The Department of Defense is the Chief Operating Officer of the mRNA vaccine.

The United States Government is responsible.

STUNNING NEWS

On Nov 14, 2022, Dr. Peter McCullough interviewed Alexandria (Sasha) Latypova, a pharmaceutical executive (MBA – Dartmouth), who is now an independent investigator.  Latypova reveals that the Department of Defense is the developer and curator of the vaccine and has been under development since 2011. The ramifications of her findings are nothing short of stunning.

Sasha has spent the last year doing research on what she calls “lot analysis.”  Two-thirds of the US population took the vaccine, and 15% (to date) have had some new medical problem.  The CDC is forced by court order to release the V-Safe data to an NGO, ICAN.  ICAN evaluated the data and found that 7 to 8% of people who take the vaccine must go to the ER.  The world council for health report on Pharmacal vigilance for vaccines observes that a proportion of patients take the vaccines, and it appears as if nothing happens, and that proportion is the majority.  However, there is a real minority who take the vaccines, and something happens, including serious injury and even death.

I have transcribed the interview below to the best of my ability. Anything highlighted or bolded is my doing. All underlined words are hyperlinked. If there are words in brackets [ ], this reflects my notes. The transcription is not word for word. I have included a link to the interview for those of you who want to do your own research.

M: = Dr. McCullough speaking. S: = Sasha speaking.

Finally, the bold entries before each paragraph represent my summation of what you are about to read. I do this for those of you who want to skim. The implications of Sasha’s findings are far-reaching and answer many unanswered questions. However, she may have opened pandora’s box.

Sasha starts her investigative journey in VAERS.

M: Who makes these vaccines? Walk us through how a COVID-19 vaccine is made, and for simplicity’s sake, why don't we just stick with the messenger RNA vaccines?

S: “The first thing I did when I became alarmed by the actions of regulatory authorities, especially with respect to the suppression of hydroxychloroquine and other early treatments, I was extremely alarmed by this. I started looking into this issue much more closely. I’m a private citizen. I only have access to VEARS, as everyone else does, so that's where I went to look. I wanted to specifically look at the VAERS reports by manufacturing lot numbers.  That information exists in VAERS, and none of the other databases that you mentioned contain this information.

According to the US code, Sasha describes well-manufactured and good manufacturing practices and their importance.

My analysis was to look at adverse events and deaths reported for these mRNA shots per lot number. As you know, it's common sense for everyone to know that a lot of something mass-produced, whether it be drugs, food, or beverages, should always look about the same. If you buy aspirin today in the pharmacy, next month, when you buy the same bottle of aspirin, it should have the same performance about, safety, and efficacy as you would expect from this product. Physicians and consumers know what we are supposed to see when we look at adverse events, and deaths by lot number is a straight line across and as close to zero as possible as far as the adverse events and deaths. That's called safe, effective, and well manufactured according to good manufacturing practices, which is a set of laws in the United States covered by the code of federal regulation.  This code is very extensive and very well-known within the pharmaceutical industry.

Sasha examines the VAERS reports for the flu vaccine to later compare it with the data for the mRNA vaccine.

I looked at the flu vaccines which are widely administered in the United States. About 50% of the population gets them every year. It's a wide variety of people, children, and older adults, so that's a good comparator. When I looked at the flu vaccines, they looked as expected. There was a line across the bottom of the graph close to zero. The maximum we ever found, spanning 20 to 30 years of data in VAERS, was 37 serious adverse event reports. There were a couple of deaths, and the deaths were very few and far between. Not every lot had them. They were a very rare occurrence, and again, flu vaccines were administered in millions and millions of doses, inoculating half of the population of the US every year.

That was as expected.

Some mRNA lots had five to six thousand adverse reactions.

Then when I looked at these mRNA shots, the picture looked extremely alarming. Some lots had maybe three to five adverse events, and some lots had five to six thousand. So, the variation by thousands of times was absolutely abnormal and completely not expected from a good manufacturing practice produced product standpoint. It is obvious something is very wrong.

South Dakota and Kentucky look like death zones. How come?

