Here is a high-level review of the manufacturing contracts between US DOD and Moderna.
Moderna’s injection, mRNA-1273 is co-owned with the US Government, as the company has been funded by the defense research grants for years and also received intellectual property transfers from the US Government, in addition to preclinical and clinical research work conducted for Moderna by the NIH Vaccine Research Center. The NIH and Moderna each have a separate Investigational New Drug number for this product.
Moderna entered 2 types of contracts with the US Government for Spikevax injection:
- “Vaccine” contract and amendments that specifies R&D projects that the US Government ordered and paid for. Note that in Pfizer’s case no R&D activities were ordered or paid for by the US Government, as these were excluded from the scope of the contract.
- “Manufacturing” contract(s) that ordered a large-scale manufacturing. This is different from Pfizer manufacturing contracts as the words “demonstration” and “prototype” are not used. I believe this is because OTA contracts must be for prototypes but FAR contracting doesn’t have to be.
Note on redactions. In both Moderna and Pfizer’s contracts many areas are redacted indicating a reason for redaction – the “redaction codes.” Redacted content has been given codes b (4) and b (6), standing for:
(b) (4) Disclosure of information that would affect the application of advanced technology in a U.S. weapons system,
(b) (6) Disclosure of information, including information of foreign governments, that would cause serious harm to relations between the United States and a foreign government or to ongoing diplomatic activities of the United States.
There are several versions of the contract available, plus amendments. The first version was signed on August 9, 2020 and the last available version is June 15, 2021. In one of them the name of the signatory on the Moderna side was redacted with (b)(6). In another version it’s unredacted – it was Hamilton Bennett, a senior director of vaccine access and partnerships.
This 35-year-old woman seems woefully underqualified, especially to “engineer the vaccine” as her role was described in the press. Moderna’s history is notable for high-profile departures of competent and experienced people. Based on press reports and accounts of insiders, Stephan Bancel’s toxic management culture led to departures of many qualified scientists including heads of R&D, Oncology, Cardiovascular, Chemistry, Rare Diseases, and even Vaccines (right around the time the company pivoted to vaccines in 2016). Terminal incompetence is a prerequisite for terminal fraud.
Unlike Pfizer’s and other covid countermeasures contracts, the Moderna contract is not under Other Transactions Authority (OTA) but FAR 43.103(a)(3) and “Mutual Agreement of the Parties.” This makes little difference with regard to the product liability and generally ignores pharmaceutical regulations, as described below.
The total initial amount of contract was $1.5 billion, and this was increased to exactly $8,145,591,662.60 in later amendments. Sixty cents – the criminals get points for style and attention to detail! Note that this is in addition to the $1 billion R&D contract for a handful of studies that didn’t matter which I discussed in Part 1.
The scope of the contract is “manufacturing of up to 500M doses”
The Department of Defense and Health and Human Services (HHS) require large-scale manufacturing of vaccine doses in support of the national emergency response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) for the United States Government (USG) and the US population.
Note this is for “manufacturing” and not demonstration or prototype.
This gets interesting. This paragraph includes feel-good sounding words which cover up the true intent: to declare an unrestricted bio-chemical-radiological and nuclear war on Americans, subvert consumer protections under the pretense of a “pandemic response.” Note the words “whole of nation effort:”
“Whole of nation” language can refer to the mobilization of a nation at the time of war. In that use, it is for an obvious declared war with a defined external enemy. However, in the new era of unrestricted 5th generation warfare this language seems to be being used to signal an overt takeover of the entire country by a rogue militarized force, typically by pretense of some sort of a manufactured crisis, and typically from the inside.
I found numerous references to this terminology in the press going back several years, in the US related to military things like cyber warfare, but also in the Chinese, Singaporean, and Australian press. One very interesting and thorough explanation of the “Whole of Nation Chimera” in a Philippine source describing the use of this approach by the militarized government regime that took over all government branches, and the entire civil society. In other words, it describes the installation of a fascist/totalitarian structure. I highly recommend readers to visit the link to the Philippine story published in March 2019 above, because remarkably, the language used is extremely similar to the US government pronouncements related to “covid pandemic response” and Operation Warp Speed. Did the US government writers plagiarize Duerte or do the globo-mafia captured cartels signal to each other and their superiors this way?
“Whole of nation” is closely associated with “whole of government” terminology. Both presented as feel-good ideas in plain text, but in fact these words signal a usurpation of power by the militarized executive branch of the government. Public-private partnerships – so beloved by sellouts in academia, pharma, medicine and defense – are another closely associated term.
PL 115-92 refers to Public Law and is discussed below. It’s a way to subvert FDA regulations by conscripting it to serve the DOD goals through the mentioned Interagency Agreement. They now have to follow the DOD orders and fake-approve the unapprovable on command and on schedule.
Finally, it is clear that the clinical trials are absolutely irrelevant to the approval of the injections by the FDA, as the large-scale manufacturing of these substances does not depend on them. It is performed in parallel with these fake exercises intended to fool the public.
Compliance with pharmaceutical regulations and Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP)
The contract cites cGMP laws. However it is in a section “Applicable Documents” – referring to this as a document, not a law.
And further, in Amendment 1 the contract states: “cGMP manufacturing of 100 million doses, subject to any exceptions established by or the enforcement discretion of the FDA.” Therefore, if FDA decides that no cGMP is necessary, then it’s not necessary.
Product variations and undisclosed items ordered
The PO contains numerous items other than the mRNA-1273 (Spikevax) vaccine, and all of them are completely redacted with (b)(4)-i.e. “Reveal information that would impair the application of state-of-the-art technology within a U.S. weapon system.”
In one of the amendments, the following clause was added: H.19 Product Variations (Authority FAR 43.103(a)(3), Mutual Agreement of the Parties), and completely redacted with the “weapons” redaction, including the word “Variations.” This may refer to varying toxicity of different batches, but that’s just a guess on my part:
Public Law PL 115-92
Under “Regulatory” the only thing that’s defined is that Moderna is the sponsor of the product, IND and BLA. Then it says that the DOD will use this law for the product: “DoD Medical Product Priority. PL 115-92 allows the DoD to request, and FDA to provide, assistance to expedite development of products to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions facing American military personnel. The contractor recognizes that only the DoD can utilize PL 115-92.”
Clearly, the US military invokes pub law 115-92 (ostensibly a measure to fast track countermeasures against military attacks, but which in practice is the DoD directing med regulators [FDA]) in their multi-billion contract w/Pfizer to produce a biowepon.
Here’s the relevant text of the law, which quite directly subverts the FDA and it’s function in service of DOD ends. Highly problematic to say the least, particularly when applied (as was the case w/covid) beyond the laws remit (i.e., defending military personnel from attacks), but instead used to push secret, dual-use technologies, without proper consumer testing and safeguards on unsuspecting civilian population. Screenshot of the law was provided by a reader:
The PREP Act clause
This clause declares the contractor free of liability and also describes the items and technology as both civil and military applications, i.e. weapons:
Defense priority rating
The defense priority rating was added by amendment on September 11, 2020. Add a Health Resources Priorities and Allocations System (HRPAS) priority rating of DO-HR to this contract. Add a Defense Priorities and Allocation System (DPAS) priority rating of DO-C9 to this contract to act as the equivalent to the HRPAS priority rating of DO-HR. Add FAR 52.211-15, Defense Priority and Allocation Requirements This is a rated order certified for national defense, emergency preparedness, and energy program use, and the Contractor shall follow all the requirements of the Defense Priorities and Allocations System regulation (15 CFR 700).
Rated order memo in attachment signed by General Perna COO of OWS:
Republished from the author’s Substack