This is a conversation space exclusively for subscribers—kind of like a group chat or live hangout. I’ll post questions and updates that come my way, and you can jump into the discussion.

Join chat

How to get started

1. Get the Substack app by clicking this link or the button below. New chat threads won’t be sent sent via email, so turn on push notifications so you don’t miss conversation as it happens. You can also access chat on the web.

Get app

2. Open the app and tap the Chat icon. It looks like two bubbles in the bottom bar, and you’ll see a row for my chat inside.

3. That’s it! Jump into my thread to say hi, and if you have any issues, check out Substack’s FAQ.

I now know what it is like to get your life upended by disease. My heart goes out to all who are suffering from chronic illness, vaccine injury, and cancer.

There is incredible progress on the legal front, so I intend to increase my posts going forward.

Here is the December 2, 2025 appellate argument at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans against the federal government’s interference with our case against Pfizer:

Detweiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center: 23-3710.pdf (9th Cir. 2025).

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals said yes in February for one of our clients:

Leah Prida v. Option Care Enters., Inc., No. 23-3936 (6th Cir. 2025)

These two cases create a significant circuit split on how to evaluate religious objections to COVID-19 testing requirements under Title VII. Here’s the key conflict:

Ninth Circuit (Detwiler): Requires courts to parse religious beliefs to determine if the “operative belief” is truly religious or merely secular. The court found Detwiler’s belief that testing swabs were carcinogenic was “personal and secular, premised on her interpretation of medical research,” despite her religious framing about her body being a temple.

Sixth Circuit (Prida): Takes a deferential approach, holding that when plaintiffs allege both religious and secular reasons, the secular components don’t negate the religious ones at the motion to dismiss stage. Courts should read complaints holistically and not artificially segregate religious from secular beliefs.

The Ninth Circuit requires a stronger showing of religious nexus even at the motion to dismiss stage, while the Sixth Circuit applies a more lenient standard consistent with general Rule 12(b)(6) principles. The circuits disagree on whether courts should separate “truly religious” from “purely secular” components of a belief system. The Sixth Circuit explicitly aligned itself with the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits in taking a more permissive approach. The Ninth Circuit acknowledged creating a split with these circuits.

This case presents strong grounds for Supreme Court review because:

1. Clear Circuit Split: There’s now a 6-1 circuit split, with the Ninth Circuit standing alone against a growing consensus.

2. Important Federal Question: The proper interpretation of Title VII’s religious protections is a significant issue affecting workplaces nationwide.

3. Practical Impact: Employers need uniform guidance on religious accommodation obligations, especially given ongoing workplace health and safety requirements.

4. Recurring Issue: vaccine related religious accommodation cases continue to arise, making this an issue needing resolution.

The split is pronounced because both cases had almost the same facts - religious objections to COVID testing based on concerns about chemicals on testing swabs, coupled with “body as a temple” religious beliefs. Yet the circuits reached opposite conclusions on essentially the same legal question.

This circuit conflict makes these cases prime candidates for Supreme Court review to create a uniform national standard for evaluating religious accommodation claims under Title VII.

In an interview with Broken Truth's John Davidson and attorney Warner Mendenhall, Physician Assistant (PA) and author Scott Miller detailed his years-long struggle to retain his medical license after opposing COVID policies. Once a pediatric specialist in Washington State, Miller now appeals a license denial in Alaska.

From Pediatrics to Pandemic Advocacy

Miller, with a dental school background, practiced for 10 years in Vancouver, Washington, focusing on neurology, asthma, allergies, and developmental delays. As a PA, he diagnosed, prescribed, and managed patients independently.

When COVID struck in March 2020, Miller worried about lockdowns' harm to kids' mental health and therapies. He prescribed "park play" to encourage outdoor time and non-compliance with restrictions. He treated COVID at home with ivermectin, avoiding hospitals where ventilation often led to high mortality (80% early on) due to iatrogenic harm.

His public speeches at rallies and the state Capitol drew backlash. Targeted and License Revoked

Miller was hit by over 100 complaints, many from non-patients via the "Shots Heard Round the World" group, funded by pharma lobbyists like BIO (Pfizer, Moderna). Accusations included misinformation, off-label ivermectin use, and obstructing investigations. One false claim: Undisclosed California felonies (wrong Scott Miller).

