of the public health things went away.
And now she found another org chart in it, which is another
very, very confusing one. But if you kind of go through
it, you understand. And we've done several videos on
this as well, walking people through this.
So in that org chart, it said specifically that National

(27:34):
Security Council was in charge of pandemic response and that's
even worse than Department of Defense being in charge.
So clearly it says that NationalSecurity Council is the CEO
because they remember in in the orchard that I saw where I
started this investigation, the chief operating officer was the
Department of Defence, but aboveDepartment of Defence we have

(27:57):
National Security Council. National Security Council is.
Advisory body to the US. President and it consists of
heads of military and intelligence services, you know,
agencies and vice president and the president, nobody else.
It doesn't have any health representatives on it, so

(28:22):
they're not allowed in. You don't, you have to have a
very high security clearance to be on it.
So that was the body and that body usually advises the
president on matters of war and foreign policy, not on health.
Somehow in this adopted pandemicaction plan, we have them in
charge of the COVID pandemic response.

(28:46):
And So what happened is then ultimately our investigation.
I, you know, at somebody, at some point, somebody send me
whistleblower tape from inside AstraZeneca meeting, executive
meeting at the end of 2020. And the in this tape, it was
recorded from a Zoom call. I have a video of the Zoom, but

(29:09):
I separated the video from the audio and I only released the
audio because I didn't want to inadvertently do something to
reveal who who recorded it. Because of this, it was a
internal meeting at the company and so I released the audio and
I published it on myself stack. In this recording, 6 minutes
from the Zoom meeting, there aretwo speakers, the CEO of

(29:32):
AstraZeneca, Pascal Soro, and VPof monoclonal antibodies Mark
Asser. And they're, you know, high
fiving each other, celebrating the approval of their monoclonal
antibody, which which was approved in the US Their vaccine
was never approved in the US. It was approved in UK and other
places. And but in the US, they only got
the monoclonal approved. And so during this discussion,

(29:55):
they're kind of like revisiting the history of what happened and
they said, So at some point, Mark Esser says we were
approached by DARPA, which is part of Department of Defence.
It's the department. Darpa's Defence Advanced
Research Projects Agency, and specifically Colonel Matt
Hepburn of DARPA approached themin 2017 and said that we're

(30:19):
starting a consortium between pharmaceutical companies and the
Department of Defence to work onpandemic products.
And, you know, Department of Defense will identify viruses of
pandemic potential and you, the pharma, will be making vaccines
and therapeutics for it within 60 days.
To which Mark Asser said, I thought it was science fiction

(30:41):
at 1st. And that's a correct reaction
because it is science fiction because there is no science
today. It never was.
That can from a computer model of a virus tell you how how
pandemic potential it is. None.
It's not possible to do. And there are actually
extensive, extensive set of setsof literature confirming it,

(31:02):
including large reports and books published by National
Academies of Science, including Ralph Barrick as a co-author,
saying specifically, we do not know how to model pandemic
potential viruses. We will have to predict whether
they're going to be pandemic potential or not.
And the only way to predict or to understand that is an actual
interaction of humans with that virus, if you believe in

(31:25):
viruses. So you can't prospectively
determine when something is going to cause pandemics.
Yet this is what Matt Hepburn was enticing pharmaceutical
companies to agree to participate in, which is a
deception. It's a fake for money obviously.
And of course they agreed for money, even though, even though

(31:46):
you know, Marcus expressed his reservations, doesn't matter.
They, the Department of Defence waived a lot of dollars and they
said OK, it's fine. And so they started
participating in this and in 2020, then Marcus are again says
that on February 4th, 2020, we received a phone call from DARPA
telling us probably Hepburn himself again telling them that

(32:09):
COVID was declared a national security threat.
So this is what happened on February 4th.
Somebody inside U.S. government,we still don't know who
identified this COVID virus which did not exist at the time
in the US. There were barely maybe handful
of cases PCR identified. PCR is not diagnostic.

(32:29):
You can't use it for diagnosis. And so we didn't have any
illness, no deaths, nothing was happening.
Yet somebody in the US government determined that this
is a national security threat, classified everything, put
National Security Council in charge so that nobody from any,

(32:49):
you know, agencies that were actually implementing anything
could even know how those decisions are made because they
don't have the top clearance andproceeded to democide the entire
world from here. So that's what, you know, I
identified and Debbie Lerman identified and we eventually
published the COVID dossier where we are now.

