"What's wrong is when people are given inaccurate information and not letting them know that something is experimental, what the actual risks are, or what other safer treatments may exist."
That was the problem with the jabs. People were not informed about the risk. Maybe those risks weren't completely known at the beginning, but even that should have been stated as one of the risks. Once we had a couple months of VAERS data, we knew the shots were killing and seriously injuring people. At that point, the risks completely outweighed the benefits, so they should have been pulled. All medical products go thru a risk/benefit analysis before they are even put on the market. Some don't make it (that is, the trials show they harm more people than they help). Some make it because of FRAUDULENT trials but then in the real world, the risks are shown to outweigh benefits, so those drugs are pulled off the market. That's what happened with the covid jabs, but they were not pulled. This is where I disagree with the writer above. They should have been pulled in early 2021. They should no longer be on the market. A rifle that blows up in the face of the shooter every 10 or 12 shots, and occasionally kills the shooter, would not be allowed to go on the market. And--this is important--the manufacturer of that rifle would be open to lawsuits and soon out of business. Not true for Pharma, you can't sue them if their jab killed your spouse, your child, your brother, your parents.
"A rifle that blows up in the face of the shooter every 10 or 12 shots, and occasionally kills the shooter, would not be allowed to go on the market. And--this is important--the manufacturer of that rifle would be open to lawsuits and soon out of business. Not true for Pharma, you can't sue them if their jab killed your spouse, your child, your brother, your parents."
yep. one of the stupidest things--maybe THE stupidest--US Congress has ever done was to give Pharma immunity from lawsuits regarding damage or death from jabs
Until I watched the interview Del Bigtree did with Barbara Loe Fisher, who was instrumental in getting the 1986 Act passed. It created VAERS and literally started the discussion about vax injury. Before that, there was none.
The other thing I learned is Big Pharma could give a rats patoot about lawsuits. Most injured folks would run out of money in no time and the few who had the money to hang in there would have to hang for years. Even if pharma loses the suit, the payout is peanuts to them. It's the bad publicity they hate. Thanks in part to the heroic efforts of Fisher, they are getting it.
At 70 years old, my bucket list is small, but includes the Monument for Truth and Freedom in South Florida that Mercola made happen for her. God willing I will see it in person.
Pharma has to pay for lawyers too. So you're saying Pharma didn't push to get immunity from lawsuits? Didn't they tell Congress they were going to stop developing vaccines unless they were granted immunity?
Of course, but pharma can afford an army of lawyers, most injured people cannot afford one. Pharma didn't care about the lawsuit money as much as they cared about injury information being made public. In other words, they "were fighting liability all the way to the bank." Fisher admits they dropped the ball by not having punishment be a part of the Act. And they got double crossed by congress who gutted the safety provisions and gutted the compensation provisions in the bill. Total betrayal by government, what a shocker.
I thought the same thing ... until I watched the interview Del Bigtree did with Barbara Loe Fisher, who was instrumental in getting the 1986 Act passed. It created VAERS and literally started the discussion about vax injury. Before that, there was none.
The other thing I learned is Big Pharma could give a rats patoot about lawsuits. Most injured folks would run out of money in no time and the few who had the money to hang in there would have to hang for years. Even if pharma loses the suit, the payout is peanuts to them. It's the bad publicity they hate. Thanks in part to the heroic efforts of Fisher, they are getting it.
At 70 years old, my bucket list is small, but includes the Monument for Truth and Freedom in South Florida that Mercola made happen for her. God willing I will see it in person.
The Constitution of the United States grants very limited enumerated powers to the federal government. All other powers are reserved to the states and the people. We do not need the federal government to tell us what foods should be eating, what medicines we should be taking, what we should be teaching our children, how to work safely, how to care for the environment, or providing us loans for education. The list goes on and on. No matter how well intended being dependent on government for so many things is a trap used to control and subjugate.
Even the most dishonest, evil person can relate truth. Truth is truth no matter the source. It’s up to each individual to use his or her brain to discern what is true and what isn’t. Intelligence and knowledge does not necessarily lead to common sense, sound judgment and wise actions.
"What's wrong is when people are given inaccurate information and not letting them know that something is experimental, what the actual risks are, or what other safer treatments may exist."
