3:22. What other aspects of this case would you like to highlight?

3:27. Katherine Watts.  I would like to highlight the significance of the turning point that was Pfizer's motion to dismiss that they filed an April 2022 because that gave the world the first window into the military aspect,  the military control of the whole project.  And if Brooke had not filed her case at all, then Pfizer would not have had to do a motion to dismiss and we would not have known at that time that it was a military program under military Contracting provisions and other military laws.  And right now, now that I've seen the order, it's giving us another little bit of a window.  It sucks that we have to keep doing all this stuff by reverse engineering because they've been lying from the beginning about what they're doing and that it is a chemical and biological warfare program, not a pharmaceutical project.  But, having said that, the order is pointing more attention to the Defense Production Act and how that relates to conAitact law, antitrust law, and a few other things.  So those are the things I found most interesting about the order so far.  4:52. 

4:55. Sasha, were you surprised by the outcome of this case?  Why, or why not?

5:00.  Latypova.  Ultimately I wasn't surprised, as Catherine said, we looked . . . we started paying much more attention to it when they revealed in "motion to dismiss" that this is a military program, and I since then have done a lot of research into . . . using publicly available documents from the Department of Defense, Operation Warp Speed, BARDA, and DARPA contracts that became available for all the COVID countermeasures not just vaccines.  But I read these carefully, and after doing all this research and analysis, it became very clear that this program that suing pharmaceutical manufacturers under False Claims Act was kind of a fool's errand.  But, you know, while it was extremely valuable, as Catherine said, and we applaud Brooke, and, of course, her attorneys, they all tried and they brought the truth out through this process. so the truth won.  So far, the case has been dismissed.  I think they're going to appeal but it wasn't surprising because we knew that Pfizer was doing what the government told them to do.  In fact, in the motion to dismiss, they were claiming that you know, "we didn't do anything wrong . . . the government ordered us to produce prototypes and demonstrations [meaning fake], so we produced fake, you know, like the government told us to do."  So that was their defense.  It was in fact a valid defense, and it wasn't surprising that these perverted legal structures were upheld by this federal court, and so the result was as we expected it to be.  6:47

6:49. Katherine what do you think was done well in terms of the strategy or the drafting of the papers?

6:57. One thing that was done really well, and can be seen in retrospect,is that Brooke and her lawyers started off by thinking that, one, the rule of law still applied, and thinking that federal drug regulations were applicable, and thinking that Federal Contracting Law was applicable, and that was a good assumption for them to make because it has drawn out the response that actually THE RULE OF LAW IS NOT FUNCTIONING ANYMORE, contract law is not applicable to this program, and drug relation is not applicable to this program.  And the other thing I think was really good about her case as distinct from somebody other American federal cases is that it was entirely based on her own observations when she got there at the end of August she was there for about 3 weeks.  She saw what was going on.  She knew from her own experience that everything that was happening was completely wrong and irregular and dangerous to patients, dangerous to the clinical trial investigators, and she knew all that from her own observations; whereas in a lot of other Federal cases about this particular project, people have had to speculate because we don't know actually what's in the vials we don't know exactly when and how the intellectual property has been transferred from the DoD to the manufacturing plants.  There's so much that we don't know that people had to build their cases on speculation. But she knew.  She saw it. She documented it. She took pictures, and that was what was the core of her complaint when she filed originally in January 2021.  Also, when she notified the DoD that she was going to file in December 2020, all of this material or evidence from her own directed experience that was extremely valuable. 

8:57.  Before we go into analyzing the judgment, a little more on the strategy, Sasha what do you think would have  been done differently. 

9:10. No I'm not a lawyer so it's difficult for me to advise on the legal strategy I think knowing what we know now through this experience in this case