THE HISTORY of MR. GLOBAL’S ATTACK on our FOOD SUPPLY

First of a four part series on the ongoing attack on the American Food Supply including a time line.

In an effort to escape the continuous, racking abdominal cramping, Alex curled up into a fetal position and begged me to hold him. I stroked his face, attempting to calm him, to soothe him. I watched in horror his life hemorrhaging away in the hospital bathroom; bowl after bowl of blood and mucus gushed from his little body. Later, I helped change blood-soaked diapers that he had to wear after he could no longer stand or walk. Alex’s screams were followed by silence as the evil toxins attacked his brain causing him to lose neurological control. His eyes crossed and he suffered tremors and delusions. He no longer knew who I was.”

Nancy Donley, mother of Alex and President of Safe Tables Our Priority

The agonizing death of this little boy and many others WAS DELIBERATE. It was ‘JUST POLITICS.’ An orchestrated death, along with others, used to play up the need for legislation that moved control of the US food supply FROM AMERICAN’S INDEPENDENT FARMERS TO THE AG CARTEL OF THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION.

Shielding the Giant USDA’s “Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy tells the tale of how the USDA ALLOWED ConAgra to Poison Americans with Tainted Meat to create a crisis to get their blasted Food Safety Modernization Act through Congress. For over a decade Congresswoman Rosa Delauro (D – CT) tried to get the food safety bill through congress with no luck. So they set-up a MAJOR food poisoning event the E. coli Outbreak at the 2004 North Carolina State Fair and the MSM blasted it all over the news. I give the insider details HERE . (Slight editing to make it more readable.)

…..I know Jason Wilke of Crossroads Farm Petting Zoo, the designated fall guy for the State Fair E. coli Outbreak in North Carolina (2004). It is curious that two weeks before there was NO outbreak at the Lee County fair where he was for a week and there was no outbreak the week after at another large venue. (I personally verified with the fair committee chairs.) However during the week he stayed home prepping for the state fair, an animal rights activist who was a USDA vet, stuck a thermometer up the butt of each of his animals thanks to that one line change in the Animal Welfare Act. She also told him she wanted to close him down. These actions and words were relayed to me via phone by Jason BEFORE the fair. (He wanted to vent and moan) … CDC did over 400 tests on Jason’s animals and the only vector route was through fresh feces. Skin/fur or mouth contact did not have viable organisms. Also it was the first case where this nasty strain of e coli showed up in sheep and goats. It was confined to concentrated feed lot operations prior to that. Operations that would be inspected by a USDA vet. The four year campaign by Animal Rights Activists in North Carolina to cause a bad accident/incident at pony rides or petting farms ended abruptly the week of the fair and has not resurfaced…. HMMMmmm.

Gail Combs

I did not mention in that comment that PETA targeted me, trying to arrange animal related injuries to children 4 times in the 6 months prior to the fair. The last attempt was less than a week before the fair. I have had no incidences since then. Also Feces SINK through the shavings so a child would literally have to go digging through the shavings for the fresh feces to eat. On the other hand State Fairs use casual labor (How many were PETA?) The food vendors would likely buy hamburger from the refrigerated trailers parked on the state grounds. The vendors equipment and area would be steam cleaned long before the inspectors would go looking for someone to pin the blame on. Therefore there would be zero chance of connecting the food vendors to the outbreak.

…What bothers me the most is that there is enough “leakage” to see the clear coordination. Like the “4 walling” of food related illnesses right up until the farm regulation bill was past. Now? Nothing. Well I’m sorry, but we did not overnight go to zero food poisoning or bacterial contamination. It just reeks of either deliberate contamination to create a panic or a deliberate propaganda effort coordinated from (somewhere) central.

It bothers me to think that the governments of the world are largely in the Railroading Business, but it is looking ever more that way. Clear lines of control, influence, action “for effect”, coordinated efforts agenda driven. I’d like to think we had a free association of people and a marketplace of ideas, evolving to the best ends. The evidence argues otherwise. The UN is clearly (and states so) acting as a central coordinating and influencing body. The intent to reduce the Nation State autonomy is also quite clear. (That the Big Players have publicly stated that intent makes it easier to see…

E.M. Smith (ChiefIO)

EM was certainly correct. Prior to that final incident in 2004 John Munsell tried to alert politicians and others. In a e-mail to me he even said he had a reporter stay with him for three days, write an article for a well know NY magazine, have it approved by the editor only to have the CEO kill the article at the last minute.

