VICTORY: RFK Jr. rescinds COVID vaccine EUAs - exactly what IOJ's FDA petition demanded 2 months ago
RFK Jr. Removes COVID Vaccine EUAs - But Crimes Against Humanity Prosecution & Legal Reforms For Informed Consent Just Beginning
RFK Jr. Removes COVID Vaccine EUAs - But Crimes Against Humanity Prosecution Just Beginning
Interest of Justice Celebrates Influencing Historic Decision While Preparing for Global Accountability Campaign
August 27, 2025
We're honestly still processing this morning's announcement. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has rescinded Emergency Use Authorizations for COVID vaccines, restricting them to high-risk populations only - exactly what Interest of Justice demanded in our FDA Citizens Petition filed just over two months ago on June 17, 2025, the only difference is that our petition demands much further action by RFK Jr. including full removal off the market.
In his announcement on X, Kennedy wrote: "I promised 4 things: 1. to end the emergency. 2. to end covid vaccine mandates. 3. to keep vaccines available to people who want them, especially the vulnerable. 4. to demand placebo-controlled trials from companies. In a series of FDA actions today we accomplished all four goals. The emergency use authorizations for Covid vaccines, once used to justify broad mandates on the general public during the Biden administration, are now rescinded."
The FDA has now issued restricted marketing authorization: Moderna (6+ months), Pfizer (5+ years), and Novavax (12+ years) - but only for high-risk individuals. Critically, Pfizer's authorization for children under 5 has been completely revoked.
This regulatory shift effectively ends COVID vaccine mandates for school-aged children and employees. When vaccines are restricted to high-risk populations only, the regulatory foundation for broad population mandates collapses. Schools cannot mandate experimental medical interventions for healthy children when the FDA itself acknowledges these products shouldn't be broadly available to general populations.
IOJ is incredibly proud to have been part of the strategic legal pressure that contributed to this historic decision. RFK Jr. did the right thing, and we commend his courage in taking action that previous administrations refused to consider despite overwhelming evidence.
But let's be completely honest: we thought this would take much longer. The fact that regulatory change happened within months rather than years suggests our multi-front legal strategy is creating pressure that government agencies can no longer ignore. Still, this victory represents just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the accountability and systemic reform required to prevent future medical experimentation on global populations.
This is part of a much longer story - one that's played out in courtrooms from Costa Rica to Washington D.C., involving government officials who couldn't defend their own policies and international organizations that fled rather than face cross-examination. It's a story about strategic persistence paying off when others said IOJ’s legal approach was impossible.
For years, people told us that challenging WHO and government health authorities was futile. "You can't beat the system," they said. "They're too powerful, too entrenched." Our response was always the same: why be the resistance when you can be the persistence? We knew that systematic legal pressure, properly applied with expert witnesses and constitutional challenges, could force accountability even from the most powerful institutions.
Today's FDA decision validates that approach. But it also reminds us how much work remains ahead.
Government Authority Over Children: A Crucial Restriction
While we celebrate the broader protection of healthy populations, it's essential to understand exactly what the FDA's new restrictions mean for government authority over children and families.
The age-based restrictions create significant legal barriers to state and federal mandates:
Moderna (6+ months) - Still authorized for infants and children, but only those with high-risk conditions. This dramatically narrows the population that schools or government agencies can potentially target for mandates.
Pfizer (5+ years) - Restricted to children ages 5-64 with underlying health conditions only. The removal of healthy children from authorization eliminates the regulatory foundation that state agencies previously used to justify school mandates.
Novavax (12+ years) - The only non-mRNA option, but restricted to adolescents and adults with high-risk conditions. This provides a narrow alternative for families who specifically object to mRNA technology but still face health-related pressure.
The critical legal shift is this: federal agencies can no longer provide regulatory cover for state-level mandates targeting healthy children. When the FDA itself restricts authorization to high-risk populations only, state health departments and school systems lose their primary justification for broad population mandates.
