Breaking: My letter to @SenAshleyMoody exposes a plot by select officials of the FDA and the federal judiciary to expose ALL Americans to mRNA drugs, secret biomedical experiments, and the sanctioning of battery to shield those acts from lawsuits. Read the Executive Summary at minimum and share widely. A plain audio version of the letter will be available today, or tomorrow at the latest.
@SenAshleyMoody I'm truly amazed at the number of people, including attorneys, reaching out to me, saying they read the entire document. It does this heart good to see the response building. Thank you all for sharing!
How many of you would join a class action against the FDA for allowing secret biomedical experiments on you and your kids without consent, then selling or using the data for profit? They don't even require notification when you're injured.
The Ninth Circuit held that Governor Newsom, under federal contract to never pressure an individual to participate in federally funded research activities, can actually punish Americans refusing to volunteer. The Ninth Circuit has no soul left.
The Supreme Court has declined to review any case in which a lower court has ruled that an Act of Congress shielding a drug from liability also bars a claim for battery when a person expressly refuses the drug, is administered it anyway, and is injured. Battery remains a crime in every State. These rulings treat the criminal act itself as the waiver of the victim’s due-process right to a judicial remedy, rather than requiring the voluntary, knowing consent long demanded by Supreme Court precedent.
What does this mean for all of us? The Constitution is no longer the operative force of law in the land; criminals are.
John 14:27: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” Sleep well America.
This is from COMIRNATY's drug insert sheet. Additionally, the postmarketing analysis is ongoing. Why is there such a strong push to protect against the harm the COVID drugs have caused, as reported in VAERS over the past 4 years or longer, or to deny what Pfizer itself reports as a "warning" of the drug's use for children? How many parents were/are informed of this warning and the loss of rights to sue if they move forward with the drug's use?
Additionally, when your child is injured, you can never sue for that injury. Your doctors and Pfizer get paid, and you get a medical bill for the rest of your life.
To the Department of War, and everyone following the open communication today,
Oct 13 2026
I wrote to Secretary Hegseth about the vaccine requirements still hitting service members. General Flynn saw it and said he’d assist in reaching the Secretary. A few hours later the Under Secretary posted the official word:
“The mRNA flu vaccine is not authorized for any Department of War or military use, including TRICARE. The regular flu shot is optional for service members except where a Military Department has asked for an exception, like basic training or operational deployments.”
I appreciate the reply and the memos being posted. I’m thankful that mRNA flu vaccines are not being utilized. Thank you. That said, my request is still the same. Please give us a clear, standing exemption that works at entry, including basic training, and when people are deploying. If a vaccine is still required in those places with no real way out, it’s a mandate. Those are the times service members have the least ability to say no. They shouldn’t be forced into medical products that come with liability shields.
Close that gap so the policy actually respects religious freedom and body autonomy for every service member.
Respectfully,
Harry Fisher
Paramedic
God bless
To the Department of War, and everyone following the open communication today,
Oct 13 2026
I wrote to Secretary Hegseth about the vaccine requirements still hitting service members. General Flynn saw it and said he’d assist in reaching the Secretary. A few hours later the Under Secretary posted the official word:
“The mRNA flu vaccine is not authorized for any Department of War or military use, including TRICARE. The regular flu shot is optional for service members except where a Military Department has asked for an exception, like basic training or operational deployments.”
I appreciate the reply and the memos being posted. I’m thankful that mRNA flu vaccines are not being utilized. Thank you. That said, my request is still the same. Please give us a clear, standing exemption that works at entry, including basic training, and when people are deploying. If a vaccine is still required in those places with no real way out, it’s a mandate. Those are the times service members have the least ability to say no. They shouldn’t be forced into medical products that come with liability shields.
Close that gap so the policy actually respects religious freedom and body autonomy for every service member.
Respectfully,
Harry Fisher
Paramedic
God bless
Were there any clinical trials of any vaccine in which the CDC could claim no interference with pregnancy? Rhetorical question. So they get around that fact by saying there is no "evidence" while ignoring the evidence that does exist of COVID-19 injuries to pregnant women.
Share
Copied
Jeffrey A Tucker@jeffreytucker
Really, there are no words left. This is beyond belief.
This is the result of millions of Americans refusing to stay quiet. @AGJamesUthmeier I applaud your boldness, courage, and tenacity in the face of historic levels of corruption. You are doing America proud!
Share
Copied
Attorney General James Uthmeier@AGJamesUthmeier
Weeks ago we learned Fauci and the biomedical state knew the COVID jabs were dangerous but hid it from us.
While that investigation continues, today we sued Pfizer for deceptively marketing the products as safe—making billions—while pregnant women were miscarrying their babies and teenagers were having heart attacks.
