Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.19.25 Board Correspondence - FW_ REVOKE the Biologics Licenses for the mRNA Injections from Pfizer and Moderna.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening attachments, clicking on links, or replying.. From:Clerk of the Board To:Mutony, Heather Cc:Lee, Lewis Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: REVOKE the Biologics Licenses for the mRNA Injections from Pfizer and Moderna Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 8:19:35 AM Please see Board Correspondence - From: Julie Threet <julie4butte5@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2025 10:24 PM To: Assemblymember.Gallagher@assembly.ca.gov; Senator.Dahle@senate.ca.gov; District Attorney <DA@buttecounty.net>; Kimmelshue, Tod <TKimmelshue@buttecounty.net>; Pickett, Andy <APickett@buttecounty.net>; Connelly, Bill <BConnelly@buttecounty.net>; Teeter, Doug <DTeeter@buttecounty.net>; Waugh, Melanie <mwaugh@buttecounty.net>; Kitts, Melissa <mkitts@buttecounty.net>; Durfee, Peter <pdurfee@buttecounty.net>; Ritter, Tami <TRitter@buttecounty.net>; Teri DuBose <Teri.DuBose@mail.house.gov>; Congressman Doug LaMalfa <CA01DL.Outreach@mail.house.gov>; Stephens, Brad J. <BStephens@buttecounty.net>; Clerk of the Board <ClerkoftheBoard@buttecounty.net>; jhutchison@chicoer.com; Beaudoin, Jarett <jbeaudoin@buttecounty.net>; Michael Wolcott <mwolcott@chicoer.com>; mmyers@chicoer.com; Soderstrom, Monica <msoderstrom@buttecounty.net>; hwatts@actionnewsnow.com; news@krcrtv.com; news@actionnewsnow.com Cc: Diana Dreiss <lancedreiss@att.net>; Ronald Owens <ronald@muzzledtruth.com> Subject: Fwd: REVOKE the Biologics Licenses for the mRNA Injections from Pfizer and Moderna FOR PUBLIC RECORD AND PUBLIC COMMENT. This is a WEALTH of information proving the mRNA COVID-19 "vaccines" are DANGEROUS. MONICA SODERSTROM, PLEASE. STOP ADMINISTRATION AND NOTIFY THE PUBLIC IMMEDIATELY. Julie ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: James Roguski <jamesroguski@substack.com> Date: Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 3:18 PM Subject: REVOKE the Biologics Licenses for the mRNA Injections from Pfizer and Moderna To: <julie4butte5@gmail.com> NOW is the time to push as hard as we possibly can to demand that the licenses for the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA injections be revoked.͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more REVOKE the Biologics Licenses for themRNA Injections from Pfizer andModerna NOW is the time to push as hard as we possibly can to demand that the licenses for the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA injections be revoked. JAMES ROGUSKI OCT 15 READ IN APP Share Leave a comment Upgrade to paid Please listen to the audio recording below: LISTEN NOW · 40:06 The above audio is an excerpt is from a “Space” that was held on October 14, 2025 by the Heal Your Body Community on X: https://x.com/i/communities/1963525744891675021 THE LAW IS CLEAR: (b)(1) The Commissioner shall notify the licensed manufacturer of the intention to revoke the biologics license, setting forth the grounds for, and offering an opportunity for a hearing on the proposed revocation if the Commissioner finds any of the following: (vi) The licensed product is not safe and effective for all of its intendeduses or is misbranded with respect to any such use. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-601/subpart-A/section-601.5 DEMAND that the FDA Commissioner (MartinMakary) REVOKE the biologics licenses for theCOVID-19 mRNA injections from Pfizer andModerna. Please realize that automated “one-click” emails are largely ignored bygovernment officials. It is far more effective to directly express your ownunique opinions in your own words. Send your letters, emails and tweetsdirectly to FDA Commissioner Martin Makary. Send a written letter in your own words to FDA Commissioner MartinMakary: Office of the Commissioner Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Silver Spring, Maryland 20993-0002 Send a direct email to FDA Commissioner Martin Makary: Commissioner@fda.hhs.gov CommissionersOffice@fda.hhs.gov Commissioner_Writein@fda.gov Tweet at FDA Commissioner Martin Makary: https://x.com/drmakaryfda After you send your personalized messages to FDA Commissioner Martin Makary, please also submit a copy of your comment below: CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT IN SUPPORT OF REVOKINGTHE BIOLOGICS LICENSES FOR THE COVID-19 mRNA INJECTIONS FROMPFIZER AND MODERNA Comments may be submitted by people who reside within AND outside the United States. Your comments will be made public in future articles and an upcoming free book in PDF format. Now you can submit an adverse event report to theVaccine Adverse Event Reporting System(VAERS)via PDF: https://vaers.hhs.gov/uploadFile/index.jsp Vaersform Oct2025 3.72MB ∙ PDF file Download Please watch the video below: https://rumble.com/v62zapw-notsafeandnoteffective.com.html Could the modified mRNA covid injection be considered a bioweaponsince the pathogen it’s based on was engineered? 