The Washington Medical Commission (WMC) suspended his license in 2021, requiring "re-education." Refusal led to permanent revocation in 2023. Expert Dr. Leslie Enzian called his speech "insidious danger." This echoed cases like Drs. Mary Bowden and Ryan Cole.

(9) Scott Miller PA - The Most Dangerous Man in Washington

His book is here.

GiveSendGo | Support Scott Miller

Please support FreedomCounsel.org working to hold those responsible for abuses like this. https://secure.anedot.com/freedom-counsel/warner-substack

Summary

Independent analysis has raised significant concerns about manufacturing process changes and quality control failures in the production of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2). The primary issues center on the transition from Process 1 to Process 2 manufacturing, introduction of undisclosed SV40 sequences, and elevated levels of residual DNA contamination that may exceed FDA safety guidelines by orders of magnitude.

Background: Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) Framework

Under 21 CFR Parts 210 and 211, pharmaceutical manufacturers must adhere to current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations to ensure products meet safety, identity, strength, quality, and purity (SISPQ) characteristics. Violations of cGMP standards render drugs adulterated under 21 USC § 351(a)(2)(B), particularly when non-compliance compromises the assurance of represented safety and quality properties.

The regulatory framework also addresses misbranding under 21 USC § 352(a)(1), where labeling becomes "false or misleading" when manufacturers lack adequate assurance that distributed products conform to label specifications. This is relevant when material facts affecting safety are not disclosed to regulators or healthcare providers.

Manufacturing Process Transition: Process 1 to Process 2

Process 1 Characteristics

The initial manufacturing process used for the clinical trial material used a PCR-generated DNA template of about 4,000 base pairs for in vitro transcription of mRNA. This process facilitated relatively straightforward separation of mRNA product from DNA template and did not involve SV40 sequences.

Process 2 Implementation

For large-scale production of millions of doses, Pfizer-BioNTech transitioned to Process 2 in late 2020/early 2021. This new process involved:

• Cloning the SARS-CoV-2 spike sequence into a bacterial plasmid.

• Expansion of DNA template size to 7,824 base pairs.

• Introduction of Escherichia coli (E-Coli) origin of replication (ori).

• Addition of mammalian SV40 origin of replication.

• Incorporation of bacterial antibiotic resistance genes.

Critical Manufacturing Changes

The increase in template size and complexity elevated the risk of DNA contamination in final vaccine products. Unlike Process 1, the bacterial plasmid DNA used in Process 2 proved difficult to remove completely during purification, resulting in higher levels of residual DNA contamination and potential exposure to replication-competent plasmids in mammalian cells.

Regulatory Disclosure Failures

SV40 Sequence Omission

Despite the introduction of SV40 sequences in Process 2, these sequences were not disclosed to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The plasmid map provided to regulatory authorities deliberately omitted references to SV40 components, despite their ready identification using standard plasmid annotation software.

FDA Notification Deficiencies

The companies apparently did not tell the FDA about cGMP violations and quality control failures as required. This includes inadequate disclosure of manufacturing process changes that could affect product safety and quality profiles.

DNA Contamination: Analytical Findings

Speicher et al. Study Results

Independent analysis of 27 mRNA vaccine vials, including 8 Pfizer vials from 4 lots, revealed concerning levels of DNA contamination:

Quantitative PCR (qPCR) Analysis:

• Plasmid origin of replication (ori) sequence: 0.28-4.27 ng/dose.

• Spike sequence: 0.22-2.43 ng/dose.

• SV40 promoter-enhancer-ori sequences detected in all Pfizer vials.

• Quantification cycle (Cq) scores: 16.64-22.59.

Qubit Fluorometry Measurements:

• DNA contamination levels: 1,896-3,720 ng/dose.

• Exceeds FDA/WHO guidelines (10 ng/dose) by 189-372-fold.

Measurement Discrepancy Analysis

The significant disparity between qPCR and Qubit fluorometry results indicates:

1. qPCR Limitations: Detects only DNA fragments larger than amplicon size (typically >100 bp)

2. Qubit Sensitivity: Measures total DNA content, including smaller fragments undetectable by qPCR

3. Fragment Distribution: Size analysis revealed mean length of 214 bp with maximum of 3.5 kb

This discrepancy suggests substantial contamination with smaller DNA fragments of unknown biological significance.

