This morning Karl Denninger posted an explanation of an article that appeared in Nature magazine: N1-methylpseudouridylation of mRNA causes +1 ribosomal frameshifting. If that doesn’t mean much to you, you’ll want to read KD’s translation—it’s fairly riveting. It’s all about why the creators of the Covid injections used “pseudo-uridine” instead of the naturally occurring “uridine.” Those of us who followed the Covid saga will recall that Dr. Robert Malone stressed the importance of this use of pseudo-uridine, and this article explains that. Or, rather, KD explains that.
Add to that the qualitatively different batches and the fact a lot of researchers actually not finding any mrna signatures in the vax and you’ve got the proverbial storm.
Have to admit Maloney gets my goat, for a guy involved in a billion dollars worth of vaccine funding and then to become a ‘truther’ doesn’t sit right with me. Not to mention him becoming the public face of the opposition almost instantaneously.“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”
Behind all of this is the moral decline that started with the Sexual Revolution of the '60s. Years before, C. S. Lewis had written (I can't remember which book) that morality is unitary--it's all one thing. And if you tear down one area, every other area will follow. In the late '70s, I was taking business classes at the University of Cincinnati. One day our accounting prof walked into class fuming. After a bit he told us why. UC was changing what it was teaching for business ethics, and he considered the changes to be wrong. I was in the business services area at that time, and a few years later, as older executives retired, I saw companies that once had paid their bills promptly start dragging them out and paying late. I got into something else. So now morality in all kinds of areas has gone downhill--business ethics, medical ethics, and more (granted, political ethics never were that high even in the old days!).
A friend bemoaning problems he was having with some of his people at his PD. I asked, millennials? No older guys. Then I remembered 1993-ish I was in a police management class and the instructor warned up, “there is a morally bankrupt generation coming into law enforcement, be ready” Generation X.
This is very true. It's why single issues ultimately don't work unless they get people back to that unitary position that embraces the totality of human nature.
Covid was a God-send for Big Pharma. It was their chance finally to crack the mRNA conundrum using the whole world as lab rats - and covered by a blanket no-liability clause. I wonder what the normies think? Yesterday, the father of a colleague went out to get his Covid jab. This guy is a high-level university professor and yet knows nothing about what we here have been talking about for the last 2 years. It would be interesting to know how representative he is of normie thinking on the jabs. As you say, Mark, what a world!
Just off an argument re the NZ data where I was told "no evidence for mass deaths from jabs" ie nothing to see here..
My response: it appears there's an NZ ministry of health db with ample data proving the damn things don't work. Regardless of excess deaths, the pitch was they were Safe and Effective. If the NZ MoH holds data that the latter is untrue, the former is dubious yet is still actively promoting jabbing.. this is the biggest story of the decade, if (stealing) you could find a journalist with a spine for the story to shiver up
G'evening all. Sasha Latypova writes a Substack regarding Covid and associated issues. Her expertise comes from Commercial Contracting with Big-Pharma (providing from her both specific drug manufacturing experience and Big Pharma political dealings. Boots on the ground insider understanding). Violating my own choice of not linking here, I'm including some from her. I'll try to remain specifically related within this Posting by Mark.
"Modern Weaponization Approaches Based on Linguistics: The advent of microbiological techniques enabled several nations, but most extensively the Soviet Union and the United States, to develop offensive biological weapons programs, which continued until they were legally prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention, signed in 1972. After the BWC was signed, the development of pathogens as weapons became the province of clandestine nation-state programs and non-state actor terrorism (aka 'private contractors')."
1: Recent (Nov 24, 2023) Posting pull quote re: Bioweapon development (Internationally outlawed 1972) becomes Defensive Medical Countermeasure" program:
"More prosaically however, renaming an offensive bioweapons development into “defensive medical countermeasures” program enabled continuation of the bioweapon development without interruption, and further provided trillions of funding for DARPA, BARDA, other defense and intelligence outfits for capturing key areas of scientific research and biopharmaceutical manufacturing via consortia of “non-traditional” defense contractors, such as for example - MCDC Consortium which was heavily involved in “covid countermeasures” and currently lists 300+ companies and academic institutions as members." https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-disease-agents?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
(My apologies for not finding a specific posting pull quote regarding PREP act as related to today's MIH post by Mark.) Hopefully I'll be forgiven by ya'all for links: not my regular choice but the technical aspects Ms. Latyova provides are beyond my capability to paraphrase adequately. Kindest regards and Merry Christmas to all! (WrH)
To elaborate from your comment, Wayne, using Katherine Watt's collections from the Federal Register, with much more to this story at her site,
First, HHS Secretary declares a Public Health Emergency.