Meatpacking Maverick: John Munsell’s against-the-odds struggle for improved food safety — Mother Jones Magazine, December 2003 Issue

“Before the tainted beef arrived — USDA-approved and vacuum-sealed – Munsell had no reason to doubt the integrity of the food-safety system. But that changed after the meat he ground for hamburger tested positive for E. coli 0157:H7. Instead of tracking the contaminated meat back to its source, the USDA launched an investigation of Munsell’s own operation. Never mind that the local federal inspector had seen the beef go straight from the package into a clean grinder — a USDA spokesman called that testimony “hearsay.” By February 2002, three more tests of meat Munsell was grinding straight from the package came back positive. This time, as he would later testify in a government hearing, he had paperwork documenting that the beef came from a single source: ConAgra:


Munsell fired off an angry email to the district USDA manager, warning of a potential public-health emergency, and adding that if no one tracked down the rest of the bad meat, “both of us should share a cell in Alcatraz.” The agency moved immediately and aggressively — not to recall meat from Greeley, but to shut down Munsell’s grinding operation, a punishment that lasted four months. Despite Munsell’s continued whistleblowing — to Senator Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), national cattle associations, and his fellow meat processors — the USDA failed to address the alleged contamination at ConAgra’s Greely Plant. Then, in July 2002, Munsell’s worst fears came true. E. coli-tainted burger from Greeley killed an Ohio woman and sickened at least 35 others. ConAgra then recalled 19 million pounds of beef, one of the largest recalls in history.”

Michael Scherer, Mother Jones Magazine

John Munsell even contacted a lawyer, Bill Marler, a products liability attorney. One E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak I Think I could have prevented

 But again nothing was done. The switch from the ‘safest food in the world’ to feces laced hamburger can be traced to the switch from hands on USDA food inspection to HACCP, a new system where inspectors no longer inspect FOOD, they inspect PAPERWORK. John Munsell does a great job of explaining the change in:

HACCP’S Disconnect From Public Health Concerns (PLEASE READ)

An amusing short article on the harassment John had to put up with from the USDA: Five Minutes With John Munsell & A Trip To The Woodshed With The USDA

Unfortunately there are just too of many “incidents” that have been handled in such a way that transnational corporations are not “inconvenienced”. Stanley Painter, Chairman of the National Food Inspection Unions, stated in his testimony at the congressional hearing on the Hallmark Dower Cows:

..when we see violations of FSIS regulations,.. we are instructed not to write non-compliance reports… Sometimes even if we write non-compliance reports, some of the larger companies use their political muscle to get those overturned….Some of my members have been intimidated by agency management in the past when they came forward and tried to enforce agency regulations and policies. I will give you a personal example: [SRM removal regulations concern brain and spine removal to prevent BSE] …

In December 2004, I began to receive reports that the new SRM regulations were not being uniformly enforced. I wrote a letter to the Assistant FSIS Administrator for Field Operations at the time conveying to him what I had heard…I was paid a visit at my home in Alabama by an FSIS official dispatched from the Atlanta regional office to convince me to drop the issue. I told him that I would not.

Then, the agency summoned me to come here to Washington, DC where agency officials subjected me to several hours of interrogation including wanting me to identify which of my members were blowing the whistle on the SRM removal violations. I refused to do so….I was then placed on disciplinary investigation status. The agency even contacted the USDA Office of Inspector General to explore criminal charges being filed against me

Both my union AFGE and the consumer group Public Citizen filed separate Freedom of Information Act requests in December 2004 for any non-compliance records in the FSIS data base…. It was not until August 2005 that over 1000 non-compliance reports – weighing some 16 pounds — were turned over to both AFGE and Public Citizen that proved that what my members were telling me was correct – that some beef slaughter facilities were not complying with the SRM removal regulations… on the same day those records were released, I received written notification from the agency that they were dropping their disciplinary investigation – eight months after their “investigation” began.

Stanley Painter

When the act failed to pass under the sponsorship of Democrat Rosa Delauno, the Act was then CO-SPONSORED by Senator Burr (R – NC) I go through some of the ramifications of that law HERE. The KEY is the Ag Cartel controlled World trade Organization would determine the rules US farmers would have to live by.

SEC. 404. COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.

