JAW-DROPPING TESTIMONY FROM JOE BIDEN & HILLARY CLINTON: BOTH CONDEMNED THE PREP ACT IN 2005 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! ALTHOUGH LATER PUSHED AMERICANS TO GET THE SHOT. TRUMP EMBRACED THE PREP ACT AND USHERED IN OPERATION WARP SPEED!!!

WOW! Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton called out the PREP Act as *unconstitutional* in 2005!

This Act provides the liability shield for the C19 bioweapon jabs that are maiming/slaughtering Americans en masse.

(Recall RFK Jr. can pull the shield right now, unilaterally!)

This clip… pic.twitter.com/NAGrY1DBuK

— Sense Receptor (@SenseReceptor) April 2, 2025

WOW! Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton called out the PREP Act as *unconstitutional* in 2005! This Act provides the liability shield for the C19 bioweapon jabs that are maiming/slaughtering Americans en masse. (Recall RFK Jr. can pull the shield right now, unilaterally!) This clip is taken from the recent Summit for Truth and Wellness hosted by Shannon Joy (@ShannonJoyRadio). The speaker is retired pharma R&D executive Sasha Latypova (

@sasha_latypova

), who is quoting Biden and Clinton DIRECTLY from 2005. 

Biden on the PREP Act:

I rise to express my surprise and deep-seated opposition to the so called Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, PREP Act, which is included in the Defense Department Appropriations Bill... THIS PROVISION WOULD GIVE THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ALMOST TOTAL IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY TO THE MAKERS OF ALMOST ANY DRUG AND TO THOSE WHO ADMINISTER IT. While the measure's proponents portray it as a simple tool to make sure we have sufficient vaccine available in case of avian flu pandemic, the actual language of the provision is far broader than that, and it, therefore, poses a danger to all Americans." (Emphasis added.)

The actual provision permits immunity for the makers to virtually any drug or medical treatment. All the Secretary of Health and Human Services needs to do is declare that it is a countermeasure used to fight an epidemic...ONE SOLITARY PERSON GETS TO DECIDE WHAT IS A COUNTERMEASURE AND WHAT IS AN EPIDEMIC." (Emphasis added.) 

"What is more, this is no typical grant of immunity. No. The breadth of the provision is staggering. A drugmaker can be grossly negligent in making or distributing a drug and still escape liability... IT CAN EVEN MAKE THE DRUG WITH WANTON RECKLESSNESS AND ESCAPE SCOT-FREE AFTER HARMING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE... In fact, under this provision, the only way a victim could still recover compensation from a drug maker for a dangerous drug or vaccine would be to prove willful misconduct and then only by clear and convincing evidence." (Emphasis added.) "What this means is that for a victim to be able to be compensated by the company that harmed him, he must prove that they committed a crime. Is this the sort of justice systems that Americans desire?"

Hillary Clinton on the PREP Act: 

I would like to take this opportunity to object to insertion of a provision in the Department of Defense Appropriations bill that would provide sweeping immunity protection to pharmaceutical manufacturers... This provision would grant immunity to all claims of loss, including death and disability for broad range of products, including drugs that the secretary designates as as countermeasures.

THE IMMUNITY IS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW... It preempts any state law that provide different liability protections or that may provide stronger consumer safety protection for pharmaceutical products." (Emphasis added.) ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "So let me first quote, I'm gonna give you quotes from several unusual sources, unexpected sources. The first source I'm going to quote from is senator at the time, Joseph Biden, saying the following. 'I rise to express my surprise and deep-seated opposition to the so called Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, PREP Act, which is included in the Defense Department Appropriations Bill.' This is 2005. 'This provision would give the secretary of health and human services authority to provide almost total immunity from liability to the makers of almost any drug and to those who administer it. While the measure's proponents portray it as a simple tool to make sure we have sufficient vaccine available in case of avian flu pandemic, the actual language of the provision is far broader than that, and it therefore poses a danger to all Americans.' He sounds very sharp at that time. Very smart. I agree with everything that he said. "'The actual provision permits immunity for the makers to virtually any drug or medical treatment. All the secretary of health and human services needs to do declare that it is a countermeasure used to fight an epidemic.' Just a declaration. 'One solitary person gets to decide what is a countermeasure and what is an epidemic.' Meaning, the health and human services secretary, currently, RFK Jr, gets to decide what is a pandemic and what is a vaccine and what is a countermeasure. One person does not have to take into account anything—no data, no science, no justifications, just his opinion. That's how it's written. "'What is more, this is no typical grant of immunity. No. The breadth of the provision is staggering. A drugmaker can be grossly negligent in making or distributing a drug and still escape liability. Correct. They have done so so far. It can even make the drug with wanton recklessness and escape scot free after harming thousands of people. They've done that. Exactly that. In fact, under this provision, the only way a victim could still recover compensation from a drug maker for a dangerous drug or vaccine would be to prove willful misconduct and then only by clear and convincing evidence.' So the willful misconduct is a narrow definition, clear convincing evidence, very high bar. "'What this means is that for a victim to be able to be compensated by the company that harmed him, he must prove that they committed a crime. Is this the sort of justice systems that Americans desire?' No, Joseph Biden. We don't desire that. You are correct. And now let me quote from another very unusual source, senator Hillary Clinton. 'I would like to take this opportunity to object to insertion of a provision in the Department of Defense Appropriations bill that would provide sweeping immunity protection to pharmaceutical manufacturers.' So she objects to the same thing. 'This provision would grant immunity to all claims of loss, including death and disability for broad range of products, including drugs that secretary designates as as countermeasures. The immunity is not subject to judicial review, so court cannot intervene here. It preempts any state law that provide different liability protections or that may provide stronger consumer safety protection for pharmaceutical products.' So this bill preempts all state laws for consumer protections and preempts judicial review. 

"So, both of these individuals objected. They called it very, very strong language, they called it unconstitutional, and they're correct. It's unconstitutional, and then voted yes."