Second, HHS Secretary deems a countermeasure to be potentially useful:
The Secretary may issue an authorization under this section with respect to the emergency use of a product only if... the Secretary concludes—
(1)that an agent referred to in a declaration under subsection (b) can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition;
(2)that, based on the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, IF AVAILABLE, it is REASONABLE TO [SUBJECTIVELY] BELIEVE that—
(A)the product MAY BE effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing—
(i)such disease or condition... and;
(B)the known and POTENTIAL benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, OUTWEIGH the known and potential risks of the product....
Third, it doesn't matter what is in the shots:
21 USC 360bbb-3a(c) Current good manufacturing practice
(1) In general. The Secretary MAY, when the circumstances of a domestic, military, or public health emergency or material threat described in subsection (a)(1)(C) so warrant, AUTHORIZE, with respect to an eligible product, DEVIATIONS from current good manufacturing practice requirements otherwise applicable to the manufacture, processing, packing, or holding of products subject to regulation under this chapter....
I don't say the lawsuits will be easy, but I do say that those findings can all be attacked on a factual basis. The key is to get past summary judgment and get to present the case to a jury. The attack would have to focus on the claim of a Public Health Emergency and (2)(B)--balancing benefits and risks. If misrepresentations of benefits and risks occurred there's a prima facie argument that fraud occurred and the case should go forward.
G' day Tamsin, thanks for your summarizing: (I'm much too long winded to even try!). I always felt (note: non-legal/lawyerly 'feel' thing) doing Warp Speed sounded amazing - too amazing to be true - and of course buy using the "emergency declaration" the results of many, many injuries, deaths and apparently permanent (generationally-transmitted) DNA modifications. I'll calm down to saying this wasn't intentional - not a bio-weapon - however rMNA had been shown a big-fail for 10 years in it's development for fighting cancer. Bringing it into Covid Vax usage REQUIRED the PREP act circumstance. Mark notes some legal obligation(s) exist by Manufacturers even if Gov't coercion is applied in his reply to my query if PERP does indeed provide immunity to them. I'm no legal guy-but I read the relevant PERP act immunity section and, well again my opinion/interpretation here, it appears they ARE protected. (This PERP act sub-section: https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/prepqa.aspx#immune3 ) *This specifically catches my untrained attention*: "Immunity from liability under the PREP Act is not available for death or serious physical injury caused by willful misconduct. A “serious physical injury” is one that is life-threatening, or results in or requires medical or surgical intervention to preclude permanent impairment of a body function or results in permanent damage to a body structure. Willful misconduct is misconduct that is greater than any form of recklessness or negligence."
**THIS line (repeating because I find it VERY compelling) "Willful misconduct is misconduct that is greater than any form of recklessness or negligence." Scares me a bunch Tamsin. Sounds like recklessness or negligence is okay and immunity applies. (If Mark's reading this, I hope he can clarify legal aspect).
Apologies for a long reply - (as noted, I AM long winded...) Blessing Tamsin & Mark and all fellow MIH'ers! (WrH)
I would argue--and maybe there are some lawyers with experience in PI work out there--that fraud goes beyond recklessness and negligence and is willful misconduct. This would then allow the case to proceed on a path to trial before a jury. I'm sure there is case law out there on these issues. I'd like to see these cases brought.
Thank you for your thoughts Mark. I find laws that provide horrible behaviors protection by our Gov't (and it's agents) reprehensible. "War-time exceptions" would perhaps be acceptable - but how about used during war? And I fully agree with you these cases need be brought! Rich Blessings for you and your loved ones this Christmas! (WrH)
They used to like my blood. Then about a decade after I came back, they decided they no longer wanted blood from anyone who happened to be in the U.K. when mad cow disease started over there. So though I'm unjabbed, my blood remains "no go".
Any bonus for both no-vax AND natural covid anti-bodies? :^) I think early on the search for non-vax'd, recovered ill folk's blood went on. That told me then there was much to the 'skepticism' (decried but now proven true!). Best at you A/C! (WrH)
Covid and Coffee's Jeff Childer' thinks this will penetrate the legal shield of Pfizer, and he has a very good non technical explanation and analysis of the article, why it's important, and how it got published.
