This is HUGE. A Michigan judge ruled that an injured patient can sue pharma for their injury
https://wwmt.com/news/local/michigan-judge-denies-drug-manufacturers-immunity-in-case-of-contaminated-covid-19-medication
As reported on a local Michigan news station, a man received Remdesivir that was part of a recalled lot of the drug. They determined that a few lots of 55,000 vials contained “glass fragments/particles”. The plaintiff received 5 doses of Remdesivir, and at least 2 of the doses were from the recalled lot with glass particles in it.
“Days later, he suffered a massive stroke and other serious complications. Nowacki developed hematomas and swelling on his face, thighs and arms. According to the lawsuit, around December 16, 2021, Nowacki suffered another stroke, which left him permanently bedridden and in need of 24/7 round-the-clock care.”
Pharma argued that under the PREP act for emergency use, pharma could not be sued for this incident. The Michigan judge saw it a different way. “On July 12, 2023 and August 2, 2023, Judge Carol Kuhnke heard oral arguments from both Ven Johnson Law and the defendants as to whether the case should continue to trial. The defendants in the lawsuit was filed in Washtenaw County Circuit Court and listed Gilead Sciences, Inc., the drug manufacturer and St. Joseph Mercy Chelsea Hospital, Inc. as defendants. The judge ruled that Congress did not plan to extend the PREP Act immunity to a drug that substantially deviated from FDA approval and included glass particles.”
The defendants now must stand trial.
Pay close attention to the arguments in the motion to dismiss.
Are you aware, or is anybody aware, of any lawsuits for contamination that involve the Covid-19 countermeasures? Is the intent of this post to suggest that this is a path and methodology for future lawsuits? I believe that if it is to work, the defendents have to be the manufacturer and the administrator of the shot. The manufacturer would not be Pfizer. As Hedley Rees points out, Pfizer is just a front company, holding patents and providing advertising. DOD funded the manufacturing, ATI held the contract, Pfizer was a middle agent, but the manufacturers are "nonames" to most people. Those nonames would have to be cited. Where it would really get interesting is if the "safe and effective" pushers would be named as codefendents for providing misinformation that led to mandates or economic coercion to get the shot. The charge would be malfeasance or derelection of duty. Those pushers would be the state health departments, in addition to the administrators of the shot (failure to provide informed consent). What do you think?