HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.01.26 Board Correspondence - FW_ Expert testimony by Sasha Latapova.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: Expert testimony by Sasha Latapova
Date:Friday, January 2, 2026 10:04:32 AM
Please see Board Correspondence -
From: lance dreiss <lancedreiss@att.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2026 9:05 PM
To: Shared Mailbox Clerk of the Board <pcbs@countyofplumas.com>; Soderstrom, Monica
<msoderstrom@buttecounty.net>; Senator.Dahle@senate.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.Gallagher@assembly.ca.gov; davidhollister@countyofplumas.com;
sheriff@countyofplumas.com; District Attorney <District_Attorney@buttecounty.net>; Kitts, Melissa
<mkitts@buttecounty.net>; Kimmelshue, Tod <TKimmelshue@buttecounty.net>; Pickett, Andy
<APickett@buttecounty.net>; Connelly, Bill <BConnelly@buttecounty.net>; Brian Ring
<bring@buttecounty.net>; Teeter, Doug <DTeeter@buttecounty.net>; Julie Threet
<julie4butte5@gmail.com>; Waugh, Melanie <mwaugh@buttecounty.net>; Ronald Owens
<ronald@muzzledtruth.com>; Ritter, Tami <TRitter@buttecounty.net>; Teri DuBose
<Teri.DuBose@mail.house.gov>; Durfee, Peter <PDurfee@buttecounty.net>; Congressman Doug
LaMalfa <CA01DL.Outreach@mail.house.gov>; Clerk of the Board
<clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>; Stephens, Brad J. <BStephens@buttecounty.net>
Subject: Expert testimony by Sasha Latapova
Public Record
Executive Summary
Scope and Expert Opinion:
Based on my review of primary regulatory documents, leaked Pfizer’s Chemistry‑Manufacturing‑Control
(CMC) files, relevant legislation in the U.S. and EU, and other publicly available documentation, it is my
expert opinion that the Covid‑19 mRNA injections were deployed under military
‘medical‑countermeasure’ rules that bypassed standard pharmaceutical safeguards, rendering them
legally and functionally indistinguishable from a potential bio-chemical weapon.
1. The Dual‑Use Nature of mRNA/DNA Platforms
Established “dual‑use” designation – Since at least 1997, U.S. defense advisors (JASON group) and later
the U.S. National Academies have listed gene‑therapy platforms, including lipid‑nanoparticle (LNP)
mRNA systems utilized as vaccines, as technologies that can be weaponized (e.g., by delivering toxins,
oncogenes, or immune‑suppressive micro‑RNAs).
Ease of weaponization – The same attributes that make mRNA attractive for therapy (cell entry,
high expression) make it attractive for hostile use; even fragmented RNA (shRNA, miRNA)
can dysregulate host gene expression without coding for proteins.
2. “Bait and Switch”: Consumers Worldwide Were Misled About the Legal
Status of Covid-19 Products as Countermeasures – Medicines Used for Non-
Medicinal Purposes, i.e. as Weapons.
Consumer safeguards normally in force were removed for Covid‑19 mRNA products:
Investigational New Drug Regulations/ IRB oversight: Products formerly developed as gene
therapies were reclassified as “vaccines/countermeasures” based solely on declared intended use;
safety‑pharmacology, carcinogenicity, and mutagenicity packages were waived; emergency
declarations and non-investigational status of countermeasures removed enforceability of all
pharmaceutical regulations.
Current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) inspections: PREP Act (U.S.) and EU
Emergency Support Regulation 2016/369 (as amended 2020) allow the Secretary/Commission to
waive cGMP entirely during a declared CBRN emergency.
Import-export regulations and manufacturer liability: Waived via EU supply agreements with
pharmaceutical companies. Thorough indemnification of pharmas for any injury or death resulting
from unsafe product, except in case of narrowly defined “willful misconduct” – parallels the US
PREP Act in EU contract.
Independent batch testing in the EU: FDA‑EMA Mutual Recognition Agreement (fully
operational July 2019) lets EU Qualified Persons accept U.S. batch data sight‑unseen.
Facility inspections every two years (21 CFR 600.21): April 2019 FDA rule deleted inspection
frequency and penalties; Covid travel bans then halted inspections outright.
