Why Are Vaccine Manufacturers Immune?

[Karl12]

Why are vaccine manufacturers like Sanofi, Merck, Pfizer etc. given 'immunity' for liability of injuries due to their products?

I really can't think of any good reason - can anyone else?

Thought this guy was making a lot of sense about the ridiculousness of the situation - he also testified before U.S. Congress and submitted a report containing specific charts.

The charts are featured in this video and contain some truly disturbing numbers on the reality of 'safety testing'.












Also a pretty mind-blowing video below where FDA Director William Egan is getting grilled about vaccine safety concerns.

Apparently the only safety test on Mercury happened way back in 1929 and involved 27 people already dying of Meningitis.


VIDEO

[Raptured]

"Follow the money" has always made the most sense to me.

Look at those companies, their major shareholders and their executive board members

What a gig though right?   All research into new drugs gets paid via public funding, research grants (again, public funding) and "awareness campaigns".  Think Pink!
You have research labs set up at universities for the work to begin yet you Own any results (at no cost to you mind you.  Maybe an endowment or kickback of sorts) and when something comes to fruition, you manufacture in 3rd-world countries, set up global sales and supply chains and charge excessive amounts of money for a pill.

FDA?  HA!   Brokers and middle-men.  They have no labs.  No research capabilities.  No staff=scientists or testing.  It's all outsourced!

Most of the time the "trials and testing" is done BY THE COMPANY MAKING THE PRODUCT.  No conflicts though, right?

[Karl12]

"Follow the money" has always made the most sense to me.

Look at those companies, their major shareholders and their executive board members

Yes well said mate and the Rockefeller's and JP Morgan appear heavily involved.

Suppose the historical behaviour of companies like Bayer, BASF and Sanofi (formerly Hoechst and Cassella) should also be taken into account.

Most of the time the "trials and testing" is done BY THE COMPANY MAKING THE PRODUCT.  No conflicts though, right?

Honestly don't think the system could be more corrupt if it tried lol.

Did you see that short clip about Mercury?

Also forgot to add the timestamp to those charts which are truly outrageous (5:05).

Here's another example involving Fauci and HHS - when they denied the below statement they were sued and had to admit it was true.

:• "Of the 72 vaccines essentially mandated for American children none of them, not one, has ever been subject to a pre licensing placebo controlled trial."

Robert Francis Kennedy Jr (5:50)

[Maxmars]

I think the answer to the question posed to the question "Why Are Vaccine Manufacturers Immune?" is much simpler than anyone wants to simply acknowledge.

The answer is "Because they can."

The how and why they can is equally simple: "Because they are the accepted patrons of the regulatory process."

Our 'representatives' in authority are actually beholden to them for the thing they want most... public relevance.  That relevance is blanketed in the thing that most every 'public' servant desires... constructive media coverage of their 'professional' existence... and the "patrons" literally "own" that coverage.  Quid pro quo.  They are copying the playbook from the bank... what it represents is not a "new" thing.  

The details of the intricate play between 'getting away with' what they want, and the "consequences" of those policies and outcomes are very useful in distracting from the actual 'effects' of their 'game.'  These players in the 'production' of the theater we endure are well acquainted with manipulating public sentiment via the media they literally own.

[Karl12]

The answer is "Because they can."

Yes indeed mate, directly because of the 1986 'National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act' (4:00) - call me cynical but I'd imagine the specific politicians involved were adequately compensated by pharmaceutical cartel 'lobbyists' (basically bribed).

Have posted it once before but if you want to hear something truly hilarious then taxpayers are the ones actually footing the bill for the vaccine injury compensations in the UK due to the 'legal indemnity' clause.

So after promoting their coerced injections as 'safe and effective' (which they unequivocally were not) the manufacturers now get off scott free with no legal or financial consequences whatsoever.

[Byrd]

Why are vaccine manufacturers like Sanofi, Merck, Pfizer etc. given 'immunity' for liability of injuries due to their products?

Did not watch the video, but mercury (thimerosol) isn't used in many vaccines (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about...rosal.html)... when it is, the amount is the same as in a can of tuna fish.  I haven't seen anyone injured or dead from mercury in a can of tuna (unless you smack them very very hard with the unopened can.)