(33:13):
You know, given this evidence where we started from, we also
collected the corresponding evidence from all over the
world. Now we have pretty much every
region of the world covered where we're listing all the
agencies that were in charge, how who was you know who, how
decisions were made, key timelines, key people so linked

(33:34):
to source documents. And in every single country we
looked at, the identical formulais used is equivalent of
national security apparatus is put in charge of the response.
The military is running the operation as a execution as the
operate is chief operation operating officer in logistics

(33:56):
and distribution, manufacturing,all of that the the.
Laws that are used. For what's called
countermeasures, which is a military term, all of these
COVID products are countermeasures.
And they're equivalent laws in the in other countries that
treat these products as countermeasures, which removes
them from any regulation that applies to consumer products and

(34:18):
pharmaceuticals completely. And also removes any liability
from anyone who is a covered person who is doing these these
procedures, products, protocols,enforcement, anything,
regardless of how many people they kill or injure.
And that's how all of these lawsare written.
And that's how all this framework is in place.
And, and it continues. It never stopped, actually, it

(34:40):
continues. I remember back in March 2020
when our president went on TV toannounce we're going to have
locked down for 21 days, but it flattened the curve.
Flattened curve, yeah, blah, blah, blah.
Yes. And it just coincidentally
happened in the same week that the UK also locked down Sasha.

(35:04):
It's just a coincidence. Coincidence.
Yeah, and. And I remember somebody sent me
a WhatsApp video within two hours after the president
announced the lockdown, a video from one of the townships,
what's, what's the internationalterm, a squatter camp.
So we call it a Township, but it's the poor areas.

(35:26):
And it was military vehicles with guys on the soldiers on the
top carrying guns and shouting at everybody, telling them to go
in indoors now. I mean, that was very quick.
Yeah, yeah. Look at what happened and what
they did in Australia. That was probably the most

(35:46):
tyrannical of all, you know, Western countries.
It was it was incredible. And there's footage what they
were doing and how can anybody in their right mind believe that
this is about a virus or some sort of respiratory illness?
Yeah, just quickly, because you know the kinds of people that

(36:07):
follow us, Sasha, you've mentioned, yes, you've mentioned
the word virus a few times. You've said pandemic a couple
times. Let's just quickly clarify in
your view, was there a pandemic?No, no, no.
There was never a pandemic. As I said, this is a military
operation. And, and as I said, you know,
they enticed pharmacom. They, they, they, they DoD,

(36:28):
DARPA enticed pharma companies to participate in the fake.
And, and in fact, this is how it's called by WHO.
It's public health emergency of international concern, which is
pronounced fake, right? So they, they, they like to do
these kind of Easter eggs to laugh at peasants.

(36:49):
It could fall for their behest. And yeah, so, so yeah, they
orchestrated the fake and I actually have written a series
of articles, it's called How to Fake Pandemics.
So it's a four part series. And I have some other additional
material, 4 parts part series explaining exactly the script

(37:10):
used by the DoD and used by the governments and academia to to
fake pandemics. It's not the first time they did
it. But why I would say they they
faked epidemics, not necessarilythey call it, they didn't call
it pandemic, but definition of pandemic if you believe in such
a thing. I don't they don't exist, by the
way, they only faked. But the definition that they use

(37:33):
it's it's a, you know, a severe illness with lots of deaths
occurring simultaneously in all over the world, or at least in
several major regions of the world.
And such thing has never happened in the world history,
ever. There have been local outbreaks
of what is considered infectiousdisease, most of it based on

(37:55):
polluted water. Water, especially water polluted
with sewage. But the humans are animals of
both open, open sewage somewherenearby.
So those those are typically thesources of these kinds of
illnesses like color, the plagues, smallpox, you know, and
they're also the insects are vectors involved in this.
And, and I also write articles explaining how that happens, as

(38:20):
opposed to other commentators who don't.
They just say there are no viruses, but they don't provide
an explanation, right? I do, but but as I said, but in
this case, these are faked. And there is a very, very well
known DoD script of on how to doit.
And there is one particular propagandist from DoD called
James Giordano. He's a professor of

(38:40):
neuroscience, Johns Hopkins, I believe.
And so he he does, there's a bunch of lectures by him on
YouTube. He does lectures to military
cadets, brainwashing them on various topics.
And he, in one of these lectures, several actually, he
mentions the script of faking pandemics.