Sir Julian Rose talks of the ramifications fo the OIE & FAO recommendations worldwide in The Battle to Save the Polish Countryside

….Spend hours out of your working day filling in endless forms, filing maps and measuring every last inch of your fields, tracks and farmsteads; applying for ‘passports’ for your cattle and ear tags for your sheep and pigs; re-siting the slurry pit and putting stainless steel and washable tiles on the dairy walls; becoming versed in HASAP hygiene and sanitary rules and applying them where any food processing was to take place; and living under the threat of convictions and fines should one put a finger out of place or be late in supplying some official details…

Sir Julian Rose

Do not forget that Bush signed a treaty to HARMONIZE US laws with that of the EU.

“In a sweeping move that has garnered surprisingly little attention this week the United States and the European Union have signed up to a new transatlantic economic partnership that will see regulatory standards “harmonized” and will lay the basis for a merging of the US and EU into one single market, a huge step on the path to a new globalized world order.” The BBC reported from the Summit in Washington on Monday….

http://stopspp.com/stopspp/?p=122 (Defunct URL)

And the FDA in 2003 even had up on their website: International Harmonization

The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.

FDA

The international Ag Cartel was the driving force behind the Agreement on Agriculture, HACCP and the doubling of Food Borne illnesses. I did the graphs for a presentation before congress showing the five years before HACCP and the five years after. The USDA responded just as the DOD is now. ‘OH the first five years didn’t capture ALL the food borne illness. We switched to a different system where the reports (MANDATORY BY LAW) can be emailed instead of Faxed or sent by mail.’

This doubling of food borne illness, well hyped by the media, was used to justify the new law, the Food Safety Modernization Act, REGULATING farming (not the corporate processing plants.) These new regulations are meant to be used to kill off US independent farmers.

Again the USDA and the FDA LIED. They stated there had been no up date to our food safety system AFTER they had already implemented HACCP allowing the Ag cartel to inspect themselves.

In September, 1995, USDA’s Food Safety & Inspection Service presented a 600-page document Farm-To-Table – control of every step in the food chain from production to home preparation.

Reshaping USDA’s Meat & Poultry Inspection Program . . . An AAMP Perspective & Analysis Of The Agency’s Top-To-Bottom Review And How It Affects You And Your Business by Steve Krut, American Association of Meat Processors

For plants with more than one process (meaning more than one HACCP program), verification activities would be scheduled to ensure that all HACCP plans are covered at least once a month. Compliance over time would mean less frequent verification.

Some key steps:

Verification – Inspector checks to see that the plant is doing what is in its process control or HACCP plan. This may last several hours or perhaps one day.

Validation – FSIS evaluates the plant’s HACCP plan to be certain it is appropriate and works for the product and process covered. A target frequency for validation audit would be at least once every two years for every HACCP plan. This is likely to involve an FSIS out-of-plant technical person or team and take several days to a week, but will occur on site…

Steve Krut, American Association of Meat Processors

The Grain Trader Dan Amstutz, Who wrote the Draft of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture was VP of Cargill (grain) and then moved to Goldman Sachs (How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis- with it’s entry into the commodities market) He originally worked in the department of Ag under Reagan but his draft Agreement on Ag and Draft farm bill was passed under Clinton.

Background from 1945: History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job

The author Nicole Johnson  takes us through how a Milner Round Table, the Committee for Economic Development (CED), intentionally changed the US agriculture system from a decentralized system to the vertically integrated system favored by the Ag cartel.

The human cost of CED’s plans were exacting and enormous.


CED’s plans resulted in widespread social upheaval throughout rural America, ripping apart the fabric of its society destroying its local economies. They also resulted in a massive migration to larger cities. The loss of a farm also means the loss of identity, and many farmers’ lives ended in suicide.

CED members were influential in business, government, and agricultural colleges, and their outlook shaped both governmental policies and what farmers were taught. Farmers found themselves encouraged to give up on a farming system that employed minimal outsourced inputs and capital and get “efficient” by adopting instead a system that required they go into debt in order to purchase ever more costly inputs, like fossil-fuel based fertilizers, chemicals, seeds, feed grain, and machinery. The local, decentralized food distribution networks that were previously in place became subject to corporate buyouts, vertical integration and consolidation, leaving farmers with fewer and fewer outlets to sell their goods.