Also, the risk from vaccines is VERY small.  Yes, there's some "injuries" - mild fever and soreness at the injection site are the usual "injuries."  But if they're going to count "injuries" and lawsuits, then it follows that:

• We should sue people who make sidewalks because many people trip and are injured falling onto sidewalks.
  
• Ditto modern roads.  There are tens of thousands of deaths each year from people who are on modern roads.
  
• And gun makers - people get hurt by misfires and other accidents all the time.
  
• Peanut butter manufacturers -people die from peanut allergies all the time.
  
• Fishermen... shellfish allergies.
  

And so on and so forth.

Let's look at a vaccine -- measles is a good one because it's a childhood vaccination.A vaccine became available in 1963. In the decade before, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years old. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year.
(data from many sources - used this after checking others https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html)

Here's the damage done by measles (mostly children.)

• 400 to 500 people (most of them were babies and young children) died
• 48,000 babies and young children were hospitalized
• 1,000 babies and young children suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain)

Even if you lived (I had them), the experience was MISERABLE and lasted weeks -- 2 weeks if you were lucky, 3 weeks and longer if you weren't.  And then everyone else in the household would get it.

After the vaccine became widely used, measles was declared "dead" in the US.  No cases at all.  There HAVE been deaths in immunocompromised children who were given the vaccine, so they are not vaccinated. 

The "injuries" have been "kid feeling sick for a day" and "sore arm."

Is the video saying that it's better for 500 kids to die and for 1,000 to suffer potential brain damage and the rest of the kids getting sick for weeks (parents have to take off work for weeks because you can't go to school or daycare with this)  instead of "some kids getting fever and a sore arm but living?"

(and there's the issue of not being able to get time off to care for a very sick kid for 3 weeks.)


You can do this same thing with other vaccines... look up the numbers.  Do the math.  Find a neutral source (don't use a blog or an op-ed.  Look for a site that's just reporting on things and not pushing the narrative one way or another.  I use the MMR (Mortality and Morbidity Reports)
 
So what reason was this video giving to sue companies that make products that reduce the death and disability rate by such huge numbers?  And what are they saying about parents who would have to stay home to care for the kids and potentially lose their jobs? (because if you leave a sick kid alone at home, somebody's going to call Child Protective Services and then you're "in a whole new world of hurt," as we say here in Texas.)

[xuenchen]

What medical evidence would prove the method of intake would make no difference?
Vaxes are injected directly into the bloodstream vs food is ingested and digested.
There may be a significant difference that can cause side effects.
  false equivalencies don't solve the problem.
 

Did not watch the video, but mercury (thimerosol) isn't used in many vaccines (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about...rosal.html)... when it is, the amount is the same as in a can of tuna fish.  I haven't seen anyone injured or dead from mercury in a can of tuna (unless you smack them very very hard with the unopened can.)

Also, the risk from vaccines is VERY small.  Yes, there's some "injuries" - mild fever and soreness at the injection site are the usual "injuries."  But if they're going to count "injuries" and lawsuits, then it follows that:

• We should sue people who make sidewalks because many people trip and are injured falling onto sidewalks.
  
• Ditto modern roads.  There are tens of thousands of deaths each year from people who are on modern roads.
  
• And gun makers - people get hurt by misfires and other accidents all the time.
  
• Peanut butter manufacturers -people die from peanut allergies all the time.
  
• Fishermen... shellfish allergies.
  

And so on and so forth.

Let's look at a vaccine -- measles is a good one because it's a childhood vaccination.A vaccine became available in 1963. In the decade before, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years old. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year.
(data from many sources - used this after checking others https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html)

Here's the damage done by measles (mostly children.)

• 400 to 500 people (most of them were babies and young children) died
• 48,000 babies and young children were hospitalized
• 1,000 babies and young children suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain)

Even if you lived (I had them), the experience was MISERABLE and lasted weeks -- 2 weeks if you were lucky, 3 weeks and longer if you weren't.  And then everyone else in the household would get it.