I continued this research for a year. I wrote letters to senator Ron Johnson who used my data in one of his letters to the FDA and CDC, which remains unanswered. We asked questions. Why does this data look this way?  Why are we seeing abnormal patterns based on geography? Why is there a clustering of lots with really bad performance? Why do some lots have several hundred deaths in one lot?  Which is just incredible. The data looks also really bad when you look geographically at each state in the United States. For example, states like South Dakota and Kentucky look like a death zone. They each have over 30 deaths per 100,000 vaccinated people. That’s just on VAERS, which has been proven to be underreported. Also, there are lots that have dozens of deaths in them in those states. Again, I do not believe that this is not known to health authorities in those states, and any lot of anything that produces even a couple of deaths, should be enough for immediate removal from the market and recalled.

Orange County Health Department does its job, but its warnings fall on deaf ears.

In fact, I found that on January 18th, 2021, just a couple of weeks after a full rollout of these mRNA and DNA vaccines in the United States, the health authority of Orange County, California, accidentally did its job by flagging a certain lot. After a very brief investigation, nothing was done, and the lot continued to be distributed all over the United States until the end of March when it ran out. It ultimately resulted in about 3500 serious adverse events and 60 deaths across the United States. This is after it was flagged by a County Health Department!

How are the Vaccines made?

M: The question is, how are these vaccines made how are they manufactured? Who makes them? This is a much longer investigation.

The consortium of companies is run by the Department of Defense.

S: I’ll give you a short summary. These products are made by a consortium of companies.  Most of this consortium is hidden from the public, like an iceberg. What you see is Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson and Johnson being advertised everywhere as manufacturers of these products. In reality, it's a consortium of traditional and nontraditional suppliers to the Department of Defense. This consortium has been put in place over a long period of time. I have contracts going back to at least 2012. There are millions and millions of square feet of manufacturing capacity equipment, supplies, staff, infrastructure, security systems, logistics, and so forth to enable the manufacturing of these kinds of products. Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson and Johnson are involved in some parts of the process, but the entire product is made in this opaque black box controlled by the Department of Defense. These guys must comply with the set of contracts, regulations, and rules to produce something that cannot be tracked. Today there is no clarity at all about the manufacturing process. Obviously, it's broken. Obviously, it's producing bad products. Obviously, the product is very inconsistent. All these questions remain unanswered. Who sells the raw material to the DOD? Who supplies the DOD?  Who are the intermediate vendors? 

The companies include, for example, Emergent BioSolutions. They have been a long-time supplier to the Department of Defense and are the exclusive anthrax vaccine manufacturer, which has the same issues. It's just it's not forced on every person on the globe. It was forced on our armed forces for a while, but they have the same noncompliance as they did for years and are involved in manufacturing these products. There is another company that's called Ology Bioservices.  They've just restructured it into an even larger entity called National Resilience. These manufacturers, again, are completely controlled by the Department of Defense.

You also have the Catalent company. Another manufacturer that's a supplier to Moderna was recently found to be completely non-compliant by the FDA.  The FDA wrote up a bunch of observations that are just awful and normally would result in the shutdown of a facility until they can be resolved, but nothing happened at all, and the manufacturing continues as before. The consortium also includes companies like Snapdragon, MA, which produces raw materials. Becton Dickinson, Corning, and Grand River are also under contract.

There are a lot of universities involved as well. In general, the DOD has a consortium that includes hundreds of companies.  For example, one of the consortiums is called the Medical Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear Defense Consortium. It includes universities, small and large companies, and nonprofits. Not all of them are making vaccines, but many of these companies involved are, and none of it is good manufacturing practice compliant.

Practice compliant because, as I said, you know there are numerous examples such as Emergent and Catalent found to be not in compliance which means the entire chain is not. However, nothing is being done about it by the regulators. They just wave it through. They write up a lot of observations, and nothing happens.

The US Government is in charge.

M: I think that our audience would be somewhat disturbed to understand that there is a consortium of companies working for the Department of Defense and that there are so many of them. Who's actually putting it all together in a package?

S: So That's a very interesting question. According to an Operation Warp Speed PowerPoint presentation which is now public, there is an organizational chart that I found, and it says explicitly the Department of Defense is the Chief Operation Officer of the entire enterprise. The FDA is the Chief Science Officer and, in fact, is responsible for the design development, clinical trials, and approval of this product. Of course, nothing can go wrong here, right? Then there is a government layer of clinical trials, supply manufacturing, distribution, and production on top of it. Then you have production facilities, but they're not in charge. They get tons of money, but again they're not in charge; the government is.