With this consolidation of grain handlers, railways, food processing, meat packing, brewing and beverage makers, cereal makers, food retailers and restaurants, more and more of the food dollar went to processors and retailers, which gained increased market power. Farmers, meanwhile, were and continue to be squeezed on both ends: by input suppliers putting upward pressure on selling prices and by output buyers exerting downward pressure on their buying prices. 

This analysis is confirmed by the Keystone Center, an establishment think tank with representatives on its board from Monsanto, DuPont, Shell, Coca-Cola, Dow, General Electric and the Rockefeller Foundation, to name a few. The organization’s 2001 report “The Keystone National Policy Dialogue on Trends in Agriculture” observes that “Agricultural policy in many respects supported the concentration of farming into larger and fewer units. Some would say agricultural policy is biased toward bigness.”

Home Gardens ARE covered in case you are wondering..

“..FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation…”


There is NO exemption for instate commerce, for hobby farms, for you backyard garden.

“ The Administrator, in order to protect the public health, shall establish a national traceability system that enables the Administrator to retrieve the history, use, and location of an article of food through all stages of its production, processing, and distribution.
set good practice standards to protect the public and animal health and promote food safety;


conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate


require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;


include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water”

Notice it does not say a person SELLING food, it says a person holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients. This is very scary given Ag Sec. Venman’s ” September, 1995, USDA’s Food Safety & Inspection Service presented a 600-page document Farm-To-Table – control of every step in the food chain from production to home preparation. “

Also included is this.
“in any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction SHALL BE PRESUMED TO EXIST.”
The fact you are growing veggies for you and friends does not exclude you!

SEE: OverlawyeredH.R. 875, Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 by WALTER OLSON  and Trojan Horse Law: The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 by Hans Bader

….Lori Robertson of FactCheck.org, who is not a lawyer (she has a B.A. in advertising), claims the bill doesn’t apply to “that tomato plant in your backyard.”  As a lawyer, I am skeptical of this claim (I co-represented the prevailing defendant in the last successful constitutional challenge to federal regulation under the interstate commerce clause…

….Ignorance about the law’s broad reach (and how it will be construed by the courts) has thwarted opposition to the bill, which will likely pass Congress. For example, a newspaper claims the bill “doesn’t regulate home gardens.” The newspaper probably assumed that was true because the bill, like most federal laws, only purports to reach activities that affect “interstate commerce.” To an uninformed layperson or journalist, that “sounds as if it might not reach local and mom-and-pop operators at all.” (The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, has sought to forestall opposition to her bill by falsely claiming that that “the Constitution’s commerce clause prevents the federal government from regulating commerce that doesn’t cross state lines.”)

But lawyers familiar with our capricious legal system know better. The Supreme Court ruled in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that even home gardens (in that case, a farmer’s growing wheat for his own consumption) are subject to federal laws that regulate interstate commerce. Economists and scholars have criticized this decision, but it continues to be cited and followed in Supreme Court rulings, such as those applying federal anti-drug laws to consumption of even home-grown medical marijuana. Indeed, many court decisions allow Congress to define as “interstate commerce” even non-commercial conduct that doesn’t cross state lines — something directly at odds with Rep. DeLauro’s claims.

Hans Bader

The Nuremberg Code vs US Law and The Push For World Government

TradeBait2 Made the comment:

I have been reminding folks on here – the Fed has to be bankrupted at some point. It will either be by the white hats or the black hats. The Gab post you show is correct for the most part IMO. The Fed has fueled the Great Reset, which is why they could care less about how much debt we have in America because we will not exist as an independent nation in their black hat world.

Digital one world currency is the plan. Why do you think there were coin shortages recently? Why do you think they hate crypto and parallel economies so much? Why do they want America at odds with Russia, but falling right in line with China? Where Xi falls in this I am not certain. But I do know China and the Chi-coms are a CB [central bank] creation.

The linchpin is digital currency.

Follow the money….

That is the first half of the comment

Actually I can see where he is going since I also have warned of this much earlier.

The Push For World Government

A few years ago Soros directed the USA to overthrow the ELECTED government in both Syria and Ukraine. (Trump side stepped both.)

Why? Because the EU is the model for a global government. Soros wanted the EU to annex the Ukraine. The elected president said HE!! NO! so he was ousted and a pro-EU puppet was put in his place who has since been voted out while Trump was in the White House.