After the vaccine became widely used, measles was declared "dead" in the US.  No cases at all.  There HAVE been deaths in immunocompromised children who were given the vaccine, so they are not vaccinated. 

The "injuries" have been "kid feeling sick for a day" and "sore arm."

Is the video saying that it's better for 500 kids to die and for 1,000 to suffer potential brain damage and the rest of the kids getting sick for weeks (parents have to take off work for weeks because you can't go to school or daycare with this)  instead of "some kids getting fever and a sore arm but living?"

(and there's the issue of not being able to get time off to care for a very sick kid for 3 weeks.)


You can do this same thing with other vaccines... look up the numbers.  Do the math.  Find a neutral source (don't use a blog or an op-ed.  Look for a site that's just reporting on things and not pushing the narrative one way or another.  I use the MMR (Mortality and Morbidity Reports)
 
So what reason was this video giving to sue companies that make products that reduce the death and disability rate by such huge numbers?  And what are they saying about parents who would have to stay home to care for the kids and potentially lose their jobs? (because if you leave a sick kid alone at home, somebody's going to call Child Protective Services and then you're "in a whole new world of hurt," as we say here in Texas.)

[Byrd]

What medical evidence would prove the method of intake would make no difference?
Vaxes are injected directly into the bloodstream vs food is ingested and digested.
There may be a significant difference that can cause side effects.
  false equivalencies don't solve the problem.
 

  
No vaccines are injected into the bloodstream.  You'd know it if they were, because a tech would have to put a tourniquet around your arm (to stop the blood from flowing so they can find the vein) and then stick in a port (like when they draw blood from you) and then give the shot.  Occasionally you can give vaccines straight to the nose (only a few can be delivered this way), but that's fairly rare and the "intake" is through the mucus membranes in your nose.

Also, if you dumped a vaccine into your stomach, the amount would be so tiny that your body wouldn't get any of it... and it might be turned into something else when it hits the acid in your stomach (wouldn't do much; the actual amount of fluid delivered in a vaccine is between .5 ml and 2 ml (depends on vaccine and whether it's for adult or child)... so that's the size of about 4 drops of water to 16 drops of water.)

[Karl12]

Did not watch the video

Can I ask why not?

You certainly took the time for a lengthy post so why not find time to watch the posted relevant content you are replying to?

It's literally 2 minutes long and shows just how much contempt the FDA actually have for safety standards.

VIDEO

Your comparisons are directly addressed in the first video in the first post - did you not watch that one either?

VIDEO

It's important because it shows congressional report charts showing the safety testing of drugs big pharma are liable for versus the safety testing of drugs big pharma are not liable for.

There's a huge difference.

Would say the fact that the 72 vaccines now mandated for children have never been subject to a 'pre licensing placebo controlled trial' is also an incredibly serious development that needs to be addressed (or at least acknowledged).

Lots of uncomfortable facts in this book about how the FDA and CDC have been hijacked by the very corporations they are meant to regulate (via the mechanism of 'agency capture') and former CDC Director Robert Redfield recently told the author 'you got everything right' so go figure.

As for 1982 legal developments they were a direct corporate response to all the people injured in this fiasco so sincerely hope you manage to watch all the relevant content.

[xuenchen]

Well you mentioned mercury comparisons of a can of tuna digested vs a shot in the arm. I wonder which method would be more effective for mercury intake, or would somehow reject mecury as a poison. 
 

  
No vaccines are injected into the bloodstream.  You'd know it if they were, because a tech would have to put a tourniquet around your arm (to stop the blood from flowing so they can find the vein) and then stick in a port (like when they draw blood from you) and then give the shot.  Occasionally you can give vaccines straight to the nose (only a few can be delivered this way), but that's fairly rare and the "intake" is through the mucus membranes in your nose.

Also, if you dumped a vaccine into your stomach, the amount would be so tiny that your body wouldn't get any of it... and it might be turned into something else when it hits the acid in your stomach (wouldn't do much; the actual amount of fluid delivered in a vaccine is between .5 ml and 2 ml (depends on vaccine and whether it's for adult or child)... so that's the size of about 4 drops of water to 16 drops of water.)