M: OK, so let me get the talking points. The FDA is considered what, again, the Chief Science Advisor, and the DOD is considered Chief Operating Officer? Correct?

S: Yes.

Single-use vs. multi-use vials and their importance.

M: The vaccines were done in clinical trials, and patients signed up for clinical trials. There were randomized to either placebo or an active drug. Were there single-use vials or multi-use vials for both the placebo group and the active drug?

S: Yeah, that's a great question. So the vials are always multi-dose, even in randomized trials. I believe even in the randomized trials, that was the case.

M: That would be very unusual. I've been involved in a lot of clinical trials of injectable drugs, and they never do that because they have to be blocked. Meaning, typically, a block of like 6. There are too many drug accountability things that must be done. It's always single-use. I think that's worth investigating a bit in the clinical trials.

S: On that question about clinical trials, the EMA leaked the manufacturing documents I got for Pfizer and Moderna, which have never been made available to the public. They have never been disclosed. The report is called a chemistry manufacturing and controls package. It's a humongous set of documents that are supposed to be submitted to the FDA. They keep it extremely secret. I got the leaked version of it; in fact, the British Medical Journal interviewed the EMA and a lot of other regulators, and they confirmed the authenticity of this package. They never denied that this was wrong or was edited somehow. They confirmed that these are authentic materials. I read them. There are never mentioned single-use vials anywhere. Vials were multi-dose.

[More discussion on single-use vs. multi-use vials]

M: I have helped a company with a product called [not distinguishable].  It was a new formulation of an erythrocyte-stimulating agent for dialysis patients. They used single-use vials in the randomized trials. There really weren't any safety signals at all, but as soon as they got into clinical practice, they went to multi-use vials. In the dialysis centers, the nurses would take a single vial, draw out multiple doses, and then give them to patients.  There was a sudden explosion of cardiac arrests right after they gave the medicine.  It was found that in the multi-use vials, sometimes they would just inject air and then pull back the needle. It introduced various forces that caused what's called hyper-sulfation of the product and tipped off an anaphylactoid reaction. When these reactions got to about 60 of these cardiac arrests, the product could be pulled off the market. The company voluntarily recalled the product. I learned going from single-use to multi-use vials changes products.

Examining the importance of ‘manufacturing lot.’

M: I want to ask you another question. When you say a ‘manufacturing lot,’ how does that correspond to the distributing vials?

S: Yeah, so another great question. As you know, these companies scaled up very quickly and scaled out very quickly, so the lot size has increased over time fairly rapidly.

‘Lot’ means a single run of material.  It’s highly regulated. How you define the lot and how you test the lot conformity, and so forth. It's a single production run from raw materials to intermediate steps. In this case, you first make an active substance, the mRNA molecule itself. Then you take the active substance and formulate it to complete the drug product. That is, you take this mRNA molecule, and you mix it with lipid nanoparticles. That forms the drug product that is defined in the manufacturing documents.

The volume of the active substance went from essentially [skipped dialogue] 140 liters of the product, of which about 40 liters was active substance. That was in early 2021. Then by end of 2021, they claimed around 300 liters of product in a batch or a lot, and today based on the ICAN release, they went from 600 liters in one lot to where I found 900 liters in a lot. Since the yield varies in the manufacturing, they can vary somewhat from those kinds of anchor numbers or target numbers that they're trying to run, but that 900 hundred-liter lot was twelve million doses. The earlier ones were probably something like a million doses. So they scaled up from a microgram scale to now claiming nine hundred liters.

Some vials have little, if any, mRNA, while others vials have nothing but mRNA.

mRNA, as you said, is unstable. It can break apart. When you increase the size so much in the batch which sits in the VAT, you have this large volume of liquid, and then lipids in the water essentially separate. They also can kind of stick together and create larger blobs. Lipids will tend to float to the top, and they also tend to stick to each other into blobs and distribute somehow through this liquid volume. The larger the liquid volume, the more heterogeneity you're going to have. Let's say six hundred liters of this separated material somehow floats around in blobs that get filled into 0.45 milliliter little vials.  Of course, you're going to have huge heterogeneity within the vials. Some vials, probably a lot of them, will be blanks, having essentially very little, if any, mRNA in them. Others will have very concentrated mRNA because these blobs went through and filled the vile completely.

