The vaccine manufacturers' immunity from liability has nothing to do with the current FDA status of these vaccines. Our government gave them immunity over 30 yrs ago.
"No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
The key word is "vaccine". The mRNA gene therapy is NOT a vaccine by any of the requirements under law. Just because Merriam-Webster dictionary, Wikipedia, and the CDC's web page changed the definition to fool the public doesn't change the legal definition found under 42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22. Again, the definition has not changed and would require an Act of Congress to change it.
it would be farther back. US code usually puts definitions at the front. when i found the area, "vaccine" was not one of the words defined. however, a change to the definition would not have a retroactive effect. one would not expect a law from the 1950s that used the word "web" to be referring to the internet.
Protections but far from immunity. They are required a certain level of competency. The real issue is the definition of "vaccine" and are these jabs vax's at all. Here is legal def...https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/vaccine Big difference from the new as of 1/1/20 dictionary definition! If not a vax, full liability!
But let me ask this, that immunity can't be unrestricted immunity, it only covers Properly Manufactured vaccines, right? If for example a vaccine manufacture knowing distributed a contaminated vaccine, that would not be covered under the act. And the act has requirements that must be met by the manufacture to qualify for immunity.
*Note that I know nothing on this subject, I am just trying to pose some counter thought to your statement of immunity.
*
Informed consent and adverse event reporting.
For example, the act required that providers administering certain vaccines provide a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) to the vaccine recipient or a legal guardian. The VIS lists the risks and benefits of a particular vaccine. The NCVIA also established a system for reporting suspected vaccine-related adverse events (VAERS.)
Now consider that they are not disclosing the true risk of vaccine, and are exaggerating the benefit, and the CDC is not reporting true adverse events in VAERS, it seems to me that they have not lived up to the deal. In other words, that have not meet the requirements for immunity as stated in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), or the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
The vaccine manufacturers' immunity from liability has nothing to do with the current FDA status of these vaccines. Our government gave them immunity over 30 yrs ago. "No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22
The key word is "vaccine". The mRNA gene therapy is NOT a vaccine by any of the requirements under law. Just because Merriam-Webster dictionary, Wikipedia, and the CDC's web page changed the definition to fool the public doesn't change the legal definition found under 42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22. Again, the definition has not changed and would require an Act of Congress to change it.
That is very interesting. I looked up that legal code you mentioned, but I can not find the definition you speak of in it.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22
Can you direct me to where "vaccine" is legally defined in that code?
it would be farther back. US code usually puts definitions at the front. when i found the area, "vaccine" was not one of the words defined. however, a change to the definition would not have a retroactive effect. one would not expect a law from the 1950s that used the word "web" to be referring to the internet.
Protections but far from immunity. They are required a certain level of competency. The real issue is the definition of "vaccine" and are these jabs vax's at all. Here is legal def...https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/vaccine Big difference from the new as of 1/1/20 dictionary definition! If not a vax, full liability!
The legal and regulatory set up Big Vaccine has right now is a license to print money.
Ah! Warning! Warning! Danger! Danger!
But let me ask this, that immunity can't be unrestricted immunity, it only covers Properly Manufactured vaccines, right? If for example a vaccine manufacture knowing distributed a contaminated vaccine, that would not be covered under the act. And the act has requirements that must be met by the manufacture to qualify for immunity.
Here is my reference
*Note that I know nothing on this subject, I am just trying to pose some counter thought to your statement of immunity. *
Informed consent and adverse event reporting.
For example, the act required that providers administering certain vaccines provide a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) to the vaccine recipient or a legal guardian. The VIS lists the risks and benefits of a particular vaccine. The NCVIA also established a system for reporting suspected vaccine-related adverse events (VAERS.)
Now consider that they are not disclosing the true risk of vaccine, and are exaggerating the benefit, and the CDC is not reporting true adverse events in VAERS, it seems to me that they have not lived up to the deal. In other words, that have not meet the requirements for immunity as stated in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), or the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
/u/tewdryg