Russia tossed Soros out and put out a warrant for him. Russia makes much of their money selling gas to Europe. It also gives them leverage to keep the EU from expanding into their sphere of influence. Soros wants to remove Russia’s leverage by putting in a pipeline from the middle east to Europe. ALL the countries that were opposed to that pipeline have been overthrown EXCEPT for Syria.

If you want a World Government similar to the European Union then you are on Soros side. If you want sovereign nations you are on the side of Russia….. AND I am still of that opinion.

BREXIT THE MOVIE will give you the details on how the EU is actually run.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0

Former World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy tells you point blank that the EU is the template for the desired World Government and it has been the plan since the 1930s.

All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty

Pascal Lamy, Whither Globalization

Lamy is quite blunt in stating national sovereignty is passé:

…more than half a century ago that the Frenchman Jean Monnet, one of the shapers of post-war Europe, said, “The sovereign nations of the past can no longer provide a framework for the resolution of our present problems. And the European Community itself is no more than a step towards the organizational forms of tomorrow’s world.” His assessment was as valid then as it is now….

Pascal Lamy, Global Governance: Lessons from Europe

Lamy indicates that a super state fashioned after the European Union is the goal and he calls for European-Inspired Global Governance:

This is what Global Warming was really about. We have all seen the political message morph over the decades from Global Warming to Climate Change to Weather Weirding.

As H.L. Mencken said:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

In other words, create a crisis to order to implement Diocletian’s Problem-Reaction-Solution

Mencken also warns:

“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”

The UN put the concept into practice via the IPCC. The IPCC mandate states:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation. http//www.ipcc-wg2.gov/ (No longer available)

IPCC

Notice the IPCC ASSUMES the hypothesis of human induced climate change IS TRUE and goes from there.

With Reagan killing off the Cold War, Pascal Lamy takes ‘Practical Politics’ the next step, by telling us about a “new enemy to unite us” (Global Warming) A global enemy needed to create Legitimacy, one of the ‘four legs’ needed to implement a global government…

I see four main challenges for global governance today.

The first one is leadership, i.e. the capacity to embody a vision and inspire action, in order to create momentum. Who is the leader? Should it be a superpower? A group of national leaders? Selected by whom? Or should it be an international organization?

The second one is efficiency, i.e. the capacity to mobilize resources, to solve the problems in the international sphere, to bring about concrete and visible results for the benefit of the people. The main challenge here is that the Westphalian order gives a premium to “naysayers” who can block decisions, thereby impeding results. The ensuing viscosity of international decision-making puts into question the efficiency of the international system.

The third one is coherence, for the international system is based on specialization. Each international organization focuses on a limited number of issues. The World Trade Organisation deals with trade, the International Labour Organisation with labour issues, the World Meteorological Organisation with meteorology and so the list continues. It is a fact: the UN is not really overarching, assuming this was the initial intention.

The last challenge that I see is that of legitimacy— for legitimacy is intrinsically linked to proximity, to a sense of “togetherness”.  By togetherness, I mean the shared feeling of belonging to a community. This feeling, which is generally strong at the local level, tends to weaken significantly as distance to power systems grows. It finds its roots in common myths, a common history, and a collective cultural heritage. It is no surprise that taxation and redistribution policies remain mostly local!

There is one place where attempts to deal with these challenges have been made and where new forms of governance have been tested for the last 60 years: in Europe. The European construction is the most ambitious experiment in supranational governance ever attempted up to now. It is the story of a desired, delineated and organized interdependence between its Member States…. http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl220_e.htm

Pascal Lamy

In another presentation Lamy again addresses the problem of legitimacy:

It gives me great pleasure to be here today to participate in this thematic debate on the United Nations in global governance, an issue of the utmost importance given the urgency of the global challenges we are facingAs for legitimacy, I see two avenues to strengthen it. First, domestically, by increasing the visibility of international issues and giving citizens a greater say…. https://archive.globalpolicy.org/social-and-economic-policy/the-three-sisters-and-other-institutions/global-governance-and-the-three-sisters-1-11/50398-lamy-urges-raising-un-ecosoc-profile.html%3Fitemid=id.html

Pascal Lamy

By now, with Al Gore exiting stage left, Trump entering stage right, it is pretty obvious that ‘Global Warming’ has lost its high panic factor and the climb down is in progress. However the need for a ‘Crisis to Unite Us’ and a reason to implement ‘Agenda 21 – Sustainability’ and ‘Global Governance’ still remains. WORSE for the Globalists the fiat currency central banking system is on its last legs and about to IMPLODE, as many people like Dave of the X22 Report and Clif High and others have been warning us. Up to now we have been wondering what the next hobgoblin would be. And now we know it’s COVID -19!!! A Bio-Weapon and a Poison Jab that kills off a lot of the population, crashes the world economy and ushers in a Vaccine Digital Passport soon to be linked to the BRAND NEW DIGITAL WORLD CURRENCY and Social Credit Score.