(39:01):
And that's exactly what they didin my opinion.
So it wasn't a real event. There wasn't any real like what
virus or communicable illness spreading.
There was a lot of things that the governments did.
So I, I, my personal view, my personal theory is they followed

(39:21):
Giordano script, which involves some use of chemical weapons,
such as they can use pesticides as chemical weapons.
They can use metals. They've, they've used arcelized
metals and metal, metal particles quite a bit.
U.S. Army did continuously.
And they can produce respiratoryillness.

(39:42):
So like for example, there is a known saying it's called welders
flu. So in welding, when you're
working with metals, you may inhale arcelized metal and it
causes flu. So there's a flu, but there's no
virus. It's caused by metal inhalation
and it's one of the ways to simulate it.
So you so he says, you know, we use some kind of a simulant to

(40:04):
produce unusual symptoms in people in some locations so that
then the media can pick it up. And with the whole media
propaganda campaign, we can create a lot of panic.
And then because this this mediacampaign targets what he
specifically calls as hypochondriacs.
And he says those people when they hear.

(40:25):
These stories and they see the listing of the symptoms,
including everything. You are symptomatic.
You're worried, you are panicked, you are.
You know you can't sleep very well.
It means you have that deadly virus, right?
So then those people actually start having symptoms.
That's another known effect. It it's known in psychiatry and

(40:48):
it's known in hypnosis that a large percentage of the
population, somewhere between 10and 20%, depending on the fear
factor, are very susceptible to this kind of propaganda.
And they will develop symptoms if you tell them they're
suggestible. So you can you can tell them and
they'll develop those symptoms. And so he says this is what's
what's designed to produce in the society so that then those

(41:10):
people run to the hospitals and get tested with PCR, which is,
you know, is very easy to manipulate and set to put the
settings at high cycles so that it will find positive.
And there you go. That's how you fake the
pandemics. That's how they did it.

(41:31):
Trump is a bit of a blockhead who likes swinging his Dick and
typing in uppercase letters the whole time.
Sasha. And he was the president in
2020. Do you think he knew what was
going on before March? Before March, you know, there's

(41:51):
a video where he's visibly surprised.
So there's on March 20, 2020, there is a video of him where
he's visibly surprised by Mike Pompeo saying where this is a
live exercise. So what I think happened is he
was briefed in just enough to sign off on Stafford Act

(42:13):
declaration, which is which is what was needed to announce the
state of public health emergencyin all 50 states simultaneously.
This hasn't been used ever in inU.S. history.
This this law has not been used across 50 states simultaneously
and. So and Deborah Birx, she was
part of it, wasn't she? Yes, Deborah Birx was part of

(42:34):
it. So what I think and Deborah
Birx, by the way, she has, she'snot public house.
She is the Spooks, State Department, CIACIA.
Yeah. So, so she was actually quite
instrumental. And Debbie Lerman wrote a great
book, it's called Deep State Goes Viral, detailing her
activities very well and other key actors that people don't

(42:59):
realize. Everybody yells at Fauci and
wants to detain Fauci, which, well, I mean, I think he should
be prosecuted for crimes, but hehe definitely wasn't in charge
of this thing. He was just a pawn.
He was just a pawn. He.
Was a pawn. He was a very experienced
advisor on these matters, but hehe didn't make any decisions.

(43:19):
You know, Deborah Brooks is muchmore important than this
picture. And so, so, yeah.
So I think they brought actors like her and a bunch of others
perhaps. And they somehow convinced Trump
enough or briefed him enough to say, well, yeah, let's do this.
But they probably said somethinglike, it's a drill to him.

(43:44):
You know, they said, well, we need this.
I don't know what they they toldhim that, but he probably was
under impression that this is some sort of a drill.
And then when Mike Pompeo said it's a live exercise, that's
what like, you know, visibly gothim to say, oh, you should have
told us. You should have told us.
So I probably that's what happened.

(44:04):
And, and it was also clear, I'm sorry, it was also clear from
several Pentagon videos that I reviewed that he was not in
charge at all. It was Department of Defense
running ahead of him. But they were kind of managing
him to think that he was making decisions.
So there were several instances where, for example, $50 billion

(44:27):
were, were distributed to pharmacompanies before he authorized
it. And that got him pissed off, you
know? But he couldn't do anything
meaningful about it, which againsays that he wasn't in charge.
And so that's, that's how, that's how I see it.
He may, maybe he well, he definitely knows now.

(44:48):
So definitely there's no question in my mind.
It shouldn't be in anybody's mind that he's not in on this
game now. He is maybe he, you know, he
probably was enraged that they didn't like cut him in, right?
And now he's somehow reimbursed.Do you remember?
Do you remember those that one AT that he did on Twitter?