The role of fraud versus vaccine immunity has been a recurring theme in many lunchtime conversations with my colleagues. We are mostly M&A and securities lawyers, so, representations and warranties draw primary concern in our practices. Fraud, as commonly understood (basically, common-law fraud), typically required detailed proof that a fact or set of facts, known to be false, was presented with the specific intent to deceive another into taking action he or she would not otherwise have taken absent the intentional misrepresentation. Lots of elements of proof to tick off there.
There is a clear trend, however, over the last decade or so (and, very clearly, following a number of Delaware cases, in the past 5 years), toward concepts such as constructive or equitable fraud and their having the same effects as common-law fraud in unravelling agreements and consent. Under this newer approach, the general idea (and this IS very much a generalization, YMMV in factual context) is that a claimant need only establish that a rep/warranty was irresponsibly made and was relied upon to the detriment of the recipient. So, in this case, vax manufacturers’ claims that their products were “imperfect” or “there was no way of knowing” should not get them off the hook for fraud, as leaving statements out there, completely uncorrected or unqualified, among the consuming public as to matters that were clearly unknown or unknowable is, in itself, an irresponsible representation. The assurance that, if we got the vax, we couldn’t transmit and kill Grandma (the very reason many vaxxed up), is particularly egregious in light of Pfizer’s later admission that transmissibility was never even studied in the first place. This newer understanding is so prevalent that nearly all representations-and-warranty-insurance policies now include in their ‘fraud’ exclusions any representations/warranties made (without actual-knowledge qualification) as to matters unknown, unknowable and unexamined.
So, the law SHOULD be there to challenge immunity, but is anyone in the private sector going to take up the charge against all the law-firm behemoths repping pharma? State AGs, I think, will be the only option.
There is a good argument that it is not fraud if Pfizer (and Moderna) delivered to the USGov exactly what the USGov ordered -- a medical countermeasure for which legal immunity holds via the PREP Act in a declared public health emergency. On such a "war footing", nobody is defrauded, everybody is in combat.
I haven't read Chudov, but I would add that it still matters what misrepresentations were made to induce people to take the shots and whether threats/coercion were also involved. Supposing for example that the government made the misrepresentations, would pharma be obliged to correct those misrepresentations? I think a strong argument could be made in the affirmative.
I was trying to cobble together a comment w/info including PREP act when you posted. (I wish I could claim Great Minds think alike, but I fail my part!). My comment has link to PREP act Gov't info page, FWIW. Best regards Tamsin! (WrH)
I would still argue that the pitch for the shot changed over time and that by the time they came out the low risk--compared to a real bioweapon--as well as the risks--Japanese study--were known.
No "legal shield" can immunize you if there's deliberate fraud involved against a third party. There's some legal maxim to that effect, but I forget the exact wording. What I'm saying is that no agreement between the gov and a pharma company can immunize the company if it commits fraud that harms the injected person.
As someone who worked in the IT industry for over 35 years, I will tell you never ever ever trust a 1.0 version of any product. You can almost always count on getting bit in the butt by something that they forgot in the process of bringing the product to market. It took a while for me to realize this, but luckily I had a clue about the time they were touting “warp speed” and opted for natural immunity. Got it once and took care of a lot of folks who got sick without ever having an issue.
Three cheers for iterative design . . . which used to be how pharmaceutical products (and for that matter hair spray) was brought to market. But if you can bank this year's profits then disappear who cares about little details like that? See also every single version of Windoze ever released.
Yeah, “market” is key, drugs are good, etc. (as are armaments for fighting wars)! Remember when “herd immunity” was a thing? But how do you “market” that? Problème…
Add to that the qualitatively different batches and the fact a lot of researchers actually not finding any mrna signatures in the vax and you’ve got the proverbial storm.
Have to admit Maloney gets my goat, for a guy involved in a billion dollars worth of vaccine funding and then to become a ‘truther’ doesn’t sit right with me. Not to mention him becoming the public face of the opposition almost instantaneously.“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”
Watt and Latypova's work is being synthesized into articles by Lerman at Brownstone.
