“The upper bounds of damages against Pfizer would be $3.6 trillion dollars. And obviously, Pfizer’s not worth $3.6 trillion dollars. That company would have to be seized in bankruptcy, its assets distributed and sold off, and I think that’s an appropriate end for that company. So I’m doing everything I can to get there.”
After witnessing fraud and abuse among his colleagues in local government in the early 1990s, Warner Mendenhall decided to go to law school. He has now spent over two decades bringing lawsuits against the government for overreach and abuse of power.
“Government is treating us like children, as if we can’t make decisions that are appropriate for our friends, families, communities, on our own,” says Mendenhall.
Today, he is representing Brook Jackson in a landmark case against Pfizer, alleging fraud in their clinical trials for the COVID-19 genetic vaccines.
“She went to work for a subcontractor of Pfizer, a clinical trial site, and what she saw there was absolutely appalling,” says Mendenhall. “And it was completely unblinded. I think that’s the key point, is they knew who had gotten the shot and who had not.”
We dive into the details of the case, and look at Pfizer’s contract with the Department of the Defense to manufacture and distribute mRNA vaccines.
“There is no requirement in that contract for good manufacturing,” claims Mendenhall. “So if safety signals come up, or we know the manufacturing is bastardized, it doesn’t matter. They can’t stop paying on that contract.”
Jan Jekielek: Warner Mendenhall, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.
Warner Mendenhall: Thank you, Jan.
Mr. Jekielek: From the very beginning of the pandemic, you’ve been involved in a great number of lawsuits and a variety of legal activity around shelter-in-place policies, masking, and the mandates. The case that I’m most familiar with is Brooke Jackson in her fraud case against Pfizer. Why don’t we start with how you got into doing all of these things?
Mr. Mendenhall: I have always sued local, state, and federal government for acting outside the limits of those governments, and I’ve been doing that for 25 years. I also sue under the Federal False Claims Act to try to recover from fraud on the American taxpayer. Those two streams of litigation kind of came together. As a small firm of six attorneys, you could see how that would get us ready to go when the shutdowns started.
Mr. Jekielek: You immediately saw something when these shelter-in-place policies were put in place?
Mr. Mendenhall: Yes. My reaction to the government coming to people and saying, “We know what’s good for you,” or, “We’re going to help make you safe,” is usually a signal that the government’s going to step out of bounds. When I hear that signal, my antenna goes up and I’m looking for what’s the authority for the action to take place that the government wants to do.
Mr. Jekielek: For 25 years, you’ve had your antenna up and watching for these moments.
Mr. Mendenhall: Yes. I actually served in local government in the early 1990s. I saw a lot of abuse there, and I saw fraud in federal programs there. That’s what drove me to go to law school in the first place. That’s why it was a natural segue into fighting this overreach.
Mr. Jekielek: But this was happening at a scale you hadn’t seen before, correct?
Mr. Mendenhall: Of course. This is an unprecedented scale. From a lawyer’s standpoint, in a sense, I’ve always done constitutional litigation. This is one of the greatest periods of constitutional litigation I’ve ever seen. You couldn’t imagine it, but I like constitutional law, and I like constitutional litigation. I actually like the work I’m doing, but I hate the reason that I’m doing it.
Mr. Jekielek: I’ve been tracking a lot of these types of abuses without necessarily thinking of them as abuses. You have cases about every stage of the development of the pandemic and the policy responses to the pandemic. It’s kind of unbelievable, and it’s almost like a roadmap.
Mr. Mendenhall: That’s exactly right. As government policies came forth, we reacted to it and immediately had clients who were at our door asking for help.
Mr. Jekielek: Tell me about your first case. How did that come about?
Mr. Mendenhall: I hate to say this, but the very first case was a bar owner who I happened to know. He got shut down by Liquor Control for operating after the time that Liquor Control said they had to shut down. The point in that case was actually fairly simple. The state legislature set up a late licensing process. They had a license to stay open till 2:00 AM. Liquor Control, even though that’s their name, does not have authority to supersede what the state legislature said was the scope of the license. So, it was a very simple theory.
We lost at the district court, we lost at the appellate court, and we are now at the Ohio Supreme Court three years later. That case is still pending, but it is the limits of administrative authority. Even though it’s a bar, even though it’s Liquor Control, you can see how the limits of administrative authority is an important issue to deal with, whether it’s a bar, whether it’s a health department, or whatever entity you’re dealing with.