(45:11):
Like within a space of two or three days, his whole approach
changed very dramatically. Yeah, yeah, he was resisting the
lockdowns for a long time. Well, not a long time, but
initially he was resisting lockdowns.
And at some point, I think Jeffrey Tucker from Brownstone

(45:32):
went and reviewed his tweets around that time and found this
switch around March 10th. So I think that's when they
brought in and Debbie Lerman andothers think that it was Tucker
Carlson who went to Mar a Lago and told him something that
changed his mind. So that's what I'm saying.

(45:55):
They somehow manipulated with Tucker Carlson, with Deborah
Birx, whoever manipulated him enough by March 10th just to go
ahead with lockdowns again, Two weeks to flatten the curve.
Maybe he thought that there was two weeks, I don't know, to sign
off on Stafford Act and to startthis whole thing afterwards.
They didn't care. They didn't care anymore.

(46:18):
And so he had to just be surprised.
And then they probably told him additional stuff and now he's
fully on board. What makes this whole thing so
interesting also is that the mainstream and even many
alternative narratives completely avoid the military

(46:40):
aspect. And what that means is that they
look in the wrong direction. They keep looking at Fauci, they
keep looking at Bill Gates. Now they look at Wuhan since
Trump came and suddenly it's Wuhan.
And, and, and remember on the White House's website on the
front page, it said it was a lableak.
And, and there's a picture of Trump and, and you know, he's
the hero. And the whole thing now is the

(47:02):
lab leak, and it's China again. That's the other red flag.
Like why is it always China? Do people not see through this?
Exactly why can people see through this?
Because by the way, this whole China virus, do you think this
is recent invention? Well, they did the same thing in
the 50s and they, they, they've done it a dozen Times Now.

(47:23):
They, I mean, the CDC together with the military, the same
script has been done millions oftimes.
I mean they, and that's actuallywritten into DoD documents that
you know, if anything, you know,if we do that.
So I reviewed U.S. Army documentation, available
documentation on their official biological weapons development

(47:45):
program, which they had between end of the Second World War in
the late 40s. Actually I think they even
started in 43 or something. So from 1943 to 1969 to bio
weapons convention when Nixon signed off on it, they had an
official bio weapons developmentprogram at the US Army funded

(48:07):
and several locations where theywere doing it.
The the main one is for Dietrich.
In Maryland and they were working together with the UK and
Canada, all that from the start.They were also was always
collaboration between UKUS and Canada and they did operations
together and tests together. And so I reviewed that, that

(48:32):
documentation and their policy was always, we do some tests
either in the US or in Canada orin the UK.
We do the tests with these agents.
If anything happens and there islike public outcry, we blame
China. Number one, we blame China.
It's a China virus, Yeah. It's their policy, always.

(48:53):
Always. So it's always China.
If it's not China, it's Russia or Iran.
OK, That's that sequence. China, Russia, Iran, and that's
their policy. So.
People don't see through it. And and everybody falls for it
again with this, you know, Gulf virus.
I can't believe how many people in this health freedom, which I

(49:16):
now call health freedom movement, they're just grifting
off of this recycling these nonsense headlines that China
engineered virus leaked from Wuhan.
I, I mean, I'm sick of it. I like I wrote about this a long
time ago, actually two years. It was 2 1/2 years ago.
I wrote an article when they first sort of allowed this

(49:40):
headline that. Oh.
It wasn't a natural virus. It wasn't evolved.
Do you remember for two for about two years?
It was a zoonosis, zoonotically evolved virus from Chinese.
What that you Wuhan wet market, right?
And everybody was supposed to believe it.
And if you said I don't believe it or publish something contrary
on the Internet as I did. You immediately was banned, were

(50:03):
banned and I I was banned on Twitter right away and you know,
so initially it would be like a lot of bots would.
Appear Swarm, you start, you know, creating nonsense.
Yeah, just was just total BS andit was obviously designed to to
suppress this, but if anybody was questioning zoonoses, they
were immediately banned. Now then then two years, a

(50:24):
little bit later, Tucker Carlsonstarts coming out.
Oh, and then they have this whole.
James O'Keefe Remember that James O'Keefe incident with the.
Yes, with the with the guy from Pfizer who went on a date with
James O'Keefe and. Yes, remember that it was
undercover. Undercover.
Yeah. Undercover date with James
O'Keefe. This guy from Pfizer pretends

(50:44):
into, by the way, wasn't a Pfizer employee.
It was a BCG Boston Consulting Group.
Boston Consulting Group employedBoston Consulting Group Federal
OK federal division of the Boston Consulting Group.
Person placed at Pfizer to pretend that he's some sort of a
scientist to go with James O'Keefe to record this whole

(51:04):
nonsense where he's. Oh, Pfizer's mutating viruses in
the lab. And then Tucker Carlson is all
like, Oh my God. And then Robert Malone is like,
oh, this is so terrible. China's developing bio weapons.
I mean, that was just, that was,it was incredible and every,
everybody. Fell for it.
It was circulated, we had millions and millions of views.

