Class action lawsuits: The potential is there, but they have immunity from prosecution. I am not sure how far the extends, or if there are loopholes there. I have not looked into it. Even if not, these companies are toast if the truth gets out. You can't make money if everyone believes you have committed crimes against humanity (which they are doing).
Reverse effects of vaccine: Doubtful. The good news is, they aren't THAT bad. These vaccines do not appear to be a depopulation level event. The death rate according to the current data (which may be underreported) is about 1:20,000. The serious side effect rate is about 1:500 (or less). It could be worse.
Instead of trying to shut me down without evidence, please provide evidence to support your claim.
I remember specifically Trump talking about Pfizer and Moderna requiring indemnity before Project Warp Speed would be undertaken. Looking it up I find a ton of stories that corroborate my statement. These are just the first three to come up on a search.
As I said, I don't know the extent, or if there are loopholes, but to say "I clearly know nothing about it" is obviously not true. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. I would like to be.
I misspoke. I should have used the word indemnity. In context it means the same thing to everyone but you. Nevertheless, mea culpa. You still haven't addressed the topic directly.
You still have not refuted my claim that they have indemnity. And what does twitter have to do with anything?
Do you go around to doctors, lawyers and other professionals contending that they need to prove fundamental aspects of their topic areas to you?
I am a scientist. I do that all the time. You could even say its my whole life, so yes.
A persons profession is irrelevant. A persons argument is based on the argument, not their profession. I post things on my area of expertise all the time (cell and molecular biology, nanotechnology and physics, to a lesser extent computer science). I also worked in tax law for several years. I do not let those experiences dilute my argument. If my argument is insufficient, it is insufficient, regardless of past experience.
And so is yours.
I am not saying I am right, but you still have not provided evidence that I am wrong. You haven't even addressed my claim directly.
I was also under the impression that vaccine manufacturers cannot be held liable if you have an adverse vaccine reaction. Is the previous comment saying something else? If they can be sued then what is the process?
Class action lawsuits: The potential is there, but they have immunity from prosecution. I am not sure how far the extends, or if there are loopholes there. I have not looked into it. Even if not, these companies are toast if the truth gets out. You can't make money if everyone believes you have committed crimes against humanity (which they are doing).
Reverse effects of vaccine: Doubtful. The good news is, they aren't THAT bad. These vaccines do not appear to be a depopulation level event. The death rate according to the current data (which may be underreported) is about 1:20,000. The serious side effect rate is about 1:500 (or less). It could be worse.
Instead of trying to shut me down without evidence, please provide evidence to support your claim.
I remember specifically Trump talking about Pfizer and Moderna requiring indemnity before Project Warp Speed would be undertaken. Looking it up I find a ton of stories that corroborate my statement. These are just the first three to come up on a search.
Here is one.
Here is another
Here is another.
The list goes on and on.
As I said, I don't know the extent, or if there are loopholes, but to say "I clearly know nothing about it" is obviously not true. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. I would like to be.
I misspoke. I should have used the word indemnity. In context it means the same thing to everyone but you. Nevertheless, mea culpa. You still haven't addressed the topic directly.
You still have not refuted my claim that they have indemnity. And what does twitter have to do with anything?
I am a scientist. I do that all the time. You could even say its my whole life, so yes.
A persons profession is irrelevant. A persons argument is based on the argument, not their profession. I post things on my area of expertise all the time (cell and molecular biology, nanotechnology and physics, to a lesser extent computer science). I also worked in tax law for several years. I do not let those experiences dilute my argument. If my argument is insufficient, it is insufficient, regardless of past experience.
And so is yours.
I am not saying I am right, but you still have not provided evidence that I am wrong. You haven't even addressed my claim directly.
I was also under the impression that vaccine manufacturers cannot be held liable if you have an adverse vaccine reaction. Is the previous comment saying something else? If they can be sued then what is the process?