Safety and Quality Control Concerns

Possible cGMP Violations

1. Inadequate investigation of out-of-specification DNA contamination results.

2. Insufficient controls to prevent DNA contamination during manufacturing.

3. Failure to validate manufacturing process consistency for DNA contamination specifications.

4. Inadequate risk assessment regarding DNA integration potential given lipid nanoparticle delivery and SV40 promoter-enhancer presence.

5. Insufficient validation of DNase treatment efficacy for larger plasmid DNA quantities in Process 2.

SV40 Sequence Implications

The SV40 promoter-enhancer sequence functions as a potent nuclear targeting element that may:

• Facilitate DNA entry into cell nuclei.

• Increase genomic integration risks.

• Affect oncogenes and chromosomal stability.

• Distribute to multiple organ systems including brain, heart, liver, reproductive organs.

Lipid Nanoparticle Protecting unwanted DNA

DNA contamination appears protected within lipid nanoparticles, rendering it resistant to nuclease digestion. This encapsulation may increase persistence and transfection efficiency of contaminating DNA in vivo, potentially exacerbating safety concerns.

Regulatory and Clinical Implications

Dose-Response Relationship

Preliminary evidence suggests correlation between DNA contamination levels per dose and frequency of serious adverse events reported for different vaccine lots, warrants further investigation into causality and mechanism.

Antibiotic Resistance Gene Presence

The detection of antibiotic-resistant genes from bacterial plasmids in final vaccine products presents safety considerations that requires a comprehensive risk assessment.

Quality Assurance Failures

The pattern of alleged violations suggests prioritization of production speed and cost-effectiveness over rigorous quality control and safety validation, particularly regarding the transition from Process 1 to Process 2 without adequate validation of contamination control measures.

Conclusions

These are fundamental questions about manufacturing quality control, regulatory transparency, and patient safety in large-scale mRNA vaccine production. The substantial discrepancy between analytical methods for DNA quantification highlights a need to comprehensively characterize contaminants using multiple analytical approaches.

For the scientific and medical community, these findings show the critical importance of:

1. Rigorous validation of manufacturing process changes.

2. Comprehensive analytical characterization using multiple methodologies.

3. Transparent disclosure of all manufacturing components to regulatory authorities.

4. Thorough safety assessment of all product components, including process-related impurities.

5. Continuous monitoring and investigation of quality control failures.

The implications extend beyond this specific instance to broader considerations of manufacturing oversight, regulatory compliance, and post-market surveillance in all pharmaceutical development and production, particularly mRNA products.

The Court Found:

• Rochester Regional Health had a material obligation to report serious adverse events to VAERS under their Provider Agreement with the CDC.

• The hospital's failure to report while continuing to seek federal reimbursement was potential fraud against the government.

• Deborah's detailed allegations were enough to meet the strict legal standards for fraud claims, even without access to internal billing records.

• Her retaliation claim can move forward - the court found she was probably fired for trying to expose the hospital's failure to report adverse events.

This decision establishes critical legal precedents:

1. VAERS Reporting is Not Optional: The court confirmed that adverse event reporting requirements are "material conditions of payment" - not just bureaucratic paperwork.

2. Hospitals Can Be Held Accountable: Healthcare providers who take federal money while failing to meet safety reporting obligations can face False Claims Act liability.

3. Whistleblowers Are Protected: The court recognized that employees who try to ensure proper adverse event reporting are engaging in protected activity.

Deborah's case involved 170 serious adverse events that the hospital allegedly prevented her from reporting. 160 VAERS reports she successfully submitted on her own initiative. Specific patient examples of adverse events following vaccination that went unreported. The court found these allegations painted a picture of systematic non-compliance with federal safety monitoring requirements.

This ruling is significant beyond just Deborah's case. It establishes that 1) healthcare providers cannot ignore federal safety reporting requirements while continuing to collect taxpayer money; 2) the False Claims Act can be used to hold institutions accountable for COVID-related misconduct; and 3) whistleblowers who expose these practices have legal protection.

We estimate over 500,000 were killed by the shots, millions lost their jobs for refusing them, and Big Pharma received billions for dangerous and experimental treatments. This case reveals a legal pathway to begin holding the system accountable

The case now moves to discovery, where we will seek the hospital's internal “vaccination,” treatment, and billing records to uncover the full scope of unreported adverse events which we believe are in the 1000s in this hospital system alone.