And that brings us to the second part of TradeBait2’s comment.

…… You do not want to use the Nuremberg Code as your get out jail free card from jabs. You fall into the hands of international law superseding national law. It’s a set up, don’t fall for it.

Cannot tell you the number of times I have prepared a post and deleted it because I doubted folks on here would pay attention or believe it. This is the world I lived in for 35 years and escaped.

As I showed above that “international law superseding national law” is exactly what Pascal Lamy was yammering about a decade ago and what Klaus Schwab is threatening us with now.

So how do we escape this TRAP if it is being set?

Use USA LAW!

I find it interesting that the internet is FULL of the Nuremberg Code…….

……and the GERMAN/CALIFORNIA LAWYER Reiner Füllmich and 50 Lawyers, but I went nutz trying to find the US LAWS. It took me over ½ hour.

And WHY does Reiner Füllmich have no problem with YouTube???? When everyone else gets the boot?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Reiner+F%C3%BCllmich+youtube&t=brave&ia=videos&iax=videos

JW in Germany even brought us this comment:

I watched it for about half an hour and thought it was important enough to post here. The dozens of witnesses/experts that will be speaking in the next days are from around the world…many of the names you may already know.

Day 1 Opening Session of the Grand Jury Proceeding

A group of international lawyers and a judge are conducting criminal investigation modeled after Grand Jury proceedings in order to present to the public all available evidence of Covid 19 Crimes Against Humanity to date against “leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices” who aided, abetted, or actively participated in the formulation and execution of a common plan for a pandemic

https://gettr.com/post/psoiulc122

Those are things that make you go HMMMmmm…..

I think Reiner Füllmich and his group is sincere but it is very very possible they are being used.

So after a LOT of digging at Cornell Law I found the provision that covers the situation for the military: 10 U.S.C. § 1107. “This provision prohibits the administration of investigational new drugs, or drugs unapproved for their intended use, to service members without their informed consent.”

And finally after a lot more searching I stumbled across the information that civilians are covered under a FDA Regulation and not a law:
CFR – Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 as of January 6, 2022

Subpart B – Informed Consent of Human Subjects
   § 50.20 – General requirements for informed consent.
   § 50.23 – Exception from general requirements.
   § 50.24 – Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research.
   § 50.25 – Elements of informed consent.
   § 50.27 – Documentation of informed consent.

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 21, Volume 1]
[CITE: 21CFR50.20]

TITLE 21–FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER I–FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

SUBCHAPTER A – GENERAL

PART 50 — PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
Subpart B – Informed Consent of Human Subjects
Sec. 50.20 General requirements for informed consent.
Except as provided in §§ 50.23 and 50.24, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject’s legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.
[46 FR 8951, Jan. 27, 1981, as amended at 64 FR 10942, Mar. 8, 1999]

BUT there is a cockroach in the ointment.

 § 50.24 – Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research.

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 21, Volume 1]
[CITE: 21CFR50.24]

TITLE 21–FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER I–FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

