TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

mRNA vaccines, like the ones developed for the pandemic, have brought attention to the potential of gene and cell therapy. Previously, if we had asked the public if they would be willing to receive such treatments, the majority would have refused. However, the pandemic has changed people's perspectives and made them more open to innovative approaches in healthcare.

mRNA vaccines have shown the potential of cell and gene therapy. Two years ago, most people would have refused gene or cell therapy, but the pandemic has increased acceptance of innovative treatments.

In October 2020, the speaker was asked if Operation Warp Speed would use the expanded access use pathway to get on the market. The speaker responded that they would not be using that pathway because it requires an institutional review board (IRB) and informed consent, which they wanted to avoid due to the added complexity. The speaker expressed concern for the lack of informed consent in vaccine injuries and deaths. They mentioned that this scheme was designed to deceive professionals and took years to uncover. Both sides, including FDA staff, CDC staff, pharma staff, management, and lawyers, were aware of what they were doing.

- The m n r m r n a technology was a radical qualitative leap forward in technology. - The mRNA is a type of vaccine. - The reason it was called a scene was because was a brand name that had a track record of safety, and shoehorning it in that was one of the ways to make sure that people weren't terrified of the technology. - It bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that. - There are different types that they didn't have to contend with the fact that it wasn't the same technology. There are different technologies. - There certainly are. That are different technologies.

The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) regulation from the Clinton administration included safeguards. You can distribute a medication without approval, clinical trials, or safety testing, but only if no existing approved drug is effective against the target illness. To use the EUA for vaccines, any effective drugs against COVID needed to be discredited. Early on, it was known that hydroxychloroquine was effective against coronavirus. NIH studies demonstrated its effectiveness both as a preventative and as a cure. Ivermectin was also very effective. Acknowledging that these drugs worked would have eliminated the use of the emergency use authorization. So, they had to suppress them.

In a meeting on October 6, 2021, questions arose about the ethics of administering experimental booster shots and whether financial motives influenced their rollout. The discussion highlighted that while mRNA vaccines have been researched for decades, they had not previously reached clinical trials due to known side effects. Pfizer and Moderna utilized the pandemic's emergency status to expedite their vaccines. A collaboration with BioNTech, initiated before COVID-19, led to the development of mRNA technology. The urgency of the pandemic required rapid action, leaving little time for thorough deliberation. Katherine Janssen, a key figure in vaccine development at Pfizer, emphasized the ongoing efforts to create effective vaccines against COVID-19.

Many are surprised to learn that the vaccines did not undergo traditional clinical trials. Initially, they were manufactured using PCR for 44,000 people, but when scaling up, the process was deemed too costly and was replaced with DNA from E. Coli, which also introduced endotoxins. In pharmaceutical manufacturing, the process is crucial; changing it typically requires new trials. The EMA requested a new trial with 252 patients, but the data was never provided, and it was considered too late since vaccinations had already begun. Thus, the rationale for conducting the trial became irrelevant.

The public received a series of lies instead of informed consent regarding the immature developmental state of these products. These lies included claims that the products were safe and effective without qualification. It was falsely claimed that these products would remain at the injection site and draining lymph nodes, a falsehood revealed by nonclinical packages from Japan and Australia. The public was also told the modified ribonucleic acid would only last in the body for a short time, but these products remain biologically active for weeks or months. Another falsehood was the claim that no one would be safe until everyone was safe, a propaganda campaign using coercion, compulsion, and enticement, violating established bioethics. This series of lies justified the deployment of experimental products with great profit margins, intended to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. According to a WHO hearing in 2021, this would become a platform where all that would be necessary in the future would be to swap in a new RNA sequence.

Before the emergency use authorization of the vaccines, significant concerns were already known. The Pfizer technical document revealed that these vaccines caused widespread distribution of the encoded protein in major tissues and were associated with inflammatory reactions due to lipid nanoparticles. It was understood that these nanoparticles could deliver RNA and DNA into cells, and the use of pseudo uridine was intended to enhance the immune response and prolong the product's effectiveness. However, critical investigations regarding potential shedding, reproductive toxicity, and the presence of contaminants were not conducted. These omissions are concerning, especially considering previous FDA regulations that recognized the risks of genotoxicity related to manufacturing processes.