It is still heavy going, but all in one place:
https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight/
Behind all of this is the moral decline that started with the Sexual Revolution of the '60s. Years before, C. S. Lewis had written (I can't remember which book) that morality is unitary--it's all one thing. And if you tear down one area, every other area will follow. In the late '70s, I was taking business classes at the University of Cincinnati. One day our accounting prof walked into class fuming. After a bit he told us why. UC was changing what it was teaching for business ethics, and he considered the changes to be wrong. I was in the business services area at that time, and a few years later, as older executives retired, I saw companies that once had paid their bills promptly start dragging them out and paying late. I got into something else. So now morality in all kinds of areas has gone downhill--business ethics, medical ethics, and more (granted, political ethics never were that high even in the old days!).
A friend bemoaning problems he was having with some of his people at his PD. I asked, millennials? No older guys. Then I remembered 1993-ish I was in a police management class and the instructor warned up, “there is a morally bankrupt generation coming into law enforcement, be ready” Generation X.
This is very true. It's why single issues ultimately don't work unless they get people back to that unitary position that embraces the totality of human nature.
Global de-pop shot... Change my mind.
Covid was a God-send for Big Pharma. It was their chance finally to crack the mRNA conundrum using the whole world as lab rats - and covered by a blanket no-liability clause. I wonder what the normies think? Yesterday, the father of a colleague went out to get his Covid jab. This guy is a high-level university professor and yet knows nothing about what we here have been talking about for the last 2 years. It would be interesting to know how representative he is of normie thinking on the jabs. As you say, Mark, what a world!
Perfectly said, Mark.
Just off an argument re the NZ data where I was told "no evidence for mass deaths from jabs" ie nothing to see here..
My response: it appears there's an NZ ministry of health db with ample data proving the damn things don't work. Regardless of excess deaths, the pitch was they were Safe and Effective. If the NZ MoH holds data that the latter is untrue, the former is dubious yet is still actively promoting jabbing.. this is the biggest story of the decade, if (stealing) you could find a journalist with a spine for the story to shiver up
G'evening all. Sasha Latypova writes a Substack regarding Covid and associated issues. Her expertise comes from Commercial Contracting with Big-Pharma (providing from her both specific drug manufacturing experience and Big Pharma political dealings. Boots on the ground insider understanding). Violating my own choice of not linking here, I'm including some from her. I'll try to remain specifically related within this Posting by Mark.
"Modern Weaponization Approaches Based on Linguistics: The advent of microbiological techniques enabled several nations, but most extensively the Soviet Union and the United States, to develop offensive biological weapons programs, which continued until they were legally prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention, signed in 1972. After the BWC was signed, the development of pathogens as weapons became the province of clandestine nation-state programs and non-state actor terrorism (aka 'private contractors')."
1: Recent (Nov 24, 2023) Posting pull quote re: Bioweapon development (Internationally outlawed 1972) becomes Defensive Medical Countermeasure" program:
"More prosaically however, renaming an offensive bioweapons development into “defensive medical countermeasures” program enabled continuation of the bioweapon development without interruption, and further provided trillions of funding for DARPA, BARDA, other defense and intelligence outfits for capturing key areas of scientific research and biopharmaceutical manufacturing via consortia of “non-traditional” defense contractors, such as for example - MCDC Consortium which was heavily involved in “covid countermeasures” and currently lists 300+ companies and academic institutions as members." https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-disease-agents?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
2: PREP act - the 'cover' for Covid19's "Operation Warp Speed" production sans legally required testing, etc. immunity provision & ongoing issues - re: 'Covid Vaccines': "Talking to Dr. Jane Ruby about Hospital Covid Murder Protocol and PREP Act" https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/talking-to-dr-jane-ruby-about-hospital?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
(Link to Sasha's referenced PREP Act: https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/prepqa.aspx
(My apologies for not finding a specific posting pull quote regarding PREP act as related to today's MIH post by Mark.) Hopefully I'll be forgiven by ya'all for links: not my regular choice but the technical aspects Ms. Latyova provides are beyond my capability to paraphrase adequately. Kindest regards and Merry Christmas to all! (WrH)
To elaborate from your comment, Wayne, using Katherine Watt's collections from the Federal Register, with much more to this story at her site,
First, HHS Secretary declares a Public Health Emergency.
Second, HHS Secretary deems a countermeasure to be potentially useful:
The Secretary may issue an authorization under this section with respect to the emergency use of a product only if... the Secretary concludes—
(1)that an agent referred to in a declaration under subsection (b) can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition;
(2)that, based on the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, IF AVAILABLE, it is REASONABLE TO [SUBJECTIVELY] BELIEVE that—
(A)the product MAY BE effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing—
(i)such disease or condition... and;
(B)the known and POTENTIAL benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, OUTWEIGH the known and potential risks of the product....