SUBCHAPTER A – GENERAL

PART 50 — PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
Subpart B – Informed Consent of Human Subjects
Sec. 50.24 Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research.
(a) The IRB responsible for the review, approval, and continuing review of the clinical investigation described in this section may approve that investigation without requiring that informed consent of all research subjects be obtained if the IRB (with the concurrence of a licensed physician who is a member of or consultant to the IRB and who is not otherwise participating in the clinical investigation) finds and documents each of the following:
(1) The human subjects are in a life-threatening situation, available treatments are unproven or unsatisfactory, and the collection of valid scientific evidence, which may include evidence obtained through randomized placebo-controlled investigations, is necessary to determine the safety and effectiveness of particular interventions.
(2) Obtaining informed consent is not feasible because:
(i) The subjects will not be able to give their informed consent as a result of their medical condition;
(ii) The intervention under investigation must be administered before consent from the subjects’ legally authorized representatives is feasible; and
(iii) There is no reasonable way to identify prospectively the individuals likely to become eligible for participation in the clinical investigation.
(3) Participation in the research holds out the prospect of direct benefit to the subjects because:
(i) Subjects are facing a life-threatening situation that necessitates intervention;
(ii) Appropriate animal and other preclinical studies have been conducted, and the information derived from those studies and related evidence support the potential for the intervention to provide a direct benefit to the individual subjects; and
(iii) Risks associated with the investigation are reasonable in relation to what is known about the medical condition of the potential class of subjects, the risks and benefits of standard therapy, if any, and what is known about the risks and benefits of the proposed intervention or activity.
(4) The clinical investigation could not practicably be carried out without the waiver.
(5) The proposed investigational plan defines the length of the potential therapeutic window based on scientific evidence, and the investigator has committed to attempting to contact a legally authorized representative for each subject within that window of time and, if feasible, to asking the legally authorized representative contacted for consent within that window rather than proceeding without consent. The investigator will summarize efforts made to contact legally authorized representatives and make this information available to the IRB at the time of continuing review.
(6) The IRB has reviewed and approved informed consent procedures and an informed consent document consistent with § 50.25. These procedures and the informed consent document are to be used with subjects or their legally authorized representatives in situations where use of such procedures and documents is feasible. The IRB has reviewed and approved procedures and information to be used when providing an opportunity for a family member to object to a subject’s participation in the clinical investigation consistent with paragraph (a)(7)(v) of this section.
(7) Additional protections of the rights and welfare of the subjects will be provided, including, at least:
(i) Consultation (including, where appropriate, consultation carried out by the IRB) with representatives of the communities in which the clinical investigation will be conducted and from which the subjects will be drawn;
(ii) Public disclosure to the communities in which the clinical investigation will be conducted and from which the subjects will be drawn, prior to initiation of the clinical investigation, of plans for the investigation and its risks and expected benefits;
(iii) Public disclosure of sufficient information following completion of the clinical investigation to apprise the community and researchers of the study, including the demographic characteristics of the research population, and its results;
(iv) Establishment of an independent data monitoring committee to exercise oversight of the clinical investigation; and
(v) If obtaining informed consent is not feasible and a legally authorized representative is not reasonably available, the investigator has committed, if feasible, to attempting to contact within the therapeutic window the subject’s family member who is not a legally authorized representative, and asking whether he or she objects to the subject’s participation in the clinical investigation. The investigator will summarize efforts made to contact family members and make this information available to the IRB at the time of continuing review.
(b) The IRB is responsible for ensuring that procedures are in place to inform, at the earliest feasible opportunity, each subject, or if the subject remains incapacitated, a legally authorized representative of the subject, or if such a representative is not reasonably available, a family member, of the subject’s inclusion in the clinical investigation, the details of the investigation and other information contained in the informed consent document. The IRB shall also ensure that there is a procedure to inform the subject, or if the subject remains incapacitated, a legally authorized representative of the subject, or if such a representative is not reasonably available, a family member, that he or she may discontinue the subject’s participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled. If a legally authorized representative or family member is told about the clinical investigation and the subject’s condition improves, the subject is also to be informed as soon as feasible. If a subject is entered into a clinical investigation with waived consent and the subject dies before a legally authorized representative or family member can be contacted, information about the clinical investigation is to be provided to the subject’s legally authorized representative or family member, if feasible.
(c) The IRB determinations required by paragraph (a) of this section and the documentation required by paragraph (e) of this section are to be retained by the IRB for at least 3 years after completion of the clinical investigation, and the records shall be accessible for inspection and copying by FDA in accordance with § 56.115(b) of this chapter.
(d) Protocols involving an exception to the informed consent requirement under this section must be performed under a separate investigational new drug application (IND) or investigational device exemption (IDE) that clearly identifies such protocols as protocols that may include subjects who are unable to consent. The submission of those protocols in a separate IND/IDE is required even if an IND for the same drug product or an IDE for the same device already exists. Applications for investigations under this section may not be submitted as amendments under §§ 312.30 or 812.35 of this chapter.
(e) If an IRB determines that it cannot approve a clinical investigation because the investigation does not meet the criteria in the exception provided under paragraph (a) of this section or because of other relevant ethical concerns, the IRB must document its findings and provide these findings promptly in writing to the clinical investigator and to the sponsor of the clinical investigation. The sponsor of the clinical investigation must promptly disclose this information to FDA and to the sponsor’s clinical investigators who are participating or are asked to participate in this or a substantially equivalent clinical investigation of the sponsor, and to other IRB’s that have been, or are, asked to review this or a substantially equivalent investigation by that sponsor.
[61 FR 51528, Oct. 2, 1996]

And now we go to USA lawyer, Attorney Thomas Renz and his interview on Bannon’s War Room.