Join Us in This Critical Fight

Many of you supported my work and Deborah's case through this Substack and her website at IamDebConrad.com. Please consider supporting the broader Freedom Counsel network as we build on this momentum.

Your support helps coordinate legal resources for Americans seeking justice through the court system. With victories like this one proving that accountability is achievable, your contribution can help make sure more cases like Deborah's can be pursued.

Please consider supporting Freedom Counsel's mission: https://secure.anedot.com/freedom-counsel/warner-substack

First Amended Complaint

District Court Opinion

Covid Vaccination Program Provider Agreement: the basis for liability for all C19 shot providers.

BrokenTruth.TV

CASE DISMISSED! Watch Dr. Kirk Moore's Interview on BrokenTruth.TV Now

NOTE: The interview starts at about 15:00 if you want to skip ahead…

Listen now

9 months ago · 10 likes · Broken Truth

What a battle Dr. Moore has been through. This interview gives some insight into the background of his case. He treated many people with covid for free. He provided vaccine cards to help people dealing with mandates. His charges were dismissed this past weekend.

Why was she fired?

She reported adverse events from the COVID-19 shot to the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System).

I am proud to represent her in her lawsuit against the hospital for her termination.

This Lawsuit is Critical

Although there hasn’t been a ruling yet, we are optimistic and expect a ruling in the next two weeks. At our March hearing, the judge reamarked that these COVID shots are not vaccines in any traditional sense, which was very refreshing to hear.

We have seen firsthand:

• There are estimates that over 500,000 were killed by the shots.

• Millions lost their jobs for refusing the shots.

• Big Pharma received billions of dollars for their experimental shot.

This case could be critical in the fight against the illegal and deadly protocols of hospitals during COVID and beyond. You can read about her case at IamDebConrad.com.

What Comes Next?

You may be wondering, “What comes next?” Will we let the hospitals, Big Pharma, and the government get away with what they did to abuse our rights?

My answer is no!

I'd like to share with you the important work of FreedomCounsel.Org to help those affected by COVID-19 policies.

Many Americans have contacted us sharing deeply personal stories about their experiences during the pandemic - job losses, separation from loved ones in hospitals, adverse health impacts, and business closures. These stories moved hundreds of attorneys to action.

Freedom Counsel emerged from the COVID Litigation Conference in Atlanta in 2023 with a clear purpose: to provide legal support and coordination for those seeking justice and accountability through the court system. Freedom Counsel works with dedicated attorneys, medical professionals, scientists, and concerned citizens to address the challenges many Americans continue to face.

Would you like to support the Freedom Counsel? Please use this link to donate.

Join Us in the Fight

Many of you have supported my work through the Substack by becoming subscribers. Now, I ask you to support the Freedom Counsel network to hold those accountable during COVID. Please consider donating and supporting the work of Freedom Counsel by clicking here: https://secure.anedot.com/freedom-counsel/warner-substack

While the legal process can be lengthy, Freedom Counsel attorneys are committed to supporting those seeking justice through proper legal channels. If you've been affected by these policies or know someone who has, please know that you're not alone. Freedom Counsel is there to help coordinate legal resources and support.

Thank you for considering supporting the Freedom Counsel mission to help those affected find their path to justice.

Warmest regards,

Warner Mendenhall

Maybe you’ve heard the terms “Smart,” or 15-minute city” before. But do you know what it means? The most common explanation of a smart city goes something like this: Integrating communication technology, citizen engagement, sustainable infrastructure, increased safety measures, efficient transportation, and creating economic development and green spaces for a sustainable environment.

Many of us have noticed that the cities around us have started adding bike lanes on busy roads, roundabouts, smart traffic cameras and parking meters, smart utility meters are being installed on our homes. But what is the purpose?

Cisco.com defines a smart city as a city that, “Uses technology and data to improve the lives of its residents and make urban living more efficient, sustainable, and enjoyable, encompassing areas like transportation, energy, public services, and citizen engagement.”

By implementing technology that allows for remote meter readings, companies can provide more accurate measurements for your utilities. This technology also enables real-time tracking of your electricity, water, or gas usage. Companies can immediately inform you of any suspected leaks, and make sure you are billed accurately.

