Liability Shield for Experimental Coronavirus Vaccine Companies is ‘Morally Wrong’

Brian4Liberty

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
63,520
Liability Shield for Experimental Coronavirus Vaccine Companies is ‘Morally Wrong’

Andrew Napolitano: Liability Shield for Experimental Coronavirus Vaccine Companies is ‘Morally Wrong’ and ‘Corporatism’
Written by Adam Dick - December 23, 2021

Government has been paying for purchasing, promoting, and distributing experimental coronavirus “vaccines” to Americans. Government has even been mandating many people take the shots in order to continue working at their jobs, while also pressuring these and other people to take the shots by imposing vaccine passport requirements that bar from ordinary activities people who have not taken the shots.

Yet, at the same time, government is saying that if individuals who succumb to the marketing and coercion end up being hurt or killed by the shots, those individuals or their families are barred from suing the pharmaceutical companies that have been raking in big bucks off the shots.

Legal commentator Andrew Napolitano took on this liability shield outrage in a brief compelling video commentary. In the Wednesday video commentary, Napolitano tags the United States government created liability shied for the big pharmaceutical companies behind the experimental coronavirus vaccine shotes as both “morally wrong” and “corporatism.”

As Napolitano explains in the video commentary, absent the creation of special legal protections these big pharmaceutical companies would be, as are other companies that provide products, liable for harm their products cause. Indeed, there is a field of law called torts that deals largely with such liability and a class of lawyers who sue companies for injuries caused by products.

But, the United States government has given these large pharmaceutical companies a shield protecting them from this liability that is otherwise a routine part of doing business in America. This special protection, Napolitano points out is “morally wrong.” Napolitano elaborates:

But, look, one of the principles of American law is “where there’s a wrong, there’s a remedy.” If the vaccine manufacturers have done something wrong or put something into your body or a loved one’s body that harms or kills them, there ought to be a remedy, and Congress is not in the business of interfering with that remedy. Someone punches you in the nose, you have the right to punch them back, and then you have the right to sue them for the cost of repairing your nose. Someone puts a vaccine in your arm and you get sick, you have the right to sue them. These are moral rights, and they used to be legal rights until the Congress interfered with them.​

This special protection from liability for vaccine manufacturers Napolitano further condemns as an exercise of corporatism — “the government favoring certain capitalistic ventures by making it easy and inexpensive for these capitalistic groups to distribute their product.” That’s something that can work out great for big pharmaceutical companies’ bottom line by letting the companies avoid having to pay anything to people harmed by the companies’ dangerous shots.

But, maybe that is not the end of this story. Napolitano intriguingly concludes his discussion of the issue with this comment: “Wait until the lawsuits start coming.” This suggests Napolitano thinks there may be means to overcome the pharmaceutical companies’ liability shield for damages caused by the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots. Maybe there will be some justice after all.

Watch Napolitano’s video commentary here:


...
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archive...e-companies-is-morally-wrong-and-corporatism/
...
Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
 
Imagine vaccines that are so safe and effective that not only do you have to be blackmailed into taking it, you also can't sue for liability and the FDA wants to keep all COVID-1 vaccine data hidden until 2096.
 
Goddam banana republic government of ours, like they have any real authority to do this.
 
This is basically irrelevant to positive reality.

The protections are FACT. I've read that they have a sunset, once they are "fully approved". Solution: put off final approval indefinitely. If public outcry goes too high, remove protection... right after pulling "vaccine" from market and issuing desist order to all the suckers sitting on unused stock. Since there is no ex post facto law in America, they cannot be held accountable for the damages they have done prior.

And since Americans are by and large ignored in the heat of a moment, next time Theye will pull the same old stunt and cow-eyed American meaners will once again do as they are told and bend over for the next great anal drubbing.

Until we start hanging these bastards by their scrawny necks and reducing their entire genetic stock to generation-spanning penury, this sort of thing shall continue.

None of this is rocket surgery.
 
Point of curiosity for the lawyers: it is clear we cannot sue vaccine manufacturers for the direct effects of the vaccines. Can we sue them for failing to issue proper and full disclosure warnings about potential harms that the vaccines may cause? Besides outright neglect to cite the possible ill-effects, these manufacturers do not appear to publish any statistical risks of things going awry for the individual. Their risk caveats seem always to be couched in political-style weasel words clearly structured to cover what they believe to be the minimum legal requirements to secure immunity from liability, but could they be taken to task either for insufficient statement and specification of such risks? Could they be peeled for publishing figures that are demonstrated as false beyond, say, two sigmas or three? For example, they decide to state that the statistical safety margin is 99.97%, yet a random sampling of a vaccinated population shows only 80%? That is a yawning chasm of discrepancy between the stated risk and the empirically observed. This would indicate either outright fraud, or incompetence or negligence of a manner and degree so egregious that culpability could not be reasonably denied.

Opinions?
 
Point of curiosity for the lawyers: it is clear we cannot sue vaccine manufacturers for the direct effects of the vaccines. Can we sue them for failing to issue proper and full disclosure warnings about potential harms that the vaccines may cause? Besides outright neglect to cite the possible ill-effects, these manufacturers do not appear to publish any statistical risks of things going awry for the individual. Their risk caveats seem always to be couched in political-style weasel words clearly structured to cover what they believe to be the minimum legal requirements to secure immunity from liability, but could they be taken to task either for insufficient statement and specification of such risks? Could they be peeled for publishing figures that are demonstrated as false beyond, say, two sigmas or three? For example, they decide to state that the statistical safety margin is 99.97%, yet a random sampling of a vaccinated population shows only 80%? That is a yawning chasm of discrepancy between the stated risk and the empirically observed. This would indicate either outright fraud, or incompetence or negligence of a manner and degree so egregious that culpability could not be reasonably denied.

Opinions?

I have no idea but think yes . Since they disclose all possible side effects for other medications I reckon they are required to .
 
I have no idea but think yes . Since they disclose all possible side effects for other medications I reckon they are required to .

Disclaimers are required for ads. They don't advertise the shot.

They don't have to. The entire MSM and half the "elected officials" do that for them, 24/7.
 
Back
Top