You then have these vaccination centers oftentimes staffed with completely untrained people. They would have people from the fire department or a nearby taco stand injecting people. It was complete mayhem, as you remember. Especially early on.  

Injecting the mRNA isn’t as simple as just ‘delivering a shot.’

These untrained people would have to sit there and prepare manual doses. The instructions said to add saline, not to shake it, don’t invert it, and handle it very gently. Remember, it's a fragile product. When you draw one dose and then let the vial sit for up to six hours outside of the refrigerator, or maybe in the fridge outside of the freezer, then within those six hours, we have lipids and water potentially separating. If you draw the next dose, let’s say an hour later, you may only be drawing from the water. Then, when you get to the back of the vial, you will draw concentrated mRNA, which explains how most people are going to be OK because they only received water. Then a significant percentage of people are not ok.  Many of them are dead because they got the real deal, probably high concentration.

Unequal distribution accounts for the varying adverse effects.

M: I understand these manufacturing lots are so huge that when they try to fill the vials, they’re not going to get it. It's like having a giant pot of soup, and you are trying to fill a little thimble. You are not going to get the same soup in every thimble because the lots are so huge. Then on top of that, within a vial, they introduce air and drawing it out, and all the manufacturing, you know, all the handling parts of this make it such there's got to be heterogeneity. But I'm reading here what you said, and you said based on the most recently available data, 35% of the lots of Pfizer are associated with 80% of the deaths, and you said from Moderna it's 24% of the lots are associated account for 80% of the deaths. Are the lots distributed in the same geographical region, or did they end up getting split up all over the place?

S: They tend to be split up all over the place, unfortunately...There is huge heterogeneity among vials that I cannot track because I don't have that data.

M: Sasha, I just want to clarify that one of the things it's not as if you said you know one lot could have a million doses and unlikely to have twins, but they're not all used, so they get distributed and let's say one pharmacy gets a whole bunch, but there are no customers. There must be a lot of the stuff that gets returned or gets wasted, right?

The Usage rates vary, which affects the adverse reaction statistics.

S: So the numbers from ICAN that I'm referring to was published sometime in the summer. They got data for the United States as of April of this year (2022). Those numbers that I counted were based on shipments. Everything that was shipped in the United States for Pfizer I counted at the time as far as the administration of vaccines in the United States, and I counted about 100 million extra doses at that point sitting on the shelves. We had huge waste right there, and we don't know how it is distributed by geography in some places.  Maybe everything is used in some places, and nothing is used in other places, so we don't know what the usage is. But I can also tell you that as I looked over time and as lots became much larger, they apparently looked safer. So the overall level of tests and injuries went down in the United States. The only explanation for this is that the usage went down dramatically as well, so the vaccination rates are falling. The uptake of new boosters is very low, so the only explanation I have for this apparent decline in toxicity is that people are just not getting the product anymore. This product is very safe when it's not used at all.

M: What the listeners are hearing is that if this was just an idiosyncratic reaction, you know people can have an allergic reaction to the flu shot or what have you, it would be and should be randomly distributed across lots, right?

S: Yes.

Those who, by chance, did not receive the mRNA material will most likely not experience any side effects, even if they received the shot.

M: The flu vaccine would have all the same vials and distribution. I think they use multi-use vials for flu shots, too, so they should be randomly distributed. You are saying for sure it's not randomly distributed. OK, so I've been saying that if people get a lot of degraded material or like you said, they get essentially no loaded messenger RNA, they can't really have much of a side effect.

The side effects are due to too much spike protein.

When we do see side effects, they almost always look like it's due to too much spike protein in the wrong part of the body, implying they got a lot of genetic code for the spike protein. I mean, the autopsy studies show the brain is loaded with spike protein in a fatal case, or the heart is loaded with spike protein. So I've concluded that these hot lots, these dangerous lots, must be ones where they were partitioned the right way, or it got maybe the genetic material concentrated. Maybe the soup was more concentrated, and the vials got filled with more concentrated soup. Is that a reasonable way to think about it?