Cars would be connected to the infrastructure, and to each other via cellular networks, and smart toll roads would allow a sensor to detect when a car passes a toll plaza, and deduct the toll from that user’s account. Along with this, a smart transportation system would allow a smart traffic flow management system, which combines a central control system for traffic lights, and sensors for detecting delays, or the amount of traffic in certain areas. Automated shared use vehicles would help travelers reach their destinations.

Sounds great, right? Why wouldn’t we want to make life more efficient, safer, and more sustainable? They have the sales pitch down to a T.

But nobody talks about the dark side of smart cities. All the information you find on the web sounds like an advertisement meant to entice you. Like an ad for a prescription medication that, despite the slight possibility it may relieve one of your symptoms, comes with a litany of other symptoms that will make your life hell. Where are the disclaimers? The saying goes, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.”

What does it mean to live in a smart city? It means license plate recognition systems that will let authorities track every vehicle's movement, charging drivers by the mile and providing real-time location data. Streetlights are set to have cameras and wireless cellular connection. It means smart parking meters which may be able to automatically charge you for using a spot, and advise you, and maybe even police, when the meter has expired.

They want everything to be walkable, bikeable, and people take part in ride sharing. But what if they told you the truth, and tried to sell it like this: How would you like your every move to be tracked and monitored? For the air conditioning in your home set for no lower than 82 degrees on a hot summer day, or if you take a shower for more than your allotted time, and are cut off mid-rinse due to excessive water usage? Would you still like the idea then? This may be what we face with the implementation of smart utility meters in our homes. We often cave to the appeal of convenience and safety, only to find ourselves in a position where we feel as though we can never live without it.

A key element of the smart city initiative is the rollout of 5G networks. Fiber optic cables are being installed beneath roads under the guise of infrastructure upgrades, but in truth, these systems support advanced surveillance technologies.

The reality of it is, the smart meters can record usage in real time and some can hear what’s going on in your home. The water meters have ultra sonic, or “acoustic” technology which listens to your pipes to detect usage. But what else can they hear? For many people, their water meter is located right inside their home. What kind of things happen, or are talked about when you’re in the privacy of your home with your family? How would you feel about an unknown 3^rd party listening in? Would you still feel safe and secure in your home if you knew someone could tell which toilet was flushed, or that you’re running the washing machine or dishwasher? What if someone could tell whether you or your kids were home? This is what they leave out when they sell you on how great these meters are.

Another issue they don’t want you to know about is how often smart electric meters explode and cause house fires. We’re not talking about a pop and a little smoke; we’re talking about flames shooting out several feet from the meter. As if that’s not enough to give you caution in having one of these installed on your home, it improves. Manufacturers are telling customers that this is just normal wear and tear on the meter, and that it’s not covered by warranty. “What?!”, you might be thinking? That’s right. Manufacturers state this is NOT covered under warranty. No problem. That’s what homeowners’ insurance is for, right? Wrong again. Most insurance companies are saying this is NOT covered. Now you’re probably thinking, “Well the cities or utility companies that mandated we get these meters will have to pay for this!”. Nope. They claim they have no liability. This means that even though they’ve mandated you to have these meters on your home whether you wanted it or not, you are now footing the bill for any damage they may cause.

In case you’re not already concerned, all smart meters can cause adverse health effects, and most people don’t even realize the cause of their symptoms. Insomnia, migraines, tinnitus, dizziness, fatigue, brain fog, muscle and body pain (often called fibromyalgia). Do any of these sound familiar? If you’re living in a home with smart meters, those, coupled with the 5G towers around your home, could be the culprit. It also raises concerns about potential negative health effects on children and pets, given their smaller and more vulnerable bodies, as well as possible interference with medical devices such as pacemakers.

But wait, there’s more! Since smart meters work on a cellular network, they’re able to be controlled remotely. This means access to your water, gas or electric can be shut off without proper due process or even rationed remotely. If the government decides you’ve used too much water, electricity or gas, they would have the power to control your usage. Smart meters can also be easily used for monitoring speech, and voicing the wrong opinion could eventually result in fines or penalties.

The Aclara I-210+ is a commonly used smart electric meter throughout the United States. This meter features an “emergency conservation demand limiting function” which states:

The Emergency Conservation Demand Limiting function provides a way to

enforce an emergency conservation policy for all residential customers. This

sets a maximum demand that customers will be allowed during the

conservation period.