This creates a new legal landscape where parents have significantly stronger grounds to challenge any remaining institutional pressure. Government entities that attempt to mandate experimental medical interventions for healthy children now face the FDA's own determination that such interventions are inappropriate for general pediatric populations.
The regulatory restriction represents a profound limitation on government authority to override parental medical decision-making for healthy children.
However, the continued authorization for vulnerable populations - including infants as young as 6 months and children with underlying conditions - means our legal work is far from complete.
The Ethical Atrocity: Targeting Society's Most Vulnerable
While we celebrate the protection of healthy populations from experimental medical interventions, we must acknowledge the deeply troubling ethical implications of the FDA's continued authorization for vulnerable groups.
Moderna's authorization for children as young as 6 months represents perhaps the most egregious violation of medical ethics. Infants and toddlers cannot provide informed consent and depend entirely on adult protection from experimental procedures. Yet the FDA continues to authorize experimental gene therapy for the most defenseless members of society - babies who have virtually zero risk from COVID but face unknown long-term consequences from experimental interventions.
Pfizer's restriction to ages 5 and above still encompasses school-aged children with underlying conditions - exactly the population that medical ethics demands we protect most vigilantly from experimental research. These children, often with compromised immune systems or chronic health conditions, are being subjected to experimental medical procedures precisely when their bodies are least able to handle additional biological stress.
Novavax's authorization for ages 12 and above targets adolescents during critical developmental periods, when hormonal and neurological development could be disrupted by experimental interventions. The fact that these are still experimental products hasn't changed - only the target population has been narrowed to focus on society's most vulnerable.
The FDA's decision creates a disturbing two-tiered system: healthy people are now protected from experimental medical research, while sick people, elderly individuals, and children with health conditions continue to be subjected to procedures that the FDA implicitly acknowledges are inappropriate for general population use.
This raises profound questions about medical ethics and human experimentation. If these products are too experimental and risky for healthy adults, how can they possibly be appropriate for infants, sick children, and immunocompromised elderly people? The Nuremberg Code doesn't provide exceptions for vulnerable populations - it demands heightened protection for those least able to advocate for themselves.
The populations still authorized for experimental interventions are precisely those who deserve the most protection, not the most experimentation.
Today's Victory: Vindication - Yes Our Strategic Legal Pressure Is REAL LAW!
Let's pause here to fully appreciate what happened today.
OM
When RFK Jr. announced the FDA rescission this morning, he wasn't just changing administrative policy - he was validating a legal strategy that many people thought was impossible.
Community support made today's victory possible. Continued community support will deliver complete accountability for crimes against humanity. Your contribution - in whatever form you can provide - makes both possible. Whether you choose to be recognized or remain anonymous, whether you can contribute $25 or $2,500, you're part of a community that's making history by refusing to let crimes against humanity go unpunished.
RFK Jr is an ATTORNEY - he knows the LAW & is starting to fix the corruption with todays move.
For years, we've been told that challenging WHO, FDA, and government health authorities was futile. "They're too powerful," critics said. "You can't force regulatory agencies to admit they were wrong." Today proves that strategic legal pressure, applied systematically across multiple jurisdictions with expert witnesses and constitutional challenges, can force even the most entrenched institutions to reverse course.
The FDA's decision to restrict these products to high-risk populations is an implicit admission that mass population use was inappropriate medical experimentation. By acknowledging that these products shouldn't be broadly available to healthy populations, the FDA is essentially confirming what Interest of Justice has been arguing in courtrooms for years since 2021: this was experimental medical research conducted under emergency authorities, not standard public health policy.
This vindication creates unprecedented momentum for the accountability campaigns ahead. When regulatory agencies admit their previous policies were inappropriate, that admission becomes evidence in future legal proceedings. Today's FDA decision doesn't just validate our legal analysis - it provides documentation that will be critical in international criminal law proceedings.
How It All Started: The Costa Rica Strategy That Changed Everything
Our approach to challenging COVID policies began with a simple legal principle: when government agencies make claims about public health interventions, they should be able to provide evidence supporting those claims when properly challenged in court. What we discovered through systematic litigation was that they couldn't.
