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?
Specifically, what about the change in manufacturing process to allow mass production using E.Coli with SV 40, and the nano lipid adjuvant that allows these novel gene sequences access into every cell (and human DNA). My understanding as a non-vaccine scientist, is that the EUA was granted based on the C.T.s using synthesized vaccine, a prohibitively expensive method, too expensive and time consuming to allow roll out of a mass produced vaccine needed to vaccinate the world. Pharma/FDA then used old regulations regarding acceptable levels of DNA contamination that did not account for the new nanolipid adjuvant technology. Any issues with this DNA contamination were obviously kept under the radar. Dr. Burckholts (MUSC) has proven that some of the vaccines injected into S.C citizens had extremely high levels of contaminant DNA. Does anyone see this as a possible way to proceed against the vaccine manufacturers?
Please correct any mistakes in my thinking. I'm here to learn not to instruct.
This is uncharted legal territory but as noted in my comment below this case does suggest that toxic contaminants in the mRNA product may be a path around the PREP immunity statute. The SV40 and other DNA fragments in the vials would have to be proven to be harmful (like the shards of glass in Remdesivir). The Michigan case is only a lower court case that could be appealed to a higher court that could always decide the PREP Act authorizes gross negligence and homicide, but the manufacturers would likely settle out of court before taking a chance on an appeal going against them.
Thanks for the clarification. It will all come down to proof of harm and that Pharma knew it and did not disclose it. Not likely to happen. The eventual outcome might be large class action payouts (a large amount necessarily consumed by the legal work required); no "justice" done. Just speaking for a skeptical friend.
I don't think one has to even prove Pharma knew they were doing something wrong. All that is needed under tort law is violation of a duty of care. Allowing Remdesivir to be contaminated with glass shards is plain and simple negligence and damages can be collected if harm can be shown. Same thing with DNA/oncogenic SV40 in the shots. The wild card is whether the PREP Act gives them an absolute shield of immunity. I spent 40 years practicing law and medicine and I am considering coming out of retirement to hold the Pharma monsters legally responsible, along with the politicians and media conglomerates that enabled them. Personally I don't care if I make a dollar from it. I want these monsters brought to justice.
I encourage you to go for it. Only someone with your background and passion for retribution can take this on. Many have been harmed and the future only promises more of the same from Pharma/WHO/WEF for humanity.
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.
Consider the alternative: If a pharma can supply contaminated stuff and then claim they are indemnified, then they might as well release their formulas and allow anyone to manufacture and sell on ebay as, after all, the stuff is so poorly controlled quality-wise, anyone should be able to make it.
Good that some attention is being brought to the corruption that made so few rich and so many very poor. However, the system is rigged, they will find a corrupt appellate court and have the entire matter thrown out. Until the election cheating stops, get used to it. Almost impossible to stop the cheating, unfortunately.
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?
Specifically, what about the change in manufacturing process to allow mass production using E.Coli with SV 40, and the nano lipid adjuvant that allows these novel gene sequences access into every cell (and human DNA). My understanding as a non-vaccine scientist, is that the EUA was granted based on the C.T.s using synthesized vaccine, a prohibitively expensive method, too expensive and time consuming to allow roll out of a mass produced vaccine needed to vaccinate the world. Pharma/FDA then used old regulations regarding acceptable levels of DNA contamination that did not account for the new nanolipid adjuvant technology. Any issues with this DNA contamination were obviously kept under the radar. Dr. Burckholts (MUSC) has proven that some of the vaccines injected into S.C citizens had extremely high levels of contaminant DNA. Does anyone see this as a possible way to proceed against the vaccine manufacturers?
Please correct any mistakes in my thinking. I'm here to learn not to instruct.
This is uncharted legal territory but as noted in my comment below this case does suggest that toxic contaminants in the mRNA product may be a path around the PREP immunity statute. The SV40 and other DNA fragments in the vials would have to be proven to be harmful (like the shards of glass in Remdesivir). The Michigan case is only a lower court case that could be appealed to a higher court that could always decide the PREP Act authorizes gross negligence and homicide, but the manufacturers would likely settle out of court before taking a chance on an appeal going against them.
Thanks for the clarification. It will all come down to proof of harm and that Pharma knew it and did not disclose it. Not likely to happen. The eventual outcome might be large class action payouts (a large amount necessarily consumed by the legal work required); no "justice" done. Just speaking for a skeptical friend.
I don't think one has to even prove Pharma knew they were doing something wrong. All that is needed under tort law is violation of a duty of care. Allowing Remdesivir to be contaminated with glass shards is plain and simple negligence and damages can be collected if harm can be shown. Same thing with DNA/oncogenic SV40 in the shots. The wild card is whether the PREP Act gives them an absolute shield of immunity. I spent 40 years practicing law and medicine and I am considering coming out of retirement to hold the Pharma monsters legally responsible, along with the politicians and media conglomerates that enabled them. Personally I don't care if I make a dollar from it. I want these monsters brought to justice.
I encourage you to go for it. Only someone with your background and passion for retribution can take this on. Many have been harmed and the future only promises more of the same from Pharma/WHO/WEF for humanity.
They'll run afoul of the same thing Brooke Jackson did.
Do you know if they appealed the Jackson case?
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.
It's a no-brainer for the judge.
Consider the alternative: If a pharma can supply contaminated stuff and then claim they are indemnified, then they might as well release their formulas and allow anyone to manufacture and sell on ebay as, after all, the stuff is so poorly controlled quality-wise, anyone should be able to make it.
Mybe they can apply the same for sv 40 promoter in the jabs?
Good that some attention is being brought to the corruption that made so few rich and so many very poor. However, the system is rigged, they will find a corrupt appellate court and have the entire matter thrown out. Until the election cheating stops, get used to it. Almost impossible to stop the cheating, unfortunately.
🤗
21 USC 360 bbb