(51:26):
Everybody copy pasted at that point.
I wrote an article, I said, OK, this is total baloney, you know,
and I, I kind of debunked it. So but then.
The thing? Yeah, sorry.
Go on. Yeah, so.
But now, of course, Trump 2.0 comes in power puts up a website
that says it's leaked from Chinese.

(51:47):
Go virus leaked from China. My question is, OK, So what?
How you are you going to addressthe fact that you were censoring
everyone under your first administration who said that?
And second of all, look at the NATO website.
It still says it's a natural virus.
So do do you guys like talk to each other?

(52:10):
The thing also, Sasha, is that what this does is that it
actually protects high level people like Deborah Birx, like
Donald Trump himself because he signed Warp Speed.
Oh, but now, no, no, no, no, he's playing 5D chess.
If he didn't sign Warp Speed, which was a choice by the way,

(52:30):
we all would have been in FEMA camps.
Oh yeah, he's exposing them. Yeah, it's exposure.
He's fighting globalist, you know.
But what what this whole thing does is that it it distracts
from who the real bad people are.
Yeah, exactly. Absolutely.
It distracts from who the real bad people are, and it continues

(52:52):
to cover up the crime. And this whole nonsense of
treating it as a public health event after five years, clear
evidence that it's not a public health event, that it has
nothing to do with with disease or illness.
It has nothing to do with pharmaceuticals.
Yet the same people are still with humongous followers, with
millions of followers are still writing that FDA doesn't see my

(53:16):
data and I need to collect unimpeachable data to convince
the FDA to remove these productsfrom market.
I mean, you want to bend your head against the wall really.
I mean this is just incredible, the amount of hubris and and
denial that people will stay in.You're right, five years.

(53:39):
So some comments that I have started receiving is get over it
now it's gone. It's, it's, it's in the past.
But I mean, is it in the past, Sasha?
Is this something that we must just put behind us?
Oh no, no, it's not in the past at all, especially in the US and
in many other countries. I advise people to check your

(54:01):
existing law on this matter and consult with the the COVID
dossier, because we're listing the agencies, the relevant
documents that you need to look at.
And so I can tell you specifically for the US how it's
not over at all. In the US, there is a piece of
legislation that's called PREP Act, Public Readiness Emergency
to Something Act. And it was put on the books in

(54:23):
2005 by Republicans. By the way, it was opposed by
Democrats. And as usual, Republicans
pretended that it's not a piece of legislation, it's an
appropriations bill. And at the time there was a
Katrina hurricane relief fundingthat was necessary.
And so as usual, they, they makethe relief funding hostage, hold

(54:43):
it hostage so that the entire Congress agrees.
And they slip in all these, these kinds of laws that they
know otherwise because they are unconstitutional and they, they
violate several provisions of USConstitution.
So they've, they've written it up around Christmas on the
weekend in the middle of the night into a multi thousand page
bill that was supposed to be voted on to, to get the funding

(55:05):
for Katrina relief. But the Democrats at that time,
you know, and always they, they're not born yesterday.
And they were, they knew this and they organized themselves.
They got a legal opinion from a legal constitutional scholar,
Edwin Shimrinsky. There's a great letter that he
rolled up on this, this law and,and then several Democratic

(55:26):
Congress people, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden,
Richard Burr and Ted Kennedy spoke against this bill and they
said it's unconstitutional. It violates several provisions.
It removes people's rights to toto redress, to seek compensation
for their injuries, to sue the manufacturers for liability, all

(55:47):
correct things. I completely agree with them
because this is what this law does.
But the law actually well, but but then they voted yes because
they couldn't, you know, not because otherwise, you know, the
Katrina relief funding. So since 2005, we have this
monstrosity on the books and they fully used it on the
population in 2020. What it does it if so, it's

(56:09):
written this the following way. If several heads of executive
agencies, including HHS, if HHS Secretary says just says
declares it is my opinion that there is a a public health
emergency of national concern, he can issue this declaration.
The the declaration of emergency.