Costa Rica became our legal battleground for deeply personal reasons. This small Central American nation had the dubious distinction of being the first country worldwide to mandate COVID vaccines for adults, then the first to extend those mandates to babies and children. The country's young president, a World Economic Forum protégé who had essentially allowed global organizations to dictate national health policy, made Costa Rica a testing ground for the most aggressive experimental medical policies on earth.
Through multiple strategic court cases, we forced the government to admit in legal proceedings that these products were experimental - including our most recent victory on May 6, 2025, where officials were compelled under oath to acknowledge the experimental nature of the interventions they had mandated. Yet simultaneously, the same government was telling the Supreme Court these products were fully approved and non-experimental - a calculated contradiction designed to deny thousands of citizens their fundamental right to refuse medical experimentation.
Many of those denied exemptions were indigenous people, children, and pregnant women - exactly the vulnerable populations that international law is designed to protect from experimental medical procedures. When we saw a WEF-influenced government lying to their own Supreme Court to force experimental interventions on the most vulnerable members of society, we knew this fight was about exposing a global testing program that used small nations as laboratories for policies later implemented worldwide.
The breakthrough moment came during a private government hearing that was never supposed to become public knowledge.
November 11, 2024: A secure video conference between Costa Rica's highest government officials and Interest of Justice - a small legal organization that had been systematically winning court cases against their COVID response. The World Health Organization had already abandoned the legal battlefield, referring our challenges to "national authorities" rather than defending their emergency use listings in court.
But here's what made that hearing so significant: we weren't just challenging Costa Rica's policies - we were challenging the entire interconnected chain of authorization that started with FDA Emergency Use Authorizations, flowed through WHO Emergency Use Listings, and ended up being adopted by countries like Costa Rica without independent safety evaluation.
The FDA had issued EUAs that WHO then incorporated into their global Emergency Use Listing system, which national authorities like Costa Rica's Ministry of Health then adopted wholesale. It was a regulatory daisy-chain where the foundational FDA authorization became the basis for experimental medical policies worldwide, despite the fact that FDA's EUAs were never intended for mass population deployment.
In that November hearing, we challenged not just Costa Rica's implementation, but the FDA's foundational authorization that had enabled the entire global system. Our expert witnesses - Dr. Yeadon, Dr. Lindsay, and Sasha Latypova and Dr. Leisha (PCR) - presented evidence that the original FDA Emergency Use Authorizations were legally defective from the start, making every subsequent adoption by WHO and national authorities equally problematic.
Today's FDA decision to rescind those EUAs validates exactly what we argued in that Costa Rican government hearing eight months ago. This saga has been a huge whirlwind beginning in 2021 with Dr. Yeadon acting as Chief Scientist going toe to toe with the corrupt Administrations around the world - We filed 45+ cases to get this far folks!
To be very clear, the foundational authorization of the EUA was flawed, the global adoption was inappropriate by WHO, and the entire system enabled experimental medical interventions on billions of people without proper legal authority.
Our argument was straightforward and legally bulletproof: these products are experimental gene therapy, not vaccines.
The emergency use listings that WHO had created which were enabled by FDA- and then abandoned when challenged - violated every principle of informed consent established since Nuremberg. The experimental nature was not disclosed. The risks were systematically minimized. The coercion through mandates made truly voluntary consent impossible.
We demanded three simple things from the government officials on that call: Show us the safety studies proving these products are safe. Provide evidence that these are not experimental gene therapy. Give us legal justification for bypassing normal regulatory processes that exist specifically to prevent human experimentation.
The response was instructive in its absence. Not disagreement with our science. Not counter-evidence. Not alternative legal theories. Complete, institutional silence.
From Silence to Amparo: How Legal Pressure Builds
That silence wasn't just embarrassing - it was legally significant. In administrative law, when government agencies cannot provide evidence for their actions when properly challenged, they create legal vulnerabilities that skilled attorneys know exactly how to exploit.