Mr. Jekielek: Prior to the last few years, this was not something that was on my mind. Today it’s really on my mind, and I can see why you would take that case extremely seriously, because it sets a precedent for behavior. What happened to the bar?
Mr. Mendenhall: The bar got shut down. There was tremendous damage to this family, and people don’t realize that sometimes. A lot of bars are just local businesses run by local families, and essentially they’ve lost their income for the time period that we’ve been in litigation. Now, the bar owner could have caved and followed the rules exactly like the Liquor Control said he should, and he’d probably be open today. Instead, like many millions of Americans, he stood up and said no.
Mr. Jekielek: You started with this case, and I imagine you probably have a great number of cases still in litigation?
Mr. Mendenhall: Yes, many, many cases. I don’t know exactly how many right now.
Mr. Jekielek: Let’s follow this roadmap. We started with some reactions to these shelter-in-place policies closing down businesses. What’s next?
Mr. Mendenhall: The next thing was a criminal case. A young woman had taken her son to school, and she had to go to work. The school had said, “Your son got exposed to Coronavirus, you have to keep him home.” She said, “No, I’ve got to go to work.” She brought him to school, and then, she ended up getting arrested for violating quarantine. It was the school acting administratively to quarantine her child.
She gets charged criminally, and they said the health department had issued a quarantine order. There was no such order issued. A fax had gone over to the school, after the school told the health department the kid had been exposed. Then, the health department sent over a fax saying, “Hey, quarantine this kid.” But that’s not a proper order under state law in Ohio. You have to know that somebody’s had close contact with somebody who’s verified to be ill, and only then can a quarantine order be issued.
It has to be signed by the head of the health department. None of that had happened. We went to court a couple of times, but the judge threw it out. It was very scary for this mother, but again, she stood up. She wasn’t willing to quarantine her child. At that time, there were all these issues with the schools, and masking, and quarantining. We got calls from all over the state of Ohio about the masking and quarantining policies.
In fact, it was interesting, because there were a lot of cases that never got filed. What happened is we would start to pay attention to a school board or school district, look at their policies, and determine why they were illegal. A lot of times those policies would just be dropped. We did end up suing three school districts.
I can tell you that those three school districts that we sued, every one of those cases is on appeal right now. The school districts eventually dropped the mandates, the quarantining, and the mask wearing. The judges at the local level said, “Well, it’s moot now.”
There’s a new mootness standard that came out of the U.S. Supreme Court a couple years ago from West Virginia v. EPA. You may be aware of that case. It says that unless the activity absolutely will not be repeated, it’s no longer moot. That’s a fantastic case. A lot of people didn’t understand that that applies in this context. That’s what we’re arguing in all of these appeals right now.
Mr. Jekielek: This reminds me of the Bobbie Anne Cox’s quarantine camps case, where there are no longer the conditions where such camps would be necessary. However, the intention is to make sure they can never happen again.
Mr. Mendenhall: That’s right. They squeezed, everybody pushed back, and then they let go. But they are not disclaiming that they have the authority and power to do what they did. We have to get them to literally cry uncle and say, “Never again.” I’m not going to be satisfied until that happens, and neither is Bobbie Ann, I know that.
Mr. Jekielek: I’m going to mention that she won that case against all odds. At the last moment, the New York state government decided to appeal.
Mr. Mendenhall: This shows that the government is treating us like children, as if we can’t make decisions that are appropriate for our friends, families, and communities. Our population in the United States needs to be trusted to be adults and to hear the government’s information. The government does have that role—to give us information as to what’s happening. But it cannot violate our constitutional rights and our charter rights. It can’t do that.
Mr. Jekielek: Are you going to pursue all these cases to the bitter end?
Mr. Mendenhall: To the bitter end, absolutely. You have to be able to hang on to the fight the whole way. We’ve got to force the courts to do what they’re supposed to do. The case with the bar is at the Ohio Supreme Court. The case with the school districts, those are all on appeal. Now, we have to hold on and push this as far as we can.
Mr. Jekielek: Let’s discuss the Brooke Jackson case. This case has profound significance if it were to be found in favor of the plaintiff, because you’re alleging fraud by Pfizer, the vaccine company.
Mr. Mendenhall: Yes. This is a keystone case for everybody in this crisis, because fraud vitiates literally everything. It vitiates the contract, it takes away the Prep Act protections, and Pfizer would then be open to lawsuit. So, we need to do that.