Weeks ago we learned Fauci and the biomedical state knew the COVID jabs were dangerous but hid it from us.
While that investigation continues, today we sued Pfizer for deceptively marketing the products as safe—making billions—while pregnant women were miscarrying their babies and teenagers were having heart attacks.
The US Atomic Energy Commission once placed radioactive material all around a city, including within its water supply to study how a nuclear attack would harm Americans. No informed consent.
Share
Copied
John Solomon@jsolomonReports
Fauci diary reveals alarm that U.S. had aerosolized Ebola virus: ‘Never should have been done’
Do you agree with the FDA permitting a hospital, doctor, school, public employer, or university to permit researchers to conduct secret biomedical experiments on you or your children without informing you of what you are being exposed to & without obtaining your consent?
America, YOU MUST read to the end: First, when Pfizer caused medical providers to promote and administer Bextra and three other drugs for off-label uses, and those providers billed the United States for such use, the Department of Justice fined Pfizer more than $1 billion for fraud. Where does the CDC derive authority to engage in the same kind of off-label promotion of COVID-19 drugs for which DOJ has levied historic criminal and civil penalties on everyone else?
Second, Congress denies any person authority to introduce unapproved drugs into interstate commerce without FDA approval, which includes unlicensed uses of licensed drugs. Doctors can administer off-label uses, but just as the FDA cannot engage in medicine to promote such off-label use, it cannot be determined where the CDC is authorized to engage in such conduct. If the CDC can recommend the use of unlicensed drugs, then you are no longer required to issue an EUA for them; the CDC can partner with America's largest medical providers and pay them with federal funding to administer them on the CDC director's recommendation to bypass all such requirements relating to unlicensed uses under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act & the Public Health Service Act, facts I'm confident HHS legal counsel and the Office of Human Research Protection are concealing from you. In other words, you are no longer required to issue EUAs, CDC can recommend the use of any unlicensed drugs, including those approved under the World Health Organization, but not the FDA. Unlicensed is unlicensed, period.
Third, 26 USC § 4132(a)(2) states that a vaccine is one that is designed to "prevent" a disease. "Prevent" is a term the FDA must assign as a licensed fact. Can the federal government, under the Social Security Act, pay for unlicensed uses of drugs not licensed as a vaccine by the FDA? I think not. Under the first EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, it was plainly stated that the drug was an "investigational vaccine," meaning it was under investigation to become licensed, according to 42 U.S.C. § 262(a), as a biological vaccine.
Fourth, if the federal government and/or Pfizer require the providers to monitor recipients for adverse effects and report on those effects, then that activity is subject to 42 U.S.C. § 289, requiring you to ensure the recipients' "legally effective informed consent" is obtained.
Finally, you should require the CDC Director to identify the statutory authority under which the agency issues recommendations that promote drugs for off-label uses—conduct pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves could not lawfully engage in — and the authority under which the federal government can fund such uses, since they are not licensed to "prevent" anything.
Moreover, why is the CDC not conspicuously requiring providers to inform the public that unlicensed use of the drugs means the FDA has not approved such use based on clinical trials proving the drug's safety for that age group? IMPORTANTLY: the CDC should remind healthcare providers that under misbranding laws, no provider can claim the unlicensed use WILL prevent the disease or promote the drug for an indication. They can only state that it is their opinion that the drug MIGHT have benefit, not that it WILL accomplish an end result.
Any other language that claims the same benefit of the licensed product is a misbranding violation—a felony under 21 USC § 331, punishable with incarceration and fines under § 333. The CDC should be clearer before its political fervor leads medical professionals to engage in criminal conduct.
You should know that Governor Pritzker enacted a law stating that Illinois will no longer consider it misbranding for a provider to promote a drug the FDA refuses to approve but the World Health Organization does. Now, future CDC directors can simply recommend WHO drugs, which rogue political actors will use as justification to mandate them for the public, and those drugs will be shielded from civil liability when injuring Americans. The CDC Director knows exactly what pathway is being laid for the next administration. That pathway violates federal law, and you should be informed of your exclusive authority to stop it. Congress authorizes you, not the CDC director, to determine when, where, and how unlicensed drugs will be used in commerce. When the CDC oversteps your authority, you possess the authority to correct it. Furthermore, you cannot trust HHS legal counsel to protect public safety or to inform you of your exclusive powers regarding this subject. I know this personally.
America needs you more than you can possibly understand at the moment because you're unaware of what the Democrat led Governors Public Health Alliance is doing in preparing America for the next pandemic. It is a level of horror few know is coming because no one knows the laws regulating unlicensed drugs, biologics, and devices. That lack of knowledge led to the past human rights atrocities under the Biden administration.