Interest of Justice filed an Amparo action - essentially a constitutional protection mechanism available in Costa Rican law - demanding the government produce the safety evidence they claimed to possess. An Amparo is particularly powerful because it requires immediate government response to allegations of constitutional rights violations.
The Amparo victory was swift and decisive. The court ruled in our favor, ordering complete document disclosure. But here's what made our victory historically significant: when ordered to produce their safety evidence, the Ministry of Health and WHO defaulted rather than comply with the court order.
Let that sink in. Government health authorities chose legal default - essentially admitting they have no evidence - rather than produce documentation supporting the safety claims they had made to justify experimental medical interventions on millions of people.
This wasn't a narrow technical victory. This was a government and international health organization admitting in court that they could not substantiate their fundamental claims about product safety.
The Regulatory Domino Effect: How Legal Pressure Scales
Our Costa Rica victory didn't happen in isolation. While we were systematically dismantling WHO and government claims in Central American courts, Interest of Justice was simultaneously building pressure on U.S. regulatory agencies through carefully crafted legal documents.
On June 17, 2025, we filed our comprehensive FDA Citizens Petition demanding immediate rescission of Emergency Use Authorizations and reclassification of mRNA products as gene therapy. The petition presented the same scientific evidence and legal framework that had already defeated government health authorities in Costa Rica.
The petition was strategic in its scope. Rather than requesting just one administrative action, we demanded comprehensive regulatory reform: EUA rescission, gene therapy reclassification, acknowledgment of informed consent violations, and complete overhaul of the emergency authorization process that had enabled experimental medical procedures on a global scale.
Today's FDA announcement represents the first domino falling from that strategic legal pressure. The rescission of EUAs was literally the first demand in our petition. The fact that this occurred within months of our filing - and after years of regulatory agency resistance to similar requests - suggests our legal strategy is creating pressure that regulatory agencies can no longer ignore.
But here's what makes this particularly significant: our petition demanded much more than just EUA rescission. Gene therapy reclassification, regulatory process overhaul, and acknowledgment of Nuremberg Code violations are all still pending. The FDA's action today validates our legal analysis while leaving the most substantial accountability measures still on the table.
Multiple Fronts, Multiple Victories: Why Persistence Works
What makes today's FDA decision particularly gratifying is that it validates our multi-jurisdictional approach. While others focused on single-issue advocacy, Interest of Justice has been fighting systematically across multiple legal fronts: constitutional challenges in Costa Rica, FDA petitions in the United States, WHO accountability through international law, and preparation for Universal Jurisdiction criminal complaints.
We've been saying for years that this systematic approach would eventually create pressure that regulatory agencies couldn't ignore. People thought we were being overly optimistic when we talked about "inevitable" accountability. Today proves that strategic persistence, backed by solid legal analysis and expert witnesses, can force even the most entrenched institutions to change course.
But here's what concerns us: there are multiple layers of laws and regulations that waived informed consent and enabled experimental medical interventions on a massive scale. The PREP Act provides liability shields that were never intended to protect crimes against humanity. Emergency authorities at DOD, HHS, and FDA created parallel regulatory pathways that bypassed normal safety oversight. International organizations like WHO developed emergency use listing systems that allowed experimental products to be deployed globally without proper country-specific approval processes.
Rescinding EUAs addresses one small piece of this larger regulatory framework. The deeper legal infrastructure that enabled four years of medical experimentation remains largely intact, ready to be activated in the next declared emergency.
The International Accountability Framework
Interest of Justice's legal strategy has always been international in scope because the violations occurred on a global scale. Our Costa Rica victories established legal precedent, but Universal Jurisdiction principles mean any country can prosecute crimes against humanity regardless of where they occurred.
The November hearing footage we possess - complete documentation of government officials going silent when confronted with evidence of experimental medical procedures - isn't just embarrassing for those officials. It's evidence in future criminal proceedings.
