176 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
Dani Richards's avatar

Edward Dowd suggests that if fraud is proven to have occurred in the EUA process, then all liability protections cease.

Expand full comment
Dr. K's avatar

The problem is that fraud is a very high bar. Given the evil/stupid choice, they will all become instantly stupid. "If only we had known...we were just trying to do the right thing...". I would love for it to be shown, but it is hard to prove up.

Expand full comment
Chris Bray's avatar

This is exactly where the Sacklers have fled -- to "whoops, what a tragic accident!"

Expand full comment
Janet's avatar

The sacklers will someday be flung into a hellscape they richly deserve. There will be a Covid Criminal wing there as well. And the Klaus Schwab Memorial flaming pit. All the barbecue they can eat.

Expand full comment
Katherine Watt's avatar

IтАЩm not sure about the difference between the fraud standard and the тАЬwillful misconductтАЭ standard, but I learned today that in 2004 and 2005, Congress passed laws amending the 1944 Public Health Service Act, in a way that strictly limits liability to cases of тАШwillful misconductтАЩ thatтАЩs the proximate cause of injury and death, for any product approved under an EUA during a declared public health emergency. The laws on the books even go so far as to classify contractors (like Pfizer, Moderna, hospitals, pharmacies, nurses, doctors) as government employees of US-Health and Human Services, for purposes of Federal Tort Claims Act. Giving them (I think) government immunity.

The laws are set up so the only recourse is the тАШCountermeasures Injury Compensation Program.тАЩ

And at least one court - Supreme Court of NY in 2012 тАФ has interpreted the laws very strictly, to apply to injury and death caused by a тАШvaccinatorтАЩ without the consent of the person injected.

Report here:

https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/project-bioshield-act-of-2004-and?s=w

Expand full comment