I’ve calculated that the upper bounds of damages against Pfizer would be $3.6 trillion dollars. Obviously, Pfizer is not worth $3.6 trillion dollars. That company would have to be seized in bankruptcy, its assets distributed and sold off, and that’s an appropriate end for that company. I’m doing everything I can to get there.
Mr. Jekielek: Please explain to me how this case happened, and what is the substance of this case.
Mr. Mendenhall: Brooke Jackson has told her story many times. She went to work for a subcontractor of Pfizer, a clinical trial site, and what she saw there was absolutely appalling. She saw that there was unblinding, there were personnel that were not qualified, and there were trial subjects that should not have been trial subjects. There were many conflicts of interest. Some of them were family members, and some of them were friends. That’s not how you run a trial site. It was completely unblinded.
That’s the key point. They knew who had gotten the shot and who had not. When you have that knowledge, you treat those people differently, and the data comes in and is handled differently. You can see that overall with the massaging of the data that was submitted to the FDA [U.S. Food & Drug Administration] for the EUA [Emergency Use Authorization]. But even before the EUA , what’s interesting is Pfizer signed a contract before the trials with the Department of Defense [DOD].
The only requirement in that contract was that they achieve an emergency use authorization from the FDA. That was the only requirement. Once they got that through, then literally they got paid for every shot in every arm, and the U.S. government had no authority to withhold that payment. It’s an astounding contract.
It’s under the transactions authority system in the military, which provides for prototypes to be developed for countermeasures and for military products, and it’s supposed to be for military readiness. It’s very twisted because it raises certain questions. Why are we funding a prototype and claiming that it is for military readiness, and we’re putting it in hundreds of millions of arms?
The other thing is that the military owns the substance that’s put in people’s arms. They own it from point A until it is injected into somebody’s body. There is no requirement in that contract for good manufacturing or for safety and effectiveness. There is no requirement. If safety signals come up or we know the manufacturing is bastardized, it doesn’t matter. They can’t stop paying on that contract. Nothing will stop them except for the FDA pulling back on the EUA.
Mr. Jekielek: Who signed this contract?
Mr. Mendenhall: Well, the Department of Defense signed it. I don’t know specifically whether it was General Austin or not, but the Department of Defense signed a contract.
Mr. Jekielek: This is astounding, new information. We’ve had a number of guests that have looked at this question of the response being a military or public safety response, as opposed to a health and human services response. You mentioned that manufacturing doesn’t need to be as stringent under this contract. You mentioned that harms don’t need to be considered as seriously under this contract. These are astounding realizations and play into everything we’re experiencing right now.
Mr. Mendenhall: Right. I am very concerned about the use of the word vaccine, when this is actually a countermeasure. That’s what it says in the contract. The other thing is it’s a prototype. If you know what a prototype is, it is something that’s unfinished. It’s a model for something else to come. No prototype is meant to be injected into people. A prototype car is just a lump of clay that they shape into a car. That’s what this is.
It’s something that’s been cobbled together, and we see that in the manufacturing. We see variation in any given vial from one to 100. We see contamination in the vials. We see contamination in the manufacturing process. It’s utterly ridiculous the way this is being handled.
Additionally, the mRNA strands themselves, even though you can produce them in small batches very carefully, have no ability to be scaled up the way they scaled it up. When you scale it up, you’ve destroyed the integrity of the mRNA. It’s just not possible to do it.
That’s why there are websites out there asking, “How bad is my batch? How hot is my lot?” People are right. You could get a very, very bad batch that will really have much higher likelihood of injury. The basic reason for the FDA to exist is to have consistency in product and also consistency in outcome.
David Gortler has been great on this issue, that there is no consistency of product. Because of the nature of what it was and what it is, even if it were consistent, even if each vial were exactly the same, we have no idea of how an individual’s body is going to react to it, because it’s a biological process that it sets off.
We are looking community by community right now in terms of what the injury and death rates have been, because we think that every hospital in this country has ignored its legal obligation to submit injury reports to VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System].
Mr. Jekielek: I wasn’t aware until recently that if a death happens in a hospital it requires reporting. You’re saying it in many cases it didn’t happen.
Mr. Mendenhall: Yes. The hospitals all are what are called vaccine program providers, and they sign a program provider certification, and that certification makes it mandatory and material that any injury post vaccine that is moderate to severe is reported to the VAERS system. They’re simply not doing it.