Our five court victories against health authorities aren't just vindication of our legal arguments. They're binding precedents that other courts can reference when evaluating similar cases.
The expert testimony from Dr. Yeadon, Dr. Lindsay, Dr. Leisha Martin and Sasha Latypova that government authorities couldn't refute isn't just scientific validation. It's witness testimony that can be used in international criminal proceedings.
This is why Interest of Justice is announcing our Nuremberg 2.0 campaign. The original Nuremberg Trials established the principle that medical experimentation on human beings without informed consent constitutes crimes against humanity regardless of claimed public health benefits. The legal framework exists. The evidence exists. The precedent exists.
What's needed now is the systematic application of international criminal law to hold accountable every official, executive, and institution that participated in four years of global medical experimentation in violation of the Nuremberg Code.
Community support made today's victory possible. Continued community support will deliver complete accountability for crimes against humanity. Your contribution - in whatever form you can provide - makes both possible. Whether you choose to be recognized or remain anonymous, whether you can contribute $25 or $2,500, you're part of a community that's making history by refusing to let crimes against humanity go unpunished.
The Truth Bombs Series: Evidence Documentation Strategy
Interest of Justice will be releasing our complete evidence package through our "50 Truth Bombs" series - five-minute video segments that systematically document every aspect of our legal victories and the accountability campaign ahead.
The November 11 hearing footage will anchor this series, providing unprecedented documentation of government officials admitting they cannot defend their most consequential public health decisions. But the series will extend far beyond that single hearing to encompass our entire legal strategy and evidence base.
Episodes will include complete breakdowns of our five court victories, detailed analysis of expert witness testimony, documentation of government defaults and regulatory agency non-responses, international criminal law framework explanations, and strategic planning for global accountability campaigns.
This isn't just victory lap documentation. This is systematic evidence preservation and distribution designed to ensure that what happened over the past four years is never forgotten - and never repeated.
Why Crimes Against Humanity Charges Are Inevitable
The legal reality is straightforward: systematic medical experimentation on human populations without proper informed consent violates international law established at Nuremberg. The scale of what occurred - billions of people subjected to experimental medical procedures under emergency authorities, with risks systematically minimized and coercion widely employed - meets every definition of crimes against humanity.
The FDA's decision to rescind EUAs actually strengthens the legal case for criminal prosecution because it represents official acknowledgment that mass population use was inappropriate. When government agencies admit their previous actions were wrong, that admission becomes evidence in criminal proceedings.
Interest of Justice possesses documentation that government health authorities could not provide evidence supporting their safety claims when properly challenged in court. We have video evidence of officials going silent when confronted with expert testimony about experimental procedures. We have binding court precedents establishing that these products are experimental gene therapy, not vaccines.
Universal Jurisdiction principles mean prosecution can occur in any country willing to apply international criminal law. The evidence package we've assembled through years of strategic litigation provides the foundation for criminal complaints in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.
The Global Justice Campaign: $500,000 for Complete Accountability
Interest of Justice is launching our Justice for Humanity campaign with a $500,000 funding target for systematic global accountability. This isn't aspirational fundraising - this is operational funding for documented legal strategy that has already proven effective.
Three hundred thousand dollars will fund criminal complaints in fifteen countries under Universal Jurisdiction principles. Our legal research has identified jurisdictions where crimes against humanity prosecutions can proceed regardless of where the violations occurred. Simultaneous filing prevents jurisdiction shopping and creates international pressure for accountability.
One hundred thousand dollars will fund professional documentation and distribution of our evidence package, including the November hearing footage, expert witness testimonies, and court victory documentation. This material needs professional production and global distribution to maximize its impact on accountability proceedings.
One hundred thousand dollars will fund our regulatory law reversal campaign - systematic legal challenges to the emergency authorities, liability protections, and regulatory processes that enabled four years of medical experimentation. Rescinding EUAs is just the beginning; we need to dismantle the entire legal framework that made this possible.