As well as a demand limiting function mode which states:

In the event of non-payment during a period of time when government restrictions

prevent termination of service, the Demand Limiting function switch may be

implemented to limit the customer demand to the minimum level necessary to

maintain basic heating or cooling and other safety needs. The Demand Limiting

function enforces this limit remotely.

If this information was provided when they tried to sell you on the idea of a smart city, would you still think it was a great idea? Chances are, if you were armed with this information you wouldn’t accept them so easily. Much of this was voted upon by your city council, likely during COVID while meetings were not being held in person, and it was easy for them to sneak this in with your being none the wiser. Many see this as a welcomed infrastructure upgrade, but others are outraged and are suing. Lawsuits all over the US are popping up as communities fight back against these mandates. In states like Ohio, Oregon, Maine, Pennsylvania, and many others, citizens have sued local municipalities over their smart meter mandates. Will your city be next?

Sources:

https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/smart-cities-digital-solutions-for-a-more-livable-future

https://www.transportation.gov/policy-initiatives/smartcity/smart-city-challenge-lessons-building-cities-future

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/smart-cities/

https://fcc.report/FCC-ID/LLBY84092-1/6218125.pdf

https://www.badgermeter.com/blog/how-it-works-e-series-ultrasonic-water-meters/#:~:text=How%20Ultrasonic%20Technology%20Works,is%20disabled%20in%20your%20browser.

https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/electromagnetic-hypersensitivity

https://ehtrust.org/judge-to-hear-smart-meter-disability-discrimination-case-denies-cmp-motion-to-dismiss/

https://www.klcc.org/economy-business/2024-06-05/eweb-disconnects-some-customers-who-refuse-a-smart-meter-drawing-lawsuit

https://www.chronline.com/stories/glenoma-couple-files-13m-lawsuit-against-pud-alleges-new-meters-could-be-trojan-horse-for,339210

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/group-of-cuyahoga-falls-residents-sue-the-city#:~:text=Apr%2013%2C%202025-,A%20group%20of%20residents%20in%20Cuyahoga%20Falls%20is%20suing%20the,risks%20and%20potential%20privacy%20violations.

https://www.cleveland19.com/2024/06/24/19-news-gets-results-streetsboro-family-fights-home-smart-water-meter-court/

https://x.com/Freedom_Counsel/status/1911786524623986904

Leah Prida worked at Option Care for about 25 years before being terminated in March 2022 for refusing to comply with the company's weekly COVID-19 testing requirement. While Option Care granted Prida a religious exemption from vaccination, it denied her request for accommodation from testing. Prida objected to the testing based on her belief that her body is "God's temple" and concerns about Ethylene Oxide, a carcinogen used in test swabs.

The district court dismissed Prida's claims, finding that her objections were "largely secular" rather than religious. However, the Sixth Circuit, applying its recent precedents in Lucky v. Landmark Medical, determined that Prida had sufficiently alleged her refusal was a part of her religious beliefs.

"Where a plaintiff pleads both religious and secular concerns, particularized allegations of religious beliefs in the complaint are sufficient at the motion to dismiss stage," wrote Circuit Judge Jane B. Stranch for the unanimous panel.

The court emphasized that Prida consistently cited scripture in her communications with her employer and explicitly stated she "strongly believe[d] that vaccines and/or testing violate [God's] requirements set forth in the Bible."

The decision reinforces that employers must consider accommodation requests that involve both religious and scientific objections. The mere presence of scientific or medical concerns does not automatically negate the religious nature of an employee's objections at the pleading stage.

The court also reversed the dismissal of Prida's retaliation claim, finding she had plausibly alleged protected activity through her affidavit that referenced Title VII and her right to employment without discrimination.

The case has been remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

The dispute revolves around whether Rochester Regional Health (RRH) and United Memorial Medical Center (UMMC) violated the False Claims Act by seeking payment for COVID-19 vaccines while knowingly failing to report thousands of adverse events and even deaths to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), as required under their Provider Agreement with the CDC.

Key issues include: (1) whether VAERS reporting obligations under the Provider Agreement extended beyond the vaccine administration sites to hospital admissions; (2) whether the failures to report adverse events were material to payment decisions; (3) whether RRH knowingly submitted false claims; (4) whether Relator's allegations satisfy the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b); and (5) whether Relator's termination was retaliatory.