Speaker 0 argues that billions of people were injected with an experimental vaccine, stating “it wasn't a bloody just no. It wasn't.” He rejects the notion of it being definitive or perfect, emphasizing that “it wasn’t” in terms of being a flawless solution. Speaker 1 counters, asserting “It was no one isn’t,” suggesting confusion or contradiction in the prior claim and challenging the certainty of the statement. He adds that there is a lack of a 100% success rate and questions the ultimate aim, asking what the core purpose is when it comes to giving your body a training of the immune system and technology. Speaker 0 reinforces the complexity, noting that there were “different types” to contend with and that the fact that they weren’t the same technology matters. He agrees there are various types of vaccines or approaches, indicating there is diversity in the technology or formulations used. Speaker 1 concedes the existence of different types and technologies, acknowledging that “there are different types of” vaccines, and that “There are different technologies.” He identifies mRNA as a type of vaccine but Speaker 0 interrupts, insisting “No. It was” and continuing his line of reasoning about the distinctions between the technologies and their evolution. Speaker 1 acknowledges change, saying “like this, and now it's like this,” recognizing a progression or shift in the approach. Speaker 0 rejects the suggestion that the transition is simple or uniform, insisting “No. No. No. It was like this, and now it's like this.” He asserts that the mRNA technology represented a radical, qualitative leap forward in technology, a claim about the significance of the development. Speaker 0 contends that naming the technology as mRNA can be acceptable only in a limited sense; he says “You can call it if if you want to, but it bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that.” The rationale for the term mRNA is tied to branding: “The reason it was called a scene was because was a brand name that had a track record of safety, and shoehorning it in that was one of the ways to make sure that people weren't terrified of the technology.”

Two years ago, most people would have refused gene or cell therapy, but the pandemic has changed perceptions of innovation. The COVID vaccine is not a traditional vaccine as it doesn't provide immunity or prevent transmission. The Pfizer vaccine wasn't tested for transmission prevention before its release due to the urgency. Vaccinated individuals can still get COVID-19. Countries with rapid mass vaccination have seen increased infections and deaths. A study from the Cleveland Clinic suggests that the more shots received, the higher the risk of getting COVID. Vaccination puts evolutionary pressure on the virus, leading to mutations. Epidemiological analysis shows a significant number of deaths related to the vaccines, with dangerous mechanisms of action and consistency with other fatal conditions. Temporal relation is also evident, with many deaths occurring shortly after vaccination.

Two years ago, most people would have refused gene or cell therapy, but the pandemic has changed that. mRNA vaccines are a prime example of this shift towards innovation in healthcare.

The mRNA vaccines received emergency use authorization, but concerns arose with myocarditis, particularly in boys aged 16 to 29 after the second dose. This condition was mostly transient and self-resolving. In contrast, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, based on adenovirus technology, was linked to severe clotting issues, including in the brain, leading to its market withdrawal by March 2023. This raised questions about the initial recommendations and eroded public trust. The aim is to foster realistic expectations about vaccine development, emphasizing that knowledge evolves over time, a fact often overlooked in personal experiences.

Trump's quick release of vaccines eliminated the excuse for lockdowns, preventing the transfer of wealth from small businesses to large corporations. The vaccines also removed the need for lockdowns, forcing Democratic governors to reopen. Releasing the vaccines under emergency use authorization (EUA) prevented them from being legally forced on people. The original plan was to physically force vaccinations and quarantine those who refused, but the EUA made that impossible. The only FDA-approved vaccine is called Comirnaty, but it is not available in the US yet.

At the outset, a process was approved by the FDA for emergency use authorization. However, it was later discovered that the approved process was swapped out for one containing contaminants like DNA and a cancer-causing substance. Pfizer redacted 800 pages of the manufacturing process, hiding the fact that a carcinogen was included. This lack of transparency led to no informed consent and potential harm to individuals. The vaccine rollout included a trial with a 2.4 times higher adverse event rate, including the presence of a carcinogen.

We are generating real-time data on mRNA vaccines, which have been in development for years due to side effects. Pfizer and Moderna used the pandemic to accelerate their development. The collaboration with BioNTech on flu led to the quick rollout of the mRNA vaccine. Clinical trials skipped phases, causing uncertainty. Concerns arise about vaccine distribution and the need for booster shots. Politics play a role in decision-making.