The Historical Moment We're Living Through
What happened today represents a inflection point in one of the most consequential accountability battles in human history. Government agencies don't voluntarily admit their previous policies were inappropriate unless they're facing legal and political pressure they cannot ignore.
Interest of Justice helped create that pressure through strategic litigation, expert witness coordination, and systematic documentation of government failures to provide evidence for their claims. Our legal victories in Costa Rica, our successful influence on US and international regulatory agencies, and our evidence preservation work have contributed to a momentum that regulatory agencies can no longer resist.
But accountability for crimes against humanity requires more than administrative policy changes. It requires systematic application of international criminal law to ensure that what occurred over the past four years never happens again.
The choice facing humanity is clear: we can treat the rescission of EUAs as sufficient accountability and allow the legal and institutional frameworks that enabled global medical experimentation to remain in place. Or we can demand complete accountability through international criminal law and systematic reform of the emergency authorities that made this possible.
Interest of Justice chooses accountability. We choose justice. We choose systematic reform to protect future generations from medical tyranny.
The question is whether you'll join us in demanding nothing less than complete justice for crimes against humanity - or whether you'll accept partial measures and leave the door open for this to happen again.
What Comes Next: From Victory to Global Accountability
Today's FDA decision creates a narrow window of maximum opportunity for global accountability. When regulatory agencies admit their policies were inappropriate, that creates legal vulnerabilities that criminal prosecutors can exploit - but only if we act quickly while the momentum exists.
But here's the legal bombshell that most people are missing: our FDA petition didn't just demand EUA rescission - it demanded reclassification of these products as gene therapy, which would strip away PREP Act immunity protections for all populations. The PREP Act provides liability shields specifically for countermeasures authorized under Emergency Use. With EUAs rescinded and products restricted to high-risk populations only, those broad liability protections become legally questionable.
PREP Act immunity for EUA products is legally distinct from immunity for FDA-approved marketing authorizations. While pharmaceutical companies enjoyed "iron-clad immunity" under Emergency Use Authorization, that protection doesn't automatically transfer when products move to standard marketing authorization, especially when the foundational emergency justification has been removed by the authorizing agency itself.
The regulatory shift also dismantles the legal foundation for vaccine mandates. Schools cannot mandate medical interventions when the FDA itself restricts those products to high-risk populations only. Employee mandates lose regulatory backing when the authorizing agency acknowledges these products shouldn't be broadly available to general populations. Our legal strategy didn't just challenge the products - it challenged the entire regulatory framework that enabled experimental mandates.
This means Pfizer, Moderna, and every pharmaceutical executive, government official, and profiteer like Bill Gates who made billions from this experimental program may have just lost their legal immunity from prosecution and civil liability. The same rescission that validates our legal strategy potentially exposes everyone who profited from four years of experimental medical interventions to both criminal charges and massive civil lawsuits.
Our petition specifically argued that gene therapy products cannot legitimately receive Emergency Use Authorization and therefore shouldn't be protected by PREP Act immunity designed for genuine public health emergencies. Today's FDA action moves us significantly closer to that reclassification - and toward full legal accountability for everyone involved in this experimental program.
The government has already admitted in federal court that the FDA was aware of protocol violations and fraud in Pfizer's clinical trials before granting EUA authorization - yet approved them anyway. The FDA's own documented words in federal proceedings were tantamount to saying legally: "The FDA was aware of the protocol violations... They were aware of the fraud." This admission of knowing fraud invalidates any claim to legal immunity under the PREP Act, because immunity was never intended to protect deliberate criminal activity.
What we're witnessing is not failed public health policy but successful deployment of experimental gene-editing nanotechnology under emergency authorities designed to bypass normal regulatory safeguards. The mRNA interventions were never designed primarily to prevent disease - they were designed to deliver synthetic genetic instructions that reprogram cellular function. Today's FDA restrictions tacitly acknowledge this by protecting healthy populations while continuing to target the most vulnerable with ongoing experimental procedures.