The more mRNA one receives in the vaccine, the higher the probability of an adverse reaction, including death.

S: Yes. I found this statistical relationship in the first 33 lots manufactured for Pfizer. I have a lot of details again from those manufacturing documents that were leaked from EMA, and they have internal Pfizer tests for batch tests for these lots. I found the relationship where the more mRNA integrity they had. So it's as we discussed. The mRNA is fragile. It breaks apart. It can break into pieces. They have this test for mRNA integrity which tells you how much of the mRNA in the batch conforms to the specification and how much of it is broken pieces. We don't know what they do, which is a huge problem, and it was flagged as a major objection by EMA, but then they are completely disregarded. It's a huge problem. There's a percentage of impurity in the form of broken mRNA pieces and what the data showed is that the higher the percentage of the mRNA that conforms to the specification, meaning the specification that describes the coding for the spike protein, the more of it in the batch, the more deaths for that batch. So when the product is broken, it appears safer.

Is there any entity or agency performing quality and assurance inspections?

M: That makes sense. It's just either producing fragments or something the body can more easily clear. Now with the FDA being the Science Advisor and the DOD being the Chief Operating Officer in the EUA contracts, are there any inspections for quality and impurity with other products?

In all of 2020, no one was inspecting anything.

S: No. It appears that for 2020 there were no inspections done by the FDA at all of any manufacturer they claimed. It's because of COVID, and it's dangerous to go and do an in-person inspection. All they did was accept paperwork from the manufacturers; it's not dangerous to inspect those facilities. They are largely automated. Very few people work there, so it was never dangerous to do so. Now for 2021, I know some inspections have occurred, and there are numerous reports we've seen of Pfizer and Moderna suppliers being flagged for serious violations. Form 483 issued by the FDA means that you're in serious violation of good manufacturing practices, and in fact, by the observations that we can find, we can tell definitively this, in normal circumstances, would result in a stop order and before you can continue, you must resolve this issue. But they seem to be doing it as a theater. Essentially, they will just send the inspector to write up observations, but nothing happens. There’s no enforcement whatsoever that happens.

What the Japanese have found.

M: Tell us a bit about when people think about this; they've heard reports of Japan inspecting the vials, finding debris, and returning it. I think Pfizer and Moderna have had large returns for contaminants. Tell us about debris and contaminants. What have the Japanese found?

S: The Japanese authority found metal, steel, and stainless steel flakes. At least that's what was reported, and I know that that particular batch was manufactured not by Moderna; it was manufactured on behalf of Moderna by the company called ROVI in Spain. It's a Spanish manufacturer. That was the batch that was returned by the Japanese. The Japanese authorities are the only ones that I know of that really did anything like this; everybody else seems to just, you know, be waving them through without any inspections.

The vials containing the mRNA vaccine are the property of the US Government until they are injected into a person.

In the United States, so I can tell you by contract because the DOD has a set of suppliers and a set of contracts. So then, by HHS contract, the vials are the property of the US government. So the vials are the property of the Department of Defense until they get injected into the person. So the distribution of this is not going through the licensed pharmacy distributors who are bound by a set of regulations called good distribution practices, and they have to be licensed, and they have to be, you know, responsible for deliveries. So possession is never taken by anybody other than U.S. Federal government. They hold these vials through distribution, which is handled by the Department of Defense. It's again a black box until they get injected into the person. The hospital never knows and cannot verify.  They essentially get a black box shipment, and then they're supposed to inject it into people. Do you understand how illegal this is?

The DOD has complete control of the chain of command.

M: If there's no chain of command of this product outside the government, I guess the Department of Defense has complete control of the chain of command. This is an extraordinary revelation.

Does the mRNA vaccine cause the body to become magnetized?

I must ask you this, and I've seen demonstrations of it. People initially were making it a big deal. It's funny how everyone's dropped this, but about taking an injection and then having magnetism metal stick to the arm? Is that all just hocus pocus, or is there validity to it?