The transcript presents a critical examination of Bill Gates, portraying him as transforming from a software magnate into a global health power broker whose wealth and influence have reshaped public health, vaccine development, and population policy. It argues that Gates’ philanthropic activities are not purely charitable but are deployed to extend control over health systems, global research agendas, and even the reproductive choices of people worldwide. Key claims and points are detailed across several strands: - Public image and power shift: Bill Gates is described as no longer a “public health expert” yet becoming a central figure in billions of lives, guiding medical actions and vaccine strategies. The program asserts that Gates’ reinvention through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been aided by a sophisticated public relations apparatus and by directing media coverage of global health issues. - Foundation scale and reach: The Gates Foundation is depicted as the world’s largest private foundation, with assets reported as tens of billions of dollars and a broad remit in global health, development, growth, and policy advocacy. Its influence extends to funding media outlets, think tanks, and reporting units across multiple outlets (BBC, NPR, Our World in Data, ABC, among others), creating what the program calls “tentacles” across global health. - Partnerships and funding of global health initiatives: Gates is credited with initiating and funding major global health vehicles, including: - Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, with seed funding and ongoing commitments that have shaped vaccination markets. - The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and other public-private partnerships that coordinate vaccine development and immunization programs. - Support for CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), the World Health Organization’s vaccine initiatives, and other pandemic preparedness efforts. - The World Health Organization’s funding profile, described as heavily dependent on Gates Foundation support, with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted as a non-medical doctor connected to Gates-backed initiatives. - The “Decade of Vaccines” and vaccine policy: Gates is credited with launching a decade-long vaccine initiative, including a pledge of billions of dollars to vaccine development and distribution. This is linked to the creation of a global vaccine action plan and to Gavi’s role in establishing vaccine markets. The narrative asserts that vaccines have been used to steer global health policy and to secure roles for private firms in public health decision-making. - Vaccine development concerns: The program raises concerns about the safety and speed of vaccine development, criticizing the eighteen-month timeline Gates advocates for a universal vaccine, and questioning the use of new technologies (DNA and mRNA platforms) and rapid deployment with limited testing. It highlights potential safety risks, including historical vaccine-associated disease enhancement and concerns about broad immunization in a short period. - Vaccine safety and regulation: It is claimed that vaccine safety at scale is hard to guarantee and that liability protections for vaccine makers and public health officials have been enacted (e.g., a U.S. declaration granting liability immunity for COVID-19 countermeasures), a point framed as enabling risk-bearing without accountability. - Population control framing: A central thread is the assertion that Gates seeks to reduce population growth through health improvements, vaccines, and reproductive health services. The transcript traces Gates’ interest in contraception and population issues to his family background and to Rockefeller-era eugenics historical contexts, arguing that discussions about fertility, contraceptive technologies, and demographic trends have long-term population implications. It cites specific Gates Foundation activities in reproductive health, including funding for innovative birth-control delivery methods, depot injections, implanted devices, and efforts to develop digital identity tied to health services as tools within a broader population-control framework. - Digital identity and biometric ID: The narrative emphasizes Gates’ involvement with biometric identification through Gavi and ID2020, noting partnerships with Microsoft and the Rockefeller Foundation, the Aadhaar system in India, and the World Bank’s ID4D initiative. It argues that vaccination programs, biometric identity, and cashless payments are being integrated into a comprehensive “population control grid,” enabling state and private actors to track, truncate, or deny access to services based on identity and health status. - Data, surveillance, and privacy concerns: The piece contends that the push for digital IDs, digital health records, and biometrics will erode privacy and enable broad government and corporate surveillance, linking health data to