by Jeffrey Strahl
Posted February 18, 2023
Katherine Watt is a Pennsylvania-based paralegal whose presentations focusing on the legal aspects of “COVID-19” are currently receiving widespread attention in the health freedom community. Watt regularly references a “communicable pathogen” and “biological warfare agent” but refused last week to comment on legal evidence from hundreds of public institutions including the CDC, NIAID and FDA showing that no one has a sample of the purported SARS-COV-2 virus or knows of anyone who does.
Watt also admitted when questioned that she is unable to cite any evidence for her hypothesis that a communicable pathogen or biological agent exists and was deliberately dispersed in key cities – a popular hypothesis that is often passed off as fact among the freedom community.
On February 7th, 2023 Watt presented on “COVID-19” legal issues to the Medical Doctors for Covid Ethics group, discussing the militarization of “public health” and highlighting legal maneuvers of recent decades that facilitated the “covid” war on humanity.
Afterward Watt fielded questions from the audience. William Huston asked Watt to clarify her use of the terms “biological warfare agent” and variations thereof, specifically whether Watt was referring to an alleged “virus” or a so-called “vaccine”, and whether Watt asserts that something fitting the definition of a virus – an intracellular obligate parasite that causes cellular necrosis and transmits disease between hosts – actually exists (@26:10 here). She responded:
“When I say “biological warfare agent” or “biological weapon”, I’m referring to both, SARS-COV-2, what is called SARS-COV-2, and the products that are called vaccines, the injectable products”, Watt responded. “I don’t engage in the “not a virus”, “is a virus” debate. When I talk about it at my posts I usually use the expression “communicable pathogen” and I leave it at that, because that’s how I perceive it.”
Watt cited no evidence for her perception of a communicable pathogen.
COMPELLING, BUT MISSING THE KILLER ARGUMENT
Huston responded with praise for much of Watt’s presentation, but lamented: “You’re missing the killer argument… You’re saying there haven’t been any studies to look at the efficacy of these vaccines, but you don’t question the sensibility of the question. It’s almost like we’re trying to measure the efficacy of unicorn repellent but we haven’t yet proven that unicorns exist.”
SCIENCY SPECULATION, BUT “NO COMMENT” ON OFFICIAL LEGAL CONFESSIONS
Later in the session, investigative reporter Eric Francis Coppolino thanked Watt for the military framing of her presentation and inquired about her relationship with the organization headed by lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Children’s Health Defense (CHD) (@32:58 here). Watt denied having a contractual relationship with CHD.
Coppolino then referenced the vast body of legal evidence gathered by a Toronto-based researcher and her colleagues via Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation.
The investigative team has been challenging public health agencies since the spring of 2020 to prove that they have evidence of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus being found in and purified from patient samples – a necessary step in testing a novel-virus hypothesis. Coppolino noted that over 200 institutions have officially responded, some of them multiple times, and none were able to provide this evidence. The conversation continued as follows:
Coppolino: Would you comment on that, please?
Watt: Nope.
Watt: No? All the governments in the world unanimously say they cannot produce a sample taken from a human.
Watt: Yeah, I’m just not commenting on that.
Stephen Frost: So Eric, Katherine is not a doctor, she doesn’t claim to have expertise in medical science.
Coppolino: This is not a medical issue, hold on, it’s not a medical issue. It’s a legal issue… The governments have issued a statement saying they don’t have this thing, and I’m asking you to respond to the fact that they’ve all said “we can’t produce a sample”. This is a legal question, not a medical question. They were queried under a legal statute called the Freedom of Information law.
Katherine: Yeah, I’m just declining to answer.
… Coppolino: OK, so one last thing. Are you asserting there was a lab release of SARS-COV-2, Katherine?
Watt: I don’t know exactly how they released it. I find Sasha’s analysis, and I think JJ Couey has said things similar to it, around aerosol dispersal in highly populated locations of some kind of communicable pathogen or toxin, that is able to cause limited self, um, self-limiting short-term outbreaks but are not capable of causing a global pandemic of the kind that they want us to be afraid of. They just used the localized outbreaks, which would have extinguished themselves, and did extinguish themselves, to drive the fear, and the fear part was the part that they needed more to drive the injection program.
Coppolino: Would you say that’s what happened in the 16 states where there was excess death?
Watt: I don’t know.
Coppolino: OK, so you are saying that, not a lab release, not an accidental escape, but rather, the spraying of a form of a toxin onto populations.
Watt: Yes. That’s my working model of how they did it, and how to fit together the outbreaks by location and the media campaigns and fear campaigns that ensued from those.
Coppolino: Do you have any documentary evidence of that theory?
Watt: No.
Coppolino: So this is a theory without probable cause?
Stephen Frost: It’s a hypothesis.
WHAT SARS-COV-2? OFFICIAL CONFESSIONS
Just days after her refusal to comment on the hundreds of official confessions obtained by people around the world through freedom of information legislation, Watt stated on her blog that she’s been reading vast amounts of documentation, including scientific papers:
“In addition to the contracts, I’ve also read a lot of other material over the last three years including statutes, regulations, hearing transcripts, regulatory guidance documents, regulatory review documents, executive orders, notices, declarations, determinations, training manuals, tabletop exercise reports, slide presentations, patents, civil complaints, criminal indictments, judicial orders, legal opinions, scientific and academic papers published in peer-reviewed journals, scientific and academic papers published through platforms other than peer-reviewed journals, “clinical trial” documents, government database reports, independent analysis of data published by government databases, government-controlled media reports and analysis, and independent and semi-independent media reports and analysis.”
Watt hasn’t been shy about making sciency-sounding claims, either. For example, in one recorded presentation (@5:50) she declared that “all biologically active products are intrinsically aggressive, toxic and lethal“. Putting aside the strange nature of that statement, Watt’s willingness to weigh in on such a topic makes her refusal to discuss the SARS-COV-2 legal confessions all the more surprising.
Christine Massey, who has headed up the collection of the freedom of information responses, reviewed Watt’s exchange with Coppolino and commented: “Eric specifically asked Katherine whether she asserts there was a release of SARS-COV-2, the alleged virus, and her first words were “I don’t know exactly how they released it”. This clearly implied that yes, it exists.
“But in the next breath she rehashed, and seemed to be reading, the vague hypothesis about an unspecified “communicable pathogen” put forward by RFK Jr’s. consultant Jay Couey, even though no such thing has ever been shown to exist. And she said maybe it was actually a toxin, something, sprayed somewhere. It’s just vague speculation distracting from the complete lack of evidence.
“It’s almost as if she’s taken advice from RFK Jr., who fumbled and put his foot in his mouth when questioned about the FOIs, and then said he wished he hadn’t tried to answer.”
Coppolino’s April 2022 recorded exchange with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., lawyer and head of Children’s Health Defense, is posted on his site.
The hundreds of “SARS-COV-2” FOI responses can be found here and here.