Right now, I represent clients who were told they had to stop reporting to VAERS. These were nurses in these hospitals that were just trying to do their job. They came under attack and were fired. We are looking at that issue so that we can hold those hospitals in particular to account.
Mr. Jekielek: Let’s jump back to the Brooke Jackson case. The substance of the case is that this emergency use authorization, the EUA, was obtained under false pretenses.
Mr. Mendenhall: Correct.
Mr. Jekielek: But as I understand it, the case has been thrown out.
Mr. Mendenhall: The case is still alive. The judge has ordered dismissal of the case. In fact, yesterday I was working on a Rule 59(e) motion to actually call out the judge a little bit and say, “We think that your judgment was improperly grounded, and there are some other considerations here.” We filed a brief yesterday asking him to take those other considerations into account.
The main one that we want him to recognize, that we’ve made much more explicit, is something called fraud in the inducement. That means that there was fraud in the inducement of getting the DOD to contract for this. The fraud in the inducement was the basic problem with the clinical trial data.
This is another thing many people don’t realize, this entire program is based on 170 trial participant endpoints. That’s it—170 people. Eight of them were in the “vaccine arm” that got coronavirus, and 162 of them were in the placebo arm that got coronavirus.
But if you look more deeply at the data, and if we take the overall data of the roughly 22,000 in each arm of the study, you see that in the overall data the rate of Covid-19 was roughly the same. The way they got down to this 170, with eight versus the 162, which gave them their 90 percent effectiveness rate, was they called those people out of that data. They eliminated people to get down to those numbers, and then called it 90 percent effective. People just need to step back, look at the overall data, and you can see there was no effectiveness at all, but that’s a requirement to get the EUA.
Mr. Jekielek: You think that the data was manipulated by removing people.
Mr. Mendenhall: I know it was manipulated. Yes. The other thing that we see is, statistically, there’s a threshold. I’m not a statistician, but they had a requirement to have in excess of 164 data points. If you don’t get past the 164, you don’t have a valid dataset. You can’t draw statistical conclusions from it.
If you look at the 170 people who formed the final data points, and you look more closely at them, many of them should not have been included. The trial site where Brooke was at, which we know for sure it was unblinded. The trial site that Augusta Rue was at, we know there were problems and they didn’t report adverse reactions. If you take those two sites, you knock out about 45 of those people in the 170. There’s sites throughout the world.
Our argument in court is that they didn’t even meet the statistical threshold to submit anything to the FDA. If they can’t meet the statistical threshold, there’s no basis for an emergency use authorization. We’re trying to basically take apart their argument to the FDA.
Mr. Jekielek: What do you mean when you say you know it was manipulated?
Mr. Mendenhall: Brooke Jackson was a witness to the manipulation. Brooke’s case was under seal at the time. But she was so anxious to save lives and let people know what had gone wrong, that this was not safe and effective, and that the benefits did not outweigh the risk. She got to Peter Doshi at the BMJ, turned over data and information, and they decided to publish it. They decided that she was so important a witness, and so important an informant about the problem, that they would put it in their journal.
Mr. Jekielek: I had never heard of this motion to get the judge to reconsider. Then again, every day I learn about different aspects of the law.
Mr. Mendenhall: Let me explain. Technically, it’s not a motion to reconsider. Normally, when a case is dismissed you have an opportunity to amend. That’s the normal procedure. We are asking him to apply the normal procedure. We are arguing with him saying that by dismissing us with prejudice without any right to amend, or to address the deficiencies that he claims that are in the complaint, that is outside the norm.
We have a right to file an amended complaint to attempt to address the deficiencies that he pointed out. We actually drafted an amended complaint, which we presented along with the motion, to show him what we can do with the additional information that’s come out since this case was filed way back in January of 2021.
There’s a lot more information that we can include. It has been very clear in the last couple of years, in fact, it has been amazing. The grassroots research and analysis of the statistics and data has been absolutely phenomenal. We are able to use that grassroots effort by many hundreds of people around the world. We’re able to use what they’ve learned and actually incorporate that in our complaint.
We think that it is very clear, subsequent to Brooke’s case, that there certainly was fraud in the trials and there certainly is fraud in the follow-up, longitudinal studies. The worst thing that Pfizer did was destroy the control arm. They vaccinated the controls.
Mr. Jekielek: Please explain that to me.