financial services, voting, housing, and welfare. It highlights projects involving digital certificates, immunity passports, and real-time health data collection via microneedle patches and barcode-like skin markers, suggesting these innovations could be used to control access to services. - Epstein connections and broader conspiracy context: The program references alleged connections between Gates and Jeffrey Epstein, including flight logs and involvement in philanthropic funding discussions, framing these ties as part of a broader pattern of influence. It also points to prior associations with notable figures (Buffett, Rockefeller, Soros) and critiques of Gates as aligning with a “population control” ideology. - The underlying motive and conclusion: Throughout, the narrative asserts that Gates’ wealth is being used not for charity alone but to build an overarching system of control—over health institutions, research funding, public policy, identification, and financial systems. It contrasts his public image as a generous philanthropist with alleged hidden agendas, suggesting that the real aim is to shape global governance and human behavior through vaccination, identification, and digital infrastructure. - Final framing and call to action: The closing sections urge viewers to recognize Gates’ influence as part of an ideology rather than a single person’s plan. It frames the situation as a broader movement that could continue beyond Gates personally, urging awareness and action to resist what the program deems a population-control regime embedded in global health and digital identity initiatives. In sum, the transcript portrays Bill Gates as a central figure driving a multifaceted, globally interconnected program—through the Gates Foundation, Gavi, CEPI, and related partnerships—that allegedly reconfigures vaccine policy, global health governance, reproductive health, biometric identification, and digital payments into a cohesive system of population control and surveillance, using philanthropy as a veneer for power and control.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the COVID-19 vaccine episode, challenging why the vaccine was pursued as a public health solution and exploring deeper incentives behind the program. - A knowledgeable figure at the stand answered a burning question: did they know the vaccine wouldn’t be effective from the start and could be dangerous? The answer given was that it was “a test of a technology.” The exchange suggests the broader aim was testing an entire program of control previewed in Event 2019. - They ask whether inoculation was necessary on billions, noting it could have been tested on a much smaller population. If shots had been basically empty or inert, the data could have been spun to claim success and end the pandemic, preventing injuries from appearing. The absence of that approach remains a mystery. - The speakers point to high pre-vaccine seroprevalence in 2020, including studies from South Dakota showing 50-60% seroprevalence before vaccine release, implying that a saline shot or no shot could have achieved “indomicity” (immunity) without a vaccine. - They discuss why people might fear vaccines and interpret the broader impact: the public is waking up to something terrible having occurred, as it revealed readiness to lie, potential data quality concerns, and risk to pregnant women and healthy children who might get little justification for risk. - The disease’s lethality is framed as greatest among the very old or very sick; for others, it was less deadly, with natural evolution potentially reducing vulnerability over time. - The mRNA platform was touted as a means to outrun mutations, but the timeline to release was still insufficient to stay ahead of natural change. They note accelerated development was the fastest vaccine in history, from detection to inoculation, reducing the timeline by about a year or two, yet not fast enough. - Political and logistical factors delayed release; there is mention that it would not have appeared under Trump and that Eric Topol argued to delay the rollout. Fauci reportedly sent Moderna back to trials due to insufficient racial diversity in participants. - The discussion questions whether the vaccine qualifies as a normal consumer product, given ongoing subsidies, mandates, indemnifications, wartime-like supports, and propaganda. They wonder if there has been an ongoing two-century revolt by industry against public scrutiny, with public interest repeatedly leading to pushback and rebranding. - A central theme is the sophistication of pharma: the “game of pharma” involves owning an IP-based health claim, crafting supportive research, convincing it is safe and effective, achieving standard-of-care status, securing mandates and government funding, and leveraging ongoing propaganda. They describe pharma as a long-running arms race with deep institutional knowledge, implying that it is far more capable of shaping reality than the public realizes.