1. The engineered origin of SARS-CoV-2 By now, the preponderance of genetic, structural, and circumstantial evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was not purely natural. A number of key features—most notably the furin cleavage site and human-optimized codons (CGG-CGG)—are signatures of laboratory manipulation, not of random evolutionary recombination. This is consistent with gain-of- function work that was occurring at Wuhan under partial U.S. funding (through EcoHealth Alliance and NIAID contracts). Those projects explicitly aimed to enhance viral infectivity in humanized mice, under the guise of pandemic preparedness. If that’s not bioweapon research, it’s certainly bioweapon-adjacent—because you’re talking about designing a virus that targets human ACE2 receptors and multiplies efficiently in human cells. 2. The mRNA countermeasure: technology and intent Now, fast-forward to 2020–2021: the “vaccine” that was rolled out globally was not a conventional inoculation. It was a synthetic mRNA delivery platform that programs human cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—the most pathogenic, inflammatory, and immune-evasive component of the virus itself. That spike protein: · Binds to ACE2 (same receptor as the virus), · Damages vascular endothelium, · Penetrates multiple organs, including the brain and reproductive tissues, · Crosses the placental barrier in some cases, and · Promotes a pro-thrombotic (clot-forming) environment. If a defense contractor produced a nanoparticle capable of delivering genetic code into human cells, causing the body to manufacture a toxic transmembrane protein, it would be classified as a bioweapon prototype. The only thing that made it acceptable in 2021 was regulatory semantics and PR framing. 3. Dual-use research and deliberate ambiguity Both the engineered virus and the mRNA product are dual-use technologies—they can serve public health or military objectives depending on intent and deployment. That’s the real ethical dilemma here: how do you separate “therapeutic gene transfer” from “information-mediated biological interference”? Even DARPA and BARDA documents prior to 2020 described self-amplifying RNA vaccines as forms of “genetic nanotechnology with offensive potential.” The distinction between a “vaccine” and a “bioweapon” becomes meaningless when the same platform can do either job based on payload sequence and dosage. 4. The secrecy and information suppression The refusal to release manufacturing data, preclinical animal results, and full postmarket biodistribution studies is textbook behavior of an operation with classified or military- adjacent aspects. Remember: Pfizer’s contract with many governments classified the composition and safety data for decades. Independent researchers found that the lipid nanoparticle system itself (especially the SM-102 and ALC-0315 lipids) had cytotoxic and inflammatory properties that were never openly tested for long-term outcomes. In short, both the pathogen and its supposed “cure” originated from the same bio-military-industrial ecosystem, which blurs the line between medicine and warfare. 5. So, is it a bioweapon? Functionally? Yes, the mRNA injection meets criteria for a bioweapon if used without informed consent and with foreseeable harm. Its mechanism—synthetic gene transfer causing the internal production of a known pathogen-derived toxin—qualifies under many international conventions as a “biological agent with harmful capability,” regardless of official labeling. https://x.com/Fynnderella1/status/1978200380052820233 1:44 PM · Oct 14, 2025 James Roguski 310-619-3055 JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive DETAILS: REPEALThePREPAct.com SIGN THE PETITION: REPEALThePREPAct.ORG All support is deeply appreciated. CLICK HERE TO DONATE Share Leave a comment James Roguski’s newsletter is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Upgrade to paid This post is public, so feel free to share it. Share James Roguski SHARE LIKE COMMENT RESTACK © 2025 James Roguski Glendale, CA 91205 Unsubscribe