That was the problem with the jabs. People were not informed about the risk. Maybe those risks weren't completely known at the beginning, but even that should have been stated as one of the risks. Once we had a couple months of VAERS data, we knew the shots were killing and seriously injuring people. At that point, the risks completely outweighed the benefits, so they should have been pulled. All medical products go thru a risk/benefit analysis before they are even put on the market. Some don't make it (that is, the trials show they harm more people than they help). Some make it because of FRAUDULENT trials but then in the real world, the risks are shown to outweigh benefits, so those drugs are pulled off the market. That's what happened with the covid jabs, but they were not pulled. This is where I disagree with the writer above. They should have been pulled in early 2021. They should no longer be on the market. A rifle that blows up in the face of the shooter every 10 or 12 shots, and occasionally kills the shooter, would not be allowed to go on the market. And--this is important--the manufacturer of that rifle would be open to lawsuits and soon out of business. Not true for Pharma, you can't sue them if their jab killed your spouse, your child, your brother, your parents.
"A rifle that blows up in the face of the shooter every 10 or 12 shots, and occasionally kills the shooter, would not be allowed to go on the market. And--this is important--the manufacturer of that rifle would be open to lawsuits and soon out of business. Not true for Pharma, you can't sue them if their jab killed your spouse, your child, your brother, your parents."
Someone needs to point that out to politicians.
yep. one of the stupidest things--maybe THE stupidest--US Congress has ever done was to give Pharma immunity from lawsuits regarding damage or death from jabs
I thought the same thing ...
Until I watched the interview Del Bigtree did with Barbara Loe Fisher, who was instrumental in getting the 1986 Act passed. It created VAERS and literally started the discussion about vax injury. Before that, there was none.
The other thing I learned is Big Pharma could give a rats patoot about lawsuits. Most injured folks would run out of money in no time and the few who had the money to hang in there would have to hang for years. Even if pharma loses the suit, the payout is peanuts to them. It's the bad publicity they hate. Thanks in part to the heroic efforts of Fisher, they are getting it.
The interview is well worth the time ...
https://rumble.com/v464pw6-the-1986-national-childhood-vaccine-injury-act-the-untold-story-del-bigtree.html
At 70 years old, my bucket list is small, but includes the Monument for Truth and Freedom in South Florida that Mercola made happen for her. God willing I will see it in person.
Best of luck, friend ~~ j ~~
Pharma has to pay for lawyers too. So you're saying Pharma didn't push to get immunity from lawsuits? Didn't they tell Congress they were going to stop developing vaccines unless they were granted immunity?
Of course, but pharma can afford an army of lawyers, most injured people cannot afford one. Pharma didn't care about the lawsuit money as much as they cared about injury information being made public. In other words, they "were fighting liability all the way to the bank." Fisher admits they dropped the ball by not having punishment be a part of the Act. And they got double crossed by congress who gutted the safety provisions and gutted the compensation provisions in the bill. Total betrayal by government, what a shocker.
I thought the same thing ... until I watched the interview Del Bigtree did with Barbara Loe Fisher, who was instrumental in getting the 1986 Act passed. It created VAERS and literally started the discussion about vax injury. Before that, there was none.
The other thing I learned is Big Pharma could give a rats patoot about lawsuits. Most injured folks would run out of money in no time and the few who had the money to hang in there would have to hang for years. Even if pharma loses the suit, the payout is peanuts to them. It's the bad publicity they hate. Thanks in part to the heroic efforts of Fisher, they are getting it.
The interview is well worth the time ...
https://rumble.com/v464pw6-the-1986-national-childhood-vaccine-injury-act-the-untold-story-del-bigtree.html
At 70 years old, my bucket list is small, but includes the Monument for Truth and Freedom in South Florida that Mercola made happen for her. God willing I will see it in person.
Best of luck, friend ~~ j ~~
The Constitution of the United States grants very limited enumerated powers to the federal government. All other powers are reserved to the states and the people. We do not need the federal government to tell us what foods should be eating, what medicines we should be taking, what we should be teaching our children, how to work safely, how to care for the environment, or providing us loans for education. The list goes on and on. No matter how well intended being dependent on government for so many things is a trap used to control and subjugate.
Even the most dishonest, evil person can relate truth. Truth is truth no matter the source. It’s up to each individual to use his or her brain to discern what is true and what isn’t. Intelligence and knowledge does not necessarily lead to common sense, sound judgment and wise actions.