Vaccines were oversold, leading to mandates that caused people to lose their jobs. The intent behind vaccine liability laws was well-meaning, but companies must be held accountable for vaccine injuries. Early treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were undermined, preventing effective therapies from being available and allowing emergency use authorization for vaccines. This approach resulted in unnecessary loss of life. The suppression of alternative treatments benefited pharmaceutical companies financially. Despite evidence supporting treatments like corticosteroids and ivermectin, these options were dismissed, paving the way for vaccine mandates. The public response to vaccine injuries has been inadequate and unacceptable.

The mRNA platform is effective but has a flaw: it can cause autoimmune disorders by producing foreign proteins in cells. The challenge is to target only specific cells and avoid damage to vital organs. The pandemic allowed the emergency use authorization of mRNA vaccines, bypassing safety measures. However, a large portion of the population has already accepted this technology. To address the issue, a solution could be to replace the spike protein with a different protein that doesn't have flaws. But if the problem lies in any foreign protein transcribed by cells, the immune system may still target vital organs.

We were deceived with false information about the safety and effectiveness of these products. The claim that they would remain at the injection site and lymph nodes was proven false. The modified RNA in these products was said to only last a short time, but we now know it remains active in the body for weeks or even months. We were also manipulated into believing that we all needed to be vaccinated for everyone to be safe, using illegal tactics like coercion and enticement. These lies were used to justify the deployment of these experimental products, which aimed to establish a profitable vaccine platform technology.

The speaker asserts that the 1986 National Child Vaccine Injury Act led to an explosion of creativity in vaccine development due to the immunity from legal consequences it provided to vaccine companies. Before 1986, the 1976 swine flu vaccine fiasco, which resulted in numerous lawsuits and the government indemnifying vaccine companies, set a precedent. The 1986 act, passed due to lawsuits related to the diphtheria pertussis tetanus vaccine, shifted lawsuit coverage to taxes. Over time, the qualifications for compensation narrowed, enriching vaccine companies and allowing them to add adjuvants to stimulate the immune system. This indemnification paved the way for mRNA vaccines. Vaccine trials are now considered a joke, with accepted vaccinated-unvaccinated studies using other vaccines as placebos. Saline placebos are avoided because existing studies allegedly reveal the vaccines' ineffectiveness and increased susceptibility to disease.

Nicholas Holcher, an epidemiologist and foundation administrator at the McCullough Foundation, appears on the WiderWake Media Podcast to discuss what he calls harms from the mRNA COVID vaccines and to critique mainstream approaches to the pandemic and public health policy. - Vaccine definitions and mRNA technology - Pre-2000 definition: a vaccine is an injectable or oral product that introduces a killed part of a virus or an inactivated form to the body so that encountering a wild-type version would not infect or would cause a less severe illness. - He asserts that mRNA injections are not vaccines: they are a gene transfer platform using modified messenger RNA with long persistence in the body (via N1-methylpseudouridine), delivered in lipid nanoparticles. He claims these bubbles distribute systemically, including to the brain, heart, bone marrow, and reproductive system, and that they instruct cells to produce a spike protein, effectively turning organs into “toxic spike protein production factories.” He says this leads to autoimmune attack on those tissues and contributes to adverse events, including myocarditis, strokes, immune destruction, and “turbo cancers.” - History and purpose of mRNA in vaccines - According to Holcher, work on this technology existed for decades but animals testing showed high mortality or sterilization in ferrets and mice, preventing approval except under a declared global emergency. He contends the COVID-19 crisis enabled emergency use authorization across Western countries, with ulterior aims to inject the globe with mRNA technology. - Global impact and uptake - He estimates about 70% of the global population received at least one COVID-19 injection (mRNA or viral vector). He notes Eastern countries used non-mRNA platforms (e.g., AstraZeneca/J&J in some places; Sinovac elsewhere) but that uptake in the West was high. - Harms and evidence - Excess deaths: cites a study by Dennis Brancourt et al. estimating around 17 million deaths worldwide as a result of COVID injections (as of September 2023); he claims US deaths could be in the hundreds of thousands to millions. - Turbo cancers: cites multiple studies in 2023 showing increased risk of seven cancer types (colorectal, bladder, breast, thyroid, prostate, etc.) in vaccinated groups; cites a major cancer journal, OncoTarget, reporting hundreds of turbo cancer cases across 27 countries, with Pfizer contributing most cases. Holcher also mentions his own group’s work with Neo7 Bioscience documenting genomic integration of vaccine-derived mRNA in a stage IV bladder cancer patient (31-year-old woman) with a segment of mRNA found in circulating tumor DNA on chromosome 19; another study reported thousands of dysregulated genes in post-vaccine cancers, including p53, KRAS, and BRCA. - Definition of turbo cancer: per Merrick et al., rapid, aggressive tumor progression with sudden onset and early metastasis, often in younger individuals, and resistant to treatment. - Fertility, pregnancy, and autism - Fertility: cites studies suggesting fertility impacts, including Karaman et al. finding depletion of primordial follicles in rats after mRNA vaccination; Manichi et al. reporting 33% lower conception rates in vaccinated women in Denmark; a study indicating a ~20% drop in sperm concentration and motility with no recovery over five months. - Autism: asserts a large body of evidence linking vaccines to neurodevelopmental disorders, citing a 136-study review with 107 studies finding positive associations between vaccines and neurodevelopmental issues, including autism, attributed to toxicity and immune system disruption, particularly in children with high vaccine exposure and reduced detox capacity (CYP450 impairment). - Other topics tied to vaccines and public response - The COVID-19 period and vaccine skepticism: claims the pandemic catalyzed a large anti-vaccine movement because people were compelled to take an experimental gene therapy product. - Sam Altman and gene editing: discusses Altman’s Preventive venture with the aim to reduce heritable diseases via in utero gene editing but warns of the path to designer babies and the potential for harm in early-iteration edits, citing prior CRISPR experiments on human embryos that produced deformed offspring or nonviable results. - AI, workers, and future society: predicts two-tier society with implanted or enhanced individuals and a replacement of human labor by robots and AI systems; discusses military and surveillance ambitions in gene editing and AI augmentation. - Mental health and digital life: references a randomized trial showing that turning off mobile Internet improved depression scores and well-being to an extent comparable to or greater than antidepressants. - World Health Organization (WHO): notes the US has pulled out of the WHO, arguing this is good for the US but potentially harmful for others still in the organization; expresses concerns about the pandemic treaty and ongoing global health governance, including vaccine passport-style surveillance. - FDA and public health policy: acknowledges some shifts (e.g., cutting doses from the childhood schedule) but argues the FDA remains compromised and too aligned with vaccine industry interests; criticizes the removal of a potential black box warning for vaccines and calls for more accountability. - Resources and contact - Holcher invites listeners to follow him on X (Twitter) at @nichulsher and to read their work on focalpoints.com and through McCullough’s network. Note: The transcript presents Holcher’s claims and interpretations about vaccines, turbo cancers, autism, fertility, and policy changes. The summary reproduces these points without endorsement or evaluation.

