From the article - "... Furthermore, there is now video evidence that Pfizer employees had concerns about the mRNA shots being linked to heart inflammation as early as 2021. The company did nothing to warn the public about the potential complication. Instead, it was granted 100% liability protection by the United States government, perhaps indefinitely. ..."
The first two sentences should negate the second. It's my understanding that indemnity is only valid if the Bad-Pharma companies acted in good faith. Knowingly putting out a dangerous drug leaves them open to liability. The above statements should also insure that Pfizer can't wiggle out of liability by pointing it's finger at the little secondary firm there, Ventavia.
The evidence of foreknowledge of dangers should be the nails in the coffins of these bad-pharma firms.
From the article - "... Furthermore, there is now video evidence that Pfizer employees had concerns about the mRNA shots being linked to heart inflammation as early as 2021. The company did nothing to warn the public about the potential complication. Instead, it was granted 100% liability protection by the United States government, perhaps indefinitely. ..."
The first two sentences should negate the second. It's my understanding that indemnity is only valid if the Bad-Pharma companies acted in good faith. Knowingly putting out a dangerous drug leaves them open to liability. The above statements should also insure that Pfizer can't wiggle out of liability by pointing it's finger at the little secondary firm there, Ventavia.
The evidence of foreknowledge of dangers should be the nails in the coffins of these bad-pharma firms.