The Court must determine if Relator's amended complaint sufficiently alleges an organization-wide pattern of suppressing VAERS reporting to maintain high Covid-19 vaccination rates and avoid “vaccine hesistancy,” or if, as Defendants argue, reporting obligations were limited to adverse events just at vaccination sites and within 15 minutes of administration. RRH holds the position that it does not have to report many injuries because another organization gave the shot. The Court must also decide whether Deb Conrad was terminated for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine or for her protected whistleblowing activities.

Her story is here. Please support her fight here.

1. Revoke or suspend the Biologics License Applications (BLAs) for Pfizer (Comirnaty) and Moderna (Spikevax) COVID-19 vaccines.

2. Investigate regulatory processes and decisions.

3. Issue public guidance on risks of synthetic DNA contamination.

4. Mandate independent testing of existing stocks.

5. Establish testing for DNA integration into human cells.

Primary Concerns:

Wrongful categorical exclusions from Environmental Assessments (EAs)

1. Excessive synthetic DNA contamination, with multiple studies showing levels 6-470 times above regulatory safety thresholds.

2. Presence of SV40 promoter and enhancer sequences.

3. Potential risks including genomic integration and cancer.

Legal Arguments:

1. The products should have been classified as gene therapies.

2. The FDA wrongfully granted categorical exclusions from environmental assessments.

3. The BLA approvals were legally void from the beginning due to these failures.

They argue these issues represent significant public health risks requiring immediate regulatory action and investigation.

Kennedy’s leadership could increase the odds of holding hospitals and Covid-19 shot providers accountable for the millions of injuries and deaths they needlessly caused. As HHS Secretary he can support and initiate lawsuits under the False Claims Act for fraud in the clinical trials, in hospital billing, and in failure to submit VAERS reports — required of all Covid-19 shot providers.

Mendenhall law group has two unsealed cases where we would like federal input immediately. To read about them go to iambrookjackson.com, which alleges fraud in Pfizer’s clinical trial, and iamdebconrad.com which alleges fraud for failing to report thousands of vaccine injuries. We have many other sealed (non-public) cases dealing with pandemic program frauds to discuss with him as well.

This is one creative way to address the problem. I saw this in Trial Site News: here.

Grok generated a fake mocking image of Pfizer’s Albert Bourla upon this suggestion. We can hope executives start to get scared straight.

1.     Contract Conditions:

·        In Kansas case: Pfizer claims the contract had multiple "specific terms for Pfizer's performance" and various contractual conditions.

·        In Jackson case: Pfizer claimed the contract had only "a single condition of payment: Pfizer's delivery of an FDA authorized or approved vaccine for COVID-19."

2.     Statement of Work Requirements:

·        In Kansas case: Pfizer argues there were many contractual obligations in the Statement of Work.

·        In Jackson case: Pfizer specifically rejected the "allegation that the [Statement of Work] somehow tied payment to Pfizer's compliance with every particular of the clinical protocol or related FDA regulations" as "mistaken and refuted by the [Statement of Work] itself."

3.     Clinical Trials:

·        In Kansas case: Pfizer suggests clinical trials were part of contractual requirements.

·        In Jackson case: Pfizer stated that the Statement of Work "states explicitly that Pfizer's 'clinical trials' are 'out-of-scope,' 'not related' to the agreement, and that the relevant studies were undertaken at Pfizer's expense 'without the use of Government funding.'"

4.     Contract Clarity:

·        In Kansas case: Pfizer argues for complex contractual obligations.

·        In Jackson case: Pfizer claimed "the agreement is crystal clear" that delivery was the only contract condition.

Kansas could raise the doctrine of judicial estoppel meaning a party cannot just change a position to gain advantage when you asserted a different position in a prior case.  The test is simple:

• Clear contradiction in positions.

• To gain tactical advantages in different courts.

• Holding Pfizer accountable for its position would protect judicial integrity.

The documents are good reading:

Pfizer notice of removal

Kansas motion to remand

Pfizer opposition

We are going to start off by talking with Attorney Davis Younts Military defense attorney - R. Davis Younts - Pennsylvania (yountslaw.com)  He is fighting flu mandate issues.