S: I know people who have experienced this personally, so I can tell you it did happen. I have a number of colleagues I've talked to about it, and I personally have looked at their findings under a microscope. Some people have got possession of the vials even if it's in violation of the US code; you can be, you know, they can say, well, you are stealing government property. Under whistleblower protection laws, you have a defense when you are trying to investigate a crime.

Doctors and pharmacists have been able to get hold of and test the vials. What they found is a variety of contaminants and metals, just like Japanese authorities found, and different metals, not just stainless steel. Different heavy metals, lead, cobalt, aluminum, and even rare metals. Then they also find a lot of strange shapes, particles, and blobs, and sometimes they find that magnetic beads which are part of the manufacturing process, especially at a small scale. They are probably not used. They probably switched to another process at the larger scale, but at the small scale, early on, the magnetic beads were used for RNA purification, and they were found in vials and were imaged directly in vials, meaning that during the manufacturing; they did not get rid of them. They did not clean the vats properly or forgot, you know, just left over from the manufacturing, and those magnetic beads can be injected in the person, and you’d be magnetic there.

M: OK, so that's actually fascinating. That explains why there was such a big deal with magnets sticking to arms early on, and then it faded later on because they were magnetic beads in there.

Well, Sasha, I've learned so much. This has been a very interesting interview. It's also been kind of spooky to hear all this. Let's wrap it up. Do you have any final important things that people need to understand? About two-thirds of people have taken the vaccine; a third haven't. You know we've been pounding on safety now for a couple of years, but this is the first time we've really done a deeper dive into manufacturing. What else can be learned regarding the manufacturing of these products that are going to be helpful in getting a full understanding of what's going on?

Unless the government comes clean, we will make very little headway.

S: Until the government comes clean about the manufacturing practices around this, you know, we can't really, we can’t say that these products are manufactured as they are described. So. even making assumptions from the literature and from the research about the mRNA mechanism of action or toxicities, while they're absolutely valid, I cautioned because given how badly these products are produced and the very small percentage of these products actually, in my opinion, conform to that label, if at all, so what's being produced is very far from what's being described in specifications from the manufacturers and regulatory documents or scientific literature. That's a huge problem. We cannot say that there is any efficacy whatsoever. We know there is negative efficacy, meaning that these products hurt more people than they help. We know there's a huge number of toxicities, deaths, and horrific injuries, so at this point, I think WE HAVE TO STOP.  We cannot use them and cannot rely on the government to do anything about it because, obviously, a long time has gone by, and they've done nothing.

What is the role of Pfizer and Moderna?

M: Are these ever actually the possession of Pfizer or Moderna? Do they actually hold possession, or are they, in a sense, just a figurehead or a marketing mantle for this?

S: I think they are figureheads and marketing mantles. I believe this because there is a very, very complex supply chain. Specifically, from Moderna, I know that Moderna, in Massachusetts, gets raw materials from elsewhere. They do some steps of manufacturing in Massachusetts, and then it's shipped to Catalent for fill and finish. That's under a DOD contract. All of those separate entities are also contracted by the DOD.  The product is then delivered to the DOD for distribution, where it is the property of the DOD until it gets injected into the person.

M: So Moderna is not distributing it or using private distributors.  Is the DOD the one who distributes it?

S: They at least hold the ownership of it and order someone to distribute it for them. 

M: Is the ‘fill and finish’ for Pfizer the same? Is it done by a defense contractor at the end?

S: It can be.  That is not disclosed to the public who exactly does fill and finish. Pfizer has many production lines and production combinations of different facilities where this can be made.  It is hard to say which lot comes from where.  Pfizer has a bunch of its own fill/finish facilities, but it can also use others. Also, because this product falls into the distribution black box, it is open to falsification.  While the DOD holds ownership, they are not governed by any good manufacturing practices; they are not a licensed pharmacy distributor and do not need to comply with any laws.  Mislabeling has happened. They tried to push several mislabeled lots on the US Coast Guard.  We found this out through court proceedings.

M: We are going to have to leave it here.  I’m just stunned by what I’ve learned.  I think this has been one of the most penetrating interviews so far on the McCullough Report. 

Sasha Latypova, thank you so much for joining us tonight.  We are going to have to pick up on this as we learn more in the next few months.

S: Thank you so much.  Thank you for inviting me.

Click on the image below to be taken to the podcast.