Documentary Evidence of Non‑Compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices and Product
Adulteration (Potential Weaponization):
EMA leaks (Nov 2020) – ~1,000 pages show major objections: (i) non‑existent cGMP packages; (ii)
≤50 % intact mRNA (specification quietly lowered from ≥70 %); (iii) missing analytical‑method
validation; (iv) unreviewed manufacturing changes.
Rentschler 2022 FDA Form 483 – Post‑deployment inspection of Pfizer’s EU contractor
documented cGMP violations, confirming earlier warnings. No enforcement actions taken.
Legal shield – 21USC§360bbb‑3a(c) explicitly states that even if a product would be “adulterated or
misbranded,” it cannot be treated as such once designated an EUA countermeasure. Same
regulation- and liability-free conditions were implemented in EU via predatory purchasing contracts.
3. Evidence that Covid Response Was Not a Public Health Response, but a
Classified Military Operation Utilizing Medicines as Weapons
All Covid-19 countermeasures, including bio-chemical substances marketed as “safe and
effective vaccines”, were ordered by the DoD as a “large scale manufacturing demonstration” via
Other Transactions Authority contracts. According to Operation Warp Speed/HHS Assistant
Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) reports, the US Department of Defense
(DoD) ordered and oversaw the development, manufacture, and distribution of all countermeasures.
The Covid Dossier (Exhibit 1) is a compilation of the evidence from many countries and regions of
the world demonstrating that:
Covid was not a public health event, although it was presented as such to the
world’s population. It was a global operation, coordinated through public-
private intelligence and military alliances and invoking laws designed for
CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) weapons attacks.
The Dossier contains information regarding the military/intelligence coordination of the Covid
biodefense response in the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and
many more locations. For as many countries as possible, the Dossier lists the military/intelligence
agencies in charge of their country’s Covid response; dates on which emergency declarations were
made in each country; military/intelligence-related agencies and bodies in charge
of censorship/propaganda; and top people with military/intelligence jobs who were known or
reported to hold leadership positions in the response. The Dossier also lists connections to global
governing bodies, including the EU and UN/WHO, through which the response was coordinated,
and provides a listing of the military/intelligence/biodefense alliances that provided multinational
frameworks for responding to a bioterror/bioweapons attack.
4. Covid-19 mRNA Injections are Indistinguishable from Bio-Chemical
Weapons.
Covid-19 mRNA injections meet the statutory definition of “biological product” used as a
countermeasure for non-medicinal unapproved purposes, simultaneously exempt from drug‑safety
law and manufacturers’ liability.
Potential qualification as a “biological weapon” under 18 U.S.C. § 175 et seq. (possession or
delivery of any agent “not reasonably justified by a prophylactic or protective purpose”) given
the evidence of systematic adulteration and misbranding.
Foreseeability of harm – Regulatory guidance for gene therapies and extensive scientific literature
lists insertional mutagenesis, autoimmunity, and persistent expression as known risks; these were
neither tested nor disclosed. Lack of cGMP compliance, evidence of adulteration and
contamination, and large gaps in manufacturing process characterization at the time of the global
launch demonstrate depraved indifference of the state and health
authorities, intentionallyputting millions of people at risk of death and severe injury.
Vicarious liability – Defendants knew or should have known that no lawful pharmaceutical
authorization existed for Covid-19 mRNA injections, that millions of people were exposed to
foreseeable harm. Yet, they proceeded to lieto the public and implement coercive measures to
increase the uptake of these shots.
Conclusions:
Scientific – The intrinsic dual‑use danger of LNP‑mRNA platforms demands the highest
manufacturing and regulatory scrutiny; the opposite has occurred.
Regulatory – Through a concerted global strategy (PREP Act, countermeasures, EU emergency
regulations, MRAs), customary drug‑safety law was suspended, enabling unchecked adulteration.
Forensic – Leaked EMA files and later FDA inspection findings document objective manufacturing
failures consistent with weaponization pathways described in U.S. biodefence literature.
Legal – Under U.S. and international law, a product delivered under the color of medicine but
meeting the functional test of a bio-chemical weapon triggers potential criminal liability for all
actors in the supply chain.“
diana dreiss