Friday, May 17, 2019

On Vaccine Manufacturers Not Being Liable

The following was written in response to a pharmaceutical-paid troll’s comments.  Since W*eth was so much on this troll’s mind, this troll must be employed by W*eth. Educated parents do not support vaccine companies.  Only paid trolls do.

If a vaccine-making company sends out a vial that is expired and it is used, the company can be held liable.  But check out this language:
“…design defects were not mentioned because they are not a basis for liability.”  This is exactly what we, people who say that pharmaceutical companies cannot be held liable, mean.  The glass, contaminants, and metals that are in a vaccine without any benefit to the patient that in fact should not be there will not be a reason to hold them responsible.

Further the link below says, “Taxing their product to fund the compensation program, while leaving their liability for design defect virtually unaltered, would hardly coax them back into the market.”  We know that “The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA or Act) created a no-fault compensation program to stabilize a vaccine market adversely affected by an increase in vaccine-related tort litigation and to facilitate compensation to claimants who found pursuing legitimate vaccine-inflicted injuries too costly and difficult.”

We know that vaccines are taxed so you are actually paying into the fund for injuries if you support the vaccine business.  Your case will be heard by the Court of Federal Claims, naming the Health and Human Services Secretary as the respondent.  What you may not know is that this position, which is on your side in any other situation, is against you in this situation.

“As a quid pro quo,” meaning something for something else, “manufacturers enjoy significant tort-liability protections,” which means protection even though they committed a wrongful act leading to civil legal liability.  “Most importantly, the Act eliminates manufacturer liability for a vaccine’s unavoidable, adverse side effects.”

This document discusses Hannah’s famous case where the DTP killed her and the family got about $200,000, if I remember correctly.  This document says, “Wyeth removed the suit to the Federal District Court. It granted Wyeth summary judgment,” which means a judgment was entered by a court for Wyeth over the grieving mother without a full trial, “holding that the relevant Pennsylvania law was preempted,” which means stopped from being noticed, used, considered, acknowledged, “by 42 U. S. C. §300aa–22(b)(1)…” Basically, if your kid is maimed or murdered by vaccines, you get doubly screwed because you paid the tax but they make it hard for you to win a case where they won’t acknowledge the evidence, because the company is more powerful that you and they probably knew it would harm anyway.  “…which provides that ‘[n]o 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.’” You should be able to easily sue a manufacturer for a bad reaction to a pharmaceutical period!

“The NCVIA,” National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, “preempts,” take action in order to prevent from happening, “all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs seeking compensation for injury or death caused by a vaccine’s side effects. Pp. 7–19. (a) Section 300aa–22(b)(1).”  This is legislation that wants to stop compensation from happening but doesn’t care about stopping injuries and deaths.  It wants to stop the heartbroken parents in their tracks.
“The language of the provision thus suggests the design is not subject to question in a tort action.”  In an infringement of a right leading to a civil liability.  The design most certainly should be up for question.

“Though products-liability law establishes three grounds for liability—defective manufacture, inadequate directions or warnings, and defective design—the Act mentions only manufacture and warnings. It thus seems that the Act’s failure to mention design-defect liability is ‘by deliberate choice, not inadvertence.’ Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U. S. 149, 168. Pp. 7–8.
Hmm.  Well, that certainly includes more than simply offering an expired product. Since I am familiar with “drive” involving working rather than travelling, “design” needs to be investigated.  Are they admitting the designed biowarfare so if it kills it’s what they wanted.  Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Ed. Has “scheme” and “contrive” for design.  Interesting that designedly is “‘Wilfully,’ ‘Knowingly,’ ‘Unlawfully,’ and ‘Felloniously’” (p.233).  Well, it’s still interesting that they cannot be held liable for the manufacture of the product.  Unclean workers, products, and room can all fit into the manufacture part of which they are not liable.  But as for being able to use a vaccine that doesn’t have the harmful element, there are so many harmful elements in vaccines, a combination of harmful elements could have caused the injury or death with any vaccine….by design.

In Black’s Law it defines unavoidable as inevitable” (p. 792).  “Moreover, reading the phrase ‘side effects that were unavoidable’ to exempt injuries caused by flawed design would require treating ‘even though’ as a coordinating conjunction linking independent ideas when it is a concessive, subordinating conjunction conveying that one clause weakens or qualifies the other.”  Who cares about semantics?  Inevitable side effects means just that!

“Design defects do not merit a single mention in the Act or in Food and Drug Administration regulations that pervasively regulate the drug manufacturing process. This lack of guidance for design defects, combined with the extensive guidance for the two liability grounds specifically mentioned in the Act, strongly suggests that design defects were not mentioned because they are not a basis for liability. The Act’s mandates lead to the same conclusion.” Well, that’s just ridiculous, but right there it’s saying the drug companies are not liable for a design defect, so there.  That supports the truth that you can’t sue drug companies for vaccines that maim and kill unless they give you an expired vaccine.

“It [the NCVIA] provides for federal agency improvement of vaccine design and for federally prescribed compensation, which are other means for achieving the two beneficial effects of design-defect torts—prompting the development of improved designs, and providing compensation for inflicted injuries.”  Not really.  The tax is all the compensation and federal agencies have not looked into improving vaccine design.

The troll claims those educated and choosing to not vaccinate do not read the safety test…that actually don’t exist.

The CDC paper the troll provided stated:

● Currently, the United States has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in its history

Um.  Excuse me.  There is no proof that vaccines are safe.  They are cultured on animal parts.  Animals have a plethora of viruses that come into the vaccine product.  You can get exposure to many awful pathogens by vaccines.  Glass has been found in them. You want to find weirdness?  Go read about what has been found in these so-called safe vaccines.

They are tested extensively by their paid robots who can’t speak against the company.  People who have signed a hush clause.  Vaccines are sometimes effective at giving the infection they are intended to prevent, but that’s about it.  What studies?  Where are the double-blind studies against a saline-placebo-receiving group who has never been vaccinated?  Where’s the data one year later?  Five years later?  Ten years later?  In fact, where are the comparisons of vaccine-free adults’ health records against vaccine receivers’ health records?  Nothing.  No proof.

More doctors right now know about VAERS compared to any other time, but not many use it.  They also are not trained in detecting vaccine injuries.  Immunization is an incorrect word for vaccine.  To experience the infection is to be immunized against it.

No comments:

Post a Comment