Episode 1,619 – Beijing Olympics Fail; Legal/Financial Investigations Of Big Pharma

https://rumble.com/vu5amo-episode-1619-beijing-olympics-fail-legalfinancial-investigations-of-big-pha.html


ROUGH TRANSCRIPT (start at 18:15)

ATTORNEY THOMAS RENZ: We have to get it to the public and that is where the War room is so important.
Se are going to be submitting this to a case in Alabama. We are going to be submitting ths to a number of different places in the military, ahhh I guess law enforcement world. And we are looking to bring this into the civilian law enforcement as well. There is no question as to what is happening. These are major crimes and you know Steve, I don’t know if you have got this but we just yesterday, dated February 4th, got a document from the CDC that re-affirms everything we said last week when we said they know this. If you are interested that document actually says it is was in the meeting yesterday, it was presented yesterday it says the CDC is working to monitor these things and they are monitoring the DOD data. Which indicates to me, I don’t know if you have heard the DOD s response? DOD to me has committed fraud and conspiracy. They have said there baseline data from 2016 to 2020 was wrong. They didn’t notice it until we pointed it out in the whistle blower testimony. But some how even though they didn’t notice it, it magically got corrected in 2021.

I mean seriously, How stupid do they think the American people are?

STEVE BANNON: What about adjudicating this. What about Alabama? (21:40)

RENZ: We have a case in Alabama where we are challenged the EUA authorization of the vaccine….. Balance of harm tests…. Generally you have to show more benefit than injury… we are also challenging on mis branding, because the CDC changed the definition of vaccines so they could call these gene therapies a vaccine. BTW Pfizer and Moderna have admitted they are gene therapy in their documents. And we have challenged it on several other fronts so that’s in court. This document and all this DOD stuff just came to us. We have declarations under penalty of perjury and those declarations will be submitted to the court. They are getting updated right now because we’ve had this new data come forward related to this…. We have been working with attorneys all over the world and around the country… and we have been getting this data out and we are giving it to anyone who wants to use it anywhere they can. And we believe it will help. We have to find the right court like you said. Until we find a court that is willing to listen and have an evidentiary hearing, it’s tough. We are going to have more info on that coming up…..

STEVE: asks about military JAG system and Senator Johnson. Senator Johnson first.

RENZ: The problem for Senator Johnson is he is not getting enough support from other Senators. He has gotten NO RESPONSE from anyone else [including Rand Paul but he does not say that.]

STEVE: What about JAG? [24:50]

RENZ: Since the data has only been out for a week or two, we are working thru a number of JAG officers….. I got another letter this week…. From all places the Texas National Guard, one of the people there saying they are going to reject all the religious exemptions and we don’t want doctors giving medical exemptions. They actually say they view it as a COMMAND ISSUE and not a medical issue. So if a doctor thinks a soldier should not have this for a medical reason, they are to shut-up and take orders according to this document. We submitted that to Senator Johnson as well as some others.

This is a disaster in the military and they have created a situation where it is very very difficult for our solders to fight this. We do however have quite a number of military personnel stepping forward. And quite a number of JAG officers and others who, because of the publicity we have gotten on this, in the last week or so, are now wiling to step up and do something so we’ll see.

It goes on to Edward Dowd about the insurance industry data about unexpected deaths in working age people from there. Steve Bannon mentions that Zero Hedge covered the information given too. Suicide? How Some Life Insurance Companies Are Dealing With Experimental Vaccines Deaths

A very informative earlier video from the War Room showing the DOD changing the data from Thomas Renz. It also has Ed Dowd, a Financial guru who worked for Blackrock…. Yeah, Blackrock. He is calling out not only the vaccine manufacturers but the FDA for massive FINANCIAL fraud similar to ENRON. The video also has an interview with Dr Malone.

From 27:00 to 35:15 minutes

https://rumble.com/vtkou8-episode-1602-the-big-short-pfizer-and-moderna-the-new-enron-are-criminal-ch.html

-GC