Mr. Mendenhall: Initially, there were roughly 44,000 people in the overall trial; 22,000 in the control arm, and 22,000 in the shot arm. Normally, you want to have long term studies to see if there is a difference in outcome between those that took the shot and those that didn’t take the shot. That is the traditional way all medical trials take place, because you have to know, long term, is there any difference in all cause mortality? Are there other diseases that come up more often in the arm that got the medication? What Pfizer did was destroy that by allowing the control arm to get the shot if they wanted to. We don’t have any control on this now.
Mr. Jekielek: Because it’s such a serious disease it would be unethical to not let them do that. That’s the argument, correct?
Mr. Mendenhall: I’m laughing, but yes, that’s the excuse. But we now know that especially for younger people, and frankly those in the trial tended to be more young, there is absolutely no basis and no argument to take the shot. Statistically, none whatsoever. It’s nonsense.
Mr. Jekielek: It started with the breaking of the control group. You have all this additional data based on the research that’s been done from the grassroots. I want to talk more about that at some point, because that’s a fascinating phenomenon that’s happened in multiple areas, not just with Covid. That’s helped us immensely at Epoch Times as well. What’s the time frame on figuring out the progress of this case?
Mr. Mendenhall: Our motion was filed yesterday. We imagine the judge will deny the motion and Pfizer will respond to the motion. We have several months before the actual appeal will take place. I predict that we’ll have to go on appeal. But we’re going to be able to go on appeal having submitted additional information to the court, and information that we want to be able to refer to in our appeal that we think makes it much stronger.
Mr. Jekielek: Going back to this original contract with the DOD, this emergency use authorization is so critical to the cascade of events that follow. You can imagine a great resistance from many sectors of society, government, and industry to make sure that the validity of that is not touched.
Mr. Mendenhall: Yes, of course. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being earned, and there’s hundreds of billions in profit for these pharmaceutical companies. But as time goes on, every day that I buy to keep this case alive increases Brooke’s chance for success. Every day that we keep it alive, it keeps the conversation going and saves more and more people from taking boosters or additional shots.
It wakes people up to the fact that this is not anything in our prior experience, that it’s a military contract, that we need to understand that, deal with that, and question that. There are the absolutely insane mandates at the workplace and at hospitals that came out of this as well. It made no sense. If you had coronavirus, you were still mandated. There was no testing to see whether somebody was immune or not, and then, you lost your job. You were coerced, which has never been part of American law in my life.
Mr. Jekielek: A lot of people were caught in a groupthink. I don’t know what else to call it. I’ve encountered very well-meaning people, in some cases doctors, who are just blind to the possibility that this could be vaccine injury. If they could see it, they could treat it. There are all sorts of protocols, but they are simply just blind to this as a possibility, presumably because of the information warfare in our society.
Mr. Mendenhall: The doctors are really in a tough spot. Doctors in general, not the doctors here at FLCCC [Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance], recommended that their patients get the shots. They recommended their wives get the shots, and they recommended their children get the shot. The process of waking up to what is actually happening is just horrific.
Mr. Jekielek: When anyone has to face this, that’s often the thing that changes them. I’ve had many discussions with people who were completely blind to this until something serious happened. A tragic thing has to happen for somebody to say, “Oh, this is real.”
Mr. Mendenhall: We really need to pay attention, because there are very effective ways to mitigate some of the damage that’s been done. That’s the importance of the doctors that have stepped up to date, because they’re now onto the next stage here. How do people recover? How do we help mitigate the damage that the spike protein did? Even more than the spike protein, how do we mitigate the damage of that toxic concoction of lipid nanoparticles and other things that are in the vials?
This is an adulterated product. How do we deal with the fact that everybody took this adulterated product? What do they need? How do we clean their systems up? All of that is in place and is working right now. That is actually a proper role of the government—to set up treatment centers and study how spike has damaged the population, how lipid nanoparticles have damaged the population, and help people recover from that.
Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned all these different researchers forming a community and developing a whole body of data that’s been very extremely useful. You recently had a conference that you organized for lawyers involved in this whole realm. I’m very interested in the development of community around helping people in a variety of ways.
Mr. Mendenhall: It’s stunning the amount of work people have done. It’s incalculable. In my wildest dreams, in my prior life as an attorney before the pandemic, I could never have counted on the kind of detailed, intelligent, incisive, insightful work and research that people are doing. We’re using it in the lawsuits, it’s helping us become way more effective.