1. Someone posts info regarding Pfizer, one of the major vaccine companies for the Covid mRNA vaccine, and how the company killed 11 and brain damaged many more Nigerian children with experimental antiobiotics, and ended up settling out of court for 50 million pounds
2. I tag you into my response to this to get your response regarding the validity of concern over Covid vaccine and the background info about them (including the companies)--concern which you keep saying is just retarded
3. You respond by essentially saying you never said BigPharma companies were saints (which you did not, but I never implied you did, only that your smearing concern about/against the Covid vaccine as illegitimate is itself retarded). Then you say:
Of course they'd do shit like that in countries where there aren't functioning legal systems where they'd be eviscerated if they harmed significant numbers of people.
Implying
A) Pfizer & Friends would never be so shady in countries since they would be eviscerated (further implying being forced to settle out of court for 50 million pounds is not being "eviscerated") and
B) they would be eviscerated if they "
harmed a
significant number of people"
4. Since you never said what countries would "eviscerate" these companies, I took that to mean you were speaking about countries with "functioning legal systems" ie more civilized countries like USA, etc. I then reply that these companies are absolutely indemnified in countries like the USA, etc. in that they cannot suffer in any way due to protective legislature. I post an article saying as much.
5. You reply
They're not completely indemnified
You explain how the claims process for damages (or "harm" as you put it above) is administrative instead of judicial and when it could be judicial it end up in a Federal Claims court and, quote
Implying you're unlikely to get damages from anyone, neither from the companies nor government--which is what the article says regarding the sweeping protection of the PREP Act: "Under the PREP Act, companies like Pfizer and Moderna have total immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines."
So both the article and your own words so far only further my point about the indemnification of these--as you call them--"evil ghouls who would gladly use African children as guinea pigs", which itself further adds to my point about people's concerns regarding the Covid vax and the background info about them (like one of the "evil ghoul" companies making it which did this) being valid.
Which you reject as being valid and say it jsut retarded.
5. I call you out on this and then show you that the caveat you vaguely mention of "significant numbers" makes no difference according to the protections set in place over said companies in these countries which you had said would "eviscerate" them. I also mention how these--as you know and called them to be "evil ghoul"--companies have tens of billions of potential profit annually by being evil ghouls, so concern about or against the vaccine and the background info is, as I keep repeating, very valid.
6. You reply
Yes, "significant numbers" is important in anything where you're delivering something to literally hundreds of millions of people.
7. To which I reply and clarify yet again about your vague "significant numbers" caveat to the indemnification protection:
What quantifies "significant numbers" and where is that to be found in the PREP Act? Hey, I could be wrong. Show me where the legislature specifically says anything remotely akin to
"These companies are indemnified from damages unless a significant number of patients (herein "significant number" is "more than X claimants") report and are proven to have suffered severe effects from the company's product."
Pointing out that the singular caveat which would show a company is NOT protected/indemnified is that they are intentionally trying to harm others with their product or that they intentionally didn't take the right measures to ensure the product is safe.
Since I never said the companies are intentionally trying to harm people, and since they can lie and say they did all they could to make it safe even if they really didn't, this means that--despite being on-paper not totally indemnified--they are in-practice absolutely indemnified in this area.
Either way, "significant numbers" makes no difference and does not annul their protections from liability--which is itself protection from culpability. If there was such a caveat or clause about specific numbers of claimants/"harmed" people annulling the protection/indemnification then you would need to show me where it exists in the PREP Act which is cited in the article.
And now we're here:
They're indemnified no matter how many people are affected. It doesn't have to be "significant." If just one person is injured they have an administrative process to get compensation.
Which was literally my point, that the numbers don't matter and all that matters is that it can be proven in court the vaccine companies intentionally harmed them or intentionally didn't take measures to ensure the security and safety of the vaccine they produced.
And this "process" you detailed and mention again here does not entail the vaccine company (unless proven what I said above about intent) being held liable/culpabale, and people damaged by the vaccine cannot take the FDA to court nor can they take their employers who mandated they get the vax which ultimately "harmed"/damaged them.
You have flip-flopped your ass off while pretending I'm the retard. You mention countries which would "eviscerate" the companies but then acknowledge their indemnification. You mention the process but overlook the reality of it only having one caveat, "intent". You mention "significant numbers" but then acknowledge that the number of people doesn't matter, only that someone was injured, and then we go right back to the previous sentence of you not understanding what the only thing that can annul their protection is--"intent", not simply people being harmed/damaged.
theconversation.com
