It looks like Brook Jackson amended her complaint to plead "fraudulent inducement" (ie lying to Government to get EUA) and that case is still pending in Texas. In contrast, the patient in Michigan was injected with Remdesivir that had glass shards and other contaminants in it, and the drug lot was recalled, which is a much stronger case for the patient. But even if the Michigan victim wins it only establishes a precedent that injecting people with broken glass is wrong. It does not establish a precedent that injecting the mRNA encoding the spike protein was dangerous. The glimmer of hope here is that injecting the SV40 plasmid DNA contaminants in the spike shot will be found to be the equivalent of injecting glass shards in Remdesivir, and the drug companies can be sued for damages.
Maybe we are looking at different cases? Brook Jackson is pleading technical contract/employment law issues related to her being fired for telling the government about clinical trial irregularities. All she asks for in her Second Amended Complaint (see p89) is lost wages, reinstatement at her job, and litigation costs. If she wins the products stay on the market. If you see something else please note where in the pleadings you find it and I would be glad to reconsider.
Yeah they did but it is a derivative of the original strategy.
It looks like Brook Jackson amended her complaint to plead "fraudulent inducement" (ie lying to Government to get EUA) and that case is still pending in Texas. In contrast, the patient in Michigan was injected with Remdesivir that had glass shards and other contaminants in it, and the drug lot was recalled, which is a much stronger case for the patient. But even if the Michigan victim wins it only establishes a precedent that injecting people with broken glass is wrong. It does not establish a precedent that injecting the mRNA encoding the spike protein was dangerous. The glimmer of hope here is that injecting the SV40 plasmid DNA contaminants in the spike shot will be found to be the equivalent of injecting glass shards in Remdesivir, and the drug companies can be sued for damages.
Nope...both are EUA MCMs
Therefore PHE laws rule
That's not what the pleadings say. https://www.iambrookjackson.com/casedocuments
Maybe we are looking at different cases? Brook Jackson is pleading technical contract/employment law issues related to her being fired for telling the government about clinical trial irregularities. All she asks for in her Second Amended Complaint (see p89) is lost wages, reinstatement at her job, and litigation costs. If she wins the products stay on the market. If you see something else please note where in the pleadings you find it and I would be glad to reconsider.