(56:29):
The declaration of emergency requires no data whatsoever.
There's no justification needed for this opinion expressed by
one person who is not elected, he's appointed, appointed
bureaucrat issues an opinion. And, and by the way, this is the
same in all the countries that participated in lockstep.
Your equivalent Minister of Health has the same power and

(56:50):
they probably did that in your country to enable this.
So they issued this opinion. Now we're now we're in the state
of public health emergency or fake by by WHO.
And under this condition, it treats now the situation as if
it's war in net effect and legaleffect.
It enables military law to be now enacted.

(57:14):
And from that then they say thenthen the same person is just
secretary directs FDA to issue EUA authorizations for products
for this emergency. In this case, it's all the COVID
products, not just vaccines but everything that they used,
masks, swabs, PCR tests are not not validated.

(57:38):
All the process, processes and protocols such as killing people
in the hospitals with remdesivirand sedatives and calling it
COVID, Lying to the public, especially propaganda, lying,
censorship, are all COVID countermeasures and being

(57:58):
treated as if I lie to you to your detriment or your death
under following the instructionsof HHS.
I have no liability. That's how the law is written
and you can never prosecute me. That's why no meaningful
prosecution has happened in the space.
Yes, there were some legal windshere and there.

(58:18):
Mask mandates were overturned someplace.
They are very, very small and meaningless.
The, the number one, the deaths that they caused have not been
prosecuted. So, and that's because that's
why, because the entire sovereign power is behind this
saying I authorize all these people to do this.

(58:44):
And no matter who they kill or injure, they're as long as they
follow my orders, they're OK. So if you remember Nuremberg
trials, right? They're the Nazi doctors.
Their legal chance was we were just following orders and it was
found that no, no, no, you can't.
You can't have that legal defense if you're killing

(59:06):
people. Well, so the US law makes it
explicitly legal. To kill people.
As long as you follow the ordersof HHS and it's also legal to
lie about it. So FDA can continue lying about
it forever. As long as they say it's safe
and effective, they're absolved from any liability.
Now this law is is enacted, all of this procedure is enacted as

(59:30):
long as the prep back declaration for this emergency
remains open, remains in place and it remains in place.
So the outgoing agency secretaryunder Biden administration,
Javier Becerra extended it in December 2024 to last until
December of 2029. So now we have 10 years of
emergency of national grave concern of this respiratory

(59:54):
virus. And so that's why it's not over
because all of this continues. That's why FDA has been
approving more and more and moreof these mRNA shots for COVID
without placebo-controlled trials, without safety
monitoring, without anything, despite people totally despite
the same people who are now in HHS.

(01:00:16):
They were all talking against COVID vaccines, yet the minute
they showed up on in HHS. Yeah, complete flip and they now
they're approving all these shots and they are now going to
approve self amplifying mRNA shot as well later this year.
Stargate. Oh, and Stargate and all that.
Yeah, so that's why I'm saying it's not over.

(01:00:39):
It continues. They continue lying to you.
They continue lying to the public.
They continue and now and now the the Maha propaganda
operation is to label me and people like, you know, I've been
collaborating a little bit on this with the the Mary Mary
Taylor Bowden and Naomi Wolf andShannon Joy because we were four

(01:00:59):
of us kind of got together like we're we're just sick and tired
of this. And they're so they're calling
us crazy and unchanged and just emotional women and we just
can't understand the yeah, calm down, woman.

(01:01:21):
So we just understand politics, that big boys understand
politics better. We just understand politics, you
know, because, you know, if if RFK Junior removes that
declaration, he's gonna get fired.
I'm like, duh, because Trump works for pharma and RFK Junior
works for Trump. I understand politics, but look,
you know, they are on pharma payroll.

(01:01:42):
I'm not on pharma payroll. That's why I'm not crazy.
I'm calling for these shots to be removed.
You're just an emotional woman. Just an.
Emotional woman. Right, Sasha, I could talk to
you for hours more, but I can't if I'm looking at the time.

(01:02:04):
So how can my audience follow your work?
Right, so Sub Stack is the best place to find my work and to
read my articles. I publish several times a week
and it's Sasha latifa.substack.com and my
publication is called Due Diligence and art.

(01:02:25):
I also publish art piece with. They're not related at all, but
just people like the art. I like you Odd too.
Thank you Sasha, as always, it'ssuch a pleasure chatting to you.
Thank you for joining me in the trenches.
Thank you. Thank you so much.