Third, it doesn't matter what is in the shots:
21 USC 360bbb-3a(c) Current good manufacturing practice
(1) In general. The Secretary MAY, when the circumstances of a domestic, military, or public health emergency or material threat described in subsection (a)(1)(C) so warrant, AUTHORIZE, with respect to an eligible product, DEVIATIONS from current good manufacturing practice requirements otherwise applicable to the manufacture, processing, packing, or holding of products subject to regulation under this chapter....
I don't say the lawsuits will be easy, but I do say that those findings can all be attacked on a factual basis. The key is to get past summary judgment and get to present the case to a jury. The attack would have to focus on the claim of a Public Health Emergency and (2)(B)--balancing benefits and risks. If misrepresentations of benefits and risks occurred there's a prima facie argument that fraud occurred and the case should go forward.
G' day Tamsin, thanks for your summarizing: (I'm much too long winded to even try!). I always felt (note: non-legal/lawyerly 'feel' thing) doing Warp Speed sounded amazing - too amazing to be true - and of course buy using the "emergency declaration" the results of many, many injuries, deaths and apparently permanent (generationally-transmitted) DNA modifications. I'll calm down to saying this wasn't intentional - not a bio-weapon - however rMNA had been shown a big-fail for 10 years in it's development for fighting cancer. Bringing it into Covid Vax usage REQUIRED the PREP act circumstance. Mark notes some legal obligation(s) exist by Manufacturers even if Gov't coercion is applied in his reply to my query if PERP does indeed provide immunity to them. I'm no legal guy-but I read the relevant PERP act immunity section and, well again my opinion/interpretation here, it appears they ARE protected. (This PERP act sub-section: https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/prepqa.aspx#immune3 ) *This specifically catches my untrained attention*: "Immunity from liability under the PREP Act is not available for death or serious physical injury caused by willful misconduct. A “serious physical injury” is one that is life-threatening, or results in or requires medical or surgical intervention to preclude permanent impairment of a body function or results in permanent damage to a body structure. Willful misconduct is misconduct that is greater than any form of recklessness or negligence."
**THIS line (repeating because I find it VERY compelling) "Willful misconduct is misconduct that is greater than any form of recklessness or negligence." Scares me a bunch Tamsin. Sounds like recklessness or negligence is okay and immunity applies. (If Mark's reading this, I hope he can clarify legal aspect).
Apologies for a long reply - (as noted, I AM long winded...) Blessing Tamsin & Mark and all fellow MIH'ers! (WrH)
I would argue--and maybe there are some lawyers with experience in PI work out there--that fraud goes beyond recklessness and negligence and is willful misconduct. This would then allow the case to proceed on a path to trial before a jury. I'm sure there is case law out there on these issues. I'd like to see these cases brought.
Thank you for your thoughts Mark. I find laws that provide horrible behaviors protection by our Gov't (and it's agents) reprehensible. "War-time exceptions" would perhaps be acceptable - but how about used during war? And I fully agree with you these cases need be brought! Rich Blessings for you and your loved ones this Christmas! (WrH)
Yes the PREP act turns out to be a PERP act.
I also missed my typos calling it the PERP act. Hmmm, lucky me! Merry Christmas T! (WrH)
Perfect Tamsin!
See, you're concise - me? Not even close! Thanks again and I pray you and your loved ones are amazingly blessed this Christmas! (Wrh)
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/illinois-bill-would-require-blood-donors-disclose-covid-vaccination-status
Don’t forget that reproductive juice, a friend said he saw an add for unjabbed sperm donors. I wonder what the going rate is.
You’re blood may be valuable some day!
They used to like my blood. Then about a decade after I came back, they decided they no longer wanted blood from anyone who happened to be in the U.K. when mad cow disease started over there. So though I'm unjabbed, my blood remains "no go".