Interest of Justice is launching our Justice for Humanity campaign to capitalize on today's vindication. If you think we've done a good job and want to support our continued work, please step forward to help us secure the tools and resources needed to fully prosecute these atrocities. Community support is exactly how we got this far - every court victory, every legal breakthrough, every moment of accountability has been possible because people like you believed in strategic legal pressure when others said it was impossible.
These comprehensive accountability efforts simply can't be done without sustained community backing. The criminal complaints across multiple countries, the professional documentation of our evidence, the systematic challenges to emergency authorities - all of this requires resources, but more importantly, it requires a community that refuses to let crimes against humanity go unpunished.
Recent Supreme Court rulings, including the overturning of Chevron deference, have fundamentally shifted the legal landscape by stripping federal agencies of their presumptive authority to interpret law. This creates unprecedented opportunities to challenge fraudulent FDA approvals and CDC guidance under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court has essentially told federal health agencies that they no longer have blanket authority to write or reinterpret existing law.
Today's FDA rescission creates maximum legal momentum for comprehensive accountability. The regulatory admission that these products are inappropriate for general populations undermines every mandate, every authorization, and every immunity claim made over the past four years.
Here's what your long term support would fund:
Criminal complaints in fifteen countries under Universal Jurisdiction principles,
professional documentation and global distribution of our evidence (including the November Nuremberg hearing footage),
and systematic challenges to the emergency authorities and regulatory processes that enabled four years of medical experimentation.
This is your opportunity to support the only legal organization that has actually forced regulatory agencies to change course while defeating government health authorities in court multiple times. Every previous victory - the five court wins in Costa Rica, the WHO legal default, today's successful influence on FDA policy - was made possible by supporters who believed in strategic legal pressure when others said it was impossible.
We know most people prefer to support this work quietly, and that's completely fine. But for those who'd like recognition for fueling this accountability mission, we're planning a beautiful supporter community area where the people funding Justice for Humanity can get credit for being the foundation that makes this historic work possible. You'll be able to connect with other supporters and see the progress your contributions make possible.
Whether you choose to be recognized or remain anonymous, whether you can contribute $25 or $2,500, you're part of a community that's making history by refusing to let crimes against humanity go unpunished. Today's FDA decision proves that when we work together with strategic persistence, even the most powerful regulatory agencies can be forced to admit their policies were inappropriate.
Support this mission at NurembergHearing.org/donate
Community support made today's victory possible. Continued community support will deliver complete accountability for crimes against humanity. Your contribution - in whatever form you can provide - makes both possible.
Fund Nuremberg 2.0: Community Powered Justice for Humanity
Interest of Justice - Reminding Governments of Their Required Duty Under Private International Law and Establishing Procedures to Protect Human Rights
Interest Of Justice has a lengthy history with major interests in the matter. Here’s some of our related articles and historical involvement between the regulatory agencies, international organizations and countries such as FDA, HHS OGA, Costa Rica and the World Health Organization:
![HHS Says Our FOIA Request Is "Unusual & Will Need More Time" For The Covid-19 Vaccine Reports Regarding The Military Plans To Rollout Experimental Countermeasure [non]Vaccines.](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!zttm!,w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F755c88e6-26c2-43d0-9992-6489b7c506f3_768x432.gif)
Not impressed. They are still going after the elderly and having them believe that c0vid is something that it isnt. If the elderly die from the jab they will likely have a co morbidity they will blame it on.
This is a sleight of hand trick. The kind any second rate magician performs.
They are cancelling the current vaccines and contracts because Project Stargate is taking over production of vaccines in a public/private partnership that was announced by Trump on his first day in office and explained by Larry Ellison.
The old vaccines have outlived their purpose and Kennedy, et al, are serving theirs by inspiring false confidence and trust for future mRNA and saRNA injections to come.
Let's not be groomed like schoolchildren by men in white vans lurking at the playground offering free candy.
Let's be adults with memories and critical thinking skills above those of a fruit fly. Pleez....
God Bless.