RFK Jr. suggests retroactive placebo-controlled trials for all pediatric vaccines. However, this is impractical as no institution would support it. Regarding the COVID vaccine, some argue that a placebo-controlled trial was unnecessary due to the urgent need for a response to a virus causing significant daily deaths. Previous research on mRNA vaccines for SARS provided some data, allowing for a more rapid rollout. Similar to the Ebola outbreak, where a vaccine was deployed without a placebo trial due to the crisis, COVID vaccines could be administered widely to gather safety and efficacy data in real-time. Volunteers in trials often hoped to receive the vaccine, reflecting the urgency of the situation.

Speaker 0 discusses the origin and framing of pandemic prevention and vaccine development as a military-led initiative. He cites a 2012 DARPA program called the Adept Protect p three program, described as a pandemic prevention platform. The proposal outlined the use of gene-encoded vaccines based on RNA or DNA with the goal of stopping a pandemic within sixty days. He suggests that, by the time President Trump referenced “Operation Warp Speed” to develop vaccines, there should have been preparation and acknowledgement that this work dated back to 2012, making it not rapid innovation but a decade-long effort. He argues that the public narrative of rapid development and stunning innovation surrounding vaccines is deceptive and that contractors like Moderna had already secured multi-million-dollar contracts in 2013. He notes that the military operates programs addressing biological threats and also works on answers such as monoclonal antibodies and vaccines. The claim is made that the military originated the idea of messenger RNA vaccines, not Pfizer or Moderna, and not in response to the outbreak from Wuhan. According to the speaker, this is a military program in origin and administration. The speaker asserts that Health and Human Services, under Alex Azar, together with the Department of Defense, ushered the public into a vaccine era, framing Emergency Use Authorization as a mechanism to rapidly deploy new technology into the military rather than the public. He contends that this mechanism’s broad public application began with the COVID-19 pandemic, which is presented as evidence that the FDA lacks ownership or control over the process because the program is characterized as military in origin and execution. The overall claim is that the program operates like a military operation with universal reach and without exemptions, implying a deeply embedded military approach to vaccine development and deployment. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes the continuity from a 2012 program proposal through to the public health landscape observed during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, asserting that the military’s involvement, timeline, and governance underlie the current vaccine paradigm and its regulatory pathways.