Any bonus for both no-vax AND natural covid anti-bodies? :^) I think early on the search for non-vax'd, recovered ill folk's blood went on. That told me then there was much to the 'skepticism' (decried but now proven true!). Best at you A/C! (WrH)
Covid and Coffee's Jeff Childer' thinks this will penetrate the legal shield of Pfizer, and he has a very good non technical explanation and analysis of the article, why it's important, and how it got published.
https://substack.com/inbox/post/139586059
And Igor Chudov last night went way technical on the issue:
https://substack.com/inbox/post/139519958
The role of fraud versus vaccine immunity has been a recurring theme in many lunchtime conversations with my colleagues. We are mostly M&A and securities lawyers, so, representations and warranties draw primary concern in our practices. Fraud, as commonly understood (basically, common-law fraud), typically required detailed proof that a fact or set of facts, known to be false, was presented with the specific intent to deceive another into taking action he or she would not otherwise have taken absent the intentional misrepresentation. Lots of elements of proof to tick off there.
There is a clear trend, however, over the last decade or so (and, very clearly, following a number of Delaware cases, in the past 5 years), toward concepts such as constructive or equitable fraud and their having the same effects as common-law fraud in unravelling agreements and consent. Under this newer approach, the general idea (and this IS very much a generalization, YMMV in factual context) is that a claimant need only establish that a rep/warranty was irresponsibly made and was relied upon to the detriment of the recipient. So, in this case, vax manufacturers’ claims that their products were “imperfect” or “there was no way of knowing” should not get them off the hook for fraud, as leaving statements out there, completely uncorrected or unqualified, among the consuming public as to matters that were clearly unknown or unknowable is, in itself, an irresponsible representation. The assurance that, if we got the vax, we couldn’t transmit and kill Grandma (the very reason many vaxxed up), is particularly egregious in light of Pfizer’s later admission that transmissibility was never even studied in the first place. This newer understanding is so prevalent that nearly all representations-and-warranty-insurance policies now include in their ‘fraud’ exclusions any representations/warranties made (without actual-knowledge qualification) as to matters unknown, unknowable and unexamined.
So, the law SHOULD be there to challenge immunity, but is anyone in the private sector going to take up the charge against all the law-firm behemoths repping pharma? State AGs, I think, will be the only option.
Analysis of Tx Lawsuit:
https://uncoverdc.com/2023/12/04/texas-v-pfizer-the-covid-19-vaccines-are-the-miracle-that-wasnt
Thanks for this, Ray. Had heard about the suit, but didn't check the details yet. Very helpful here.
Chudov's discussion is quite good.
There is a good argument that it is not fraud if Pfizer (and Moderna) delivered to the USGov exactly what the USGov ordered -- a medical countermeasure for which legal immunity holds via the PREP Act in a declared public health emergency. On such a "war footing", nobody is defrauded, everybody is in combat.
I haven't read Chudov, but I would add that it still matters what misrepresentations were made to induce people to take the shots and whether threats/coercion were also involved. Supposing for example that the government made the misrepresentations, would pharma be obliged to correct those misrepresentations? I think a strong argument could be made in the affirmative.
I was trying to cobble together a comment w/info including PREP act when you posted. (I wish I could claim Great Minds think alike, but I fail my part!). My comment has link to PREP act Gov't info page, FWIW. Best regards Tamsin! (WrH)
I would still argue that the pitch for the shot changed over time and that by the time they came out the low risk--compared to a real bioweapon--as well as the risks--Japanese study--were known.
No "legal shield" can immunize you if there's deliberate fraud involved against a third party. There's some legal maxim to that effect, but I forget the exact wording. What I'm saying is that no agreement between the gov and a pharma company can immunize the company if it commits fraud that harms the injected person.
Exactly.
Prep Act Mark (As Tamsin suggests)? Truck driver mentality - obviously I'm no lawyer! My comment has link to Gov't Prep Act site. Thanks! (WrH)
As someone who worked in the IT industry for over 35 years, I will tell you never ever ever trust a 1.0 version of any product. You can almost always count on getting bit in the butt by something that they forgot in the process of bringing the product to market. It took a while for me to realize this, but luckily I had a clue about the time they were touting “warp speed” and opted for natural immunity. Got it once and took care of a lot of folks who got sick without ever having an issue.
Nice to be on the leading edge, not so much the bleeding edge.
Three cheers for iterative design . . . which used to be how pharmaceutical products (and for that matter hair spray) was brought to market. But if you can bank this year's profits then disappear who cares about little details like that? See also every single version of Windoze ever released.
Yeah, “market” is key, drugs are good, etc. (as are armaments for fighting wars)! Remember when “herd immunity” was a thing? But how do you “market” that? Problème…