US Pharmaceutical Companies Are Not Completely Immune: Part 1

Legal protections not completely 'safe and effective'

Disclaimer: This does not constitute legal advice. Speak with a legal professional.

It is a common trope within both mainstream media and even independent media that pharmaceutical companies are completely immune to lawsuits within the US, and are therefore untouchable.

However, this is an artificial perception pharmaceutical companies and their paid stooges want you to think. The truth is there are a number of avenues and routes where the protections do not apply. Both bills also contain unconstitutional provisions, but we will be covering that in part 2.

Let us look first at the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act 1986

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 clearly states that it:

Provides that a manufacturer may be held liable where: (1) such manufacturer engaged in the fraudulent or intentional withholding of information; or (2) such manufacturer failed to exercise due care. Permits punitive damages in such civil actions under certain circumstances.

That is to say, if a vaccine manufacturer either:

• Commits fraud

• Withholds information, or

• Fails to exercise due care (read: negligent)

They are liable. They’re also liable if the product in question is not a vaccine, which is the real reason why the US government has desperately sought to adjust the public perception of the definition. The new definition is unlikely to apply to the old definition at the time the law was passed.

Defining Due Care

‘Due care’ is a legal phrase that refers to a process used to determine if someone was negligent or not. A failure to take due care like a reasonable person would, indicates negligence.

So for example, if a reasonable person found out shots were killing people, they would likely halt production, raise the alarm, warn others not to take the shots, issue a mandatory recall, attempt to find the cause of the problem, properly compensate victims and do far more to prevent any further harms.

However, in the case of say, Pfizer, when they found out the shots were killing people, they didn’t do anything. If anything, they tried to cover it up, which shows they did not exercise due care. If it is found they also commit fraud, or withheld information, they would also be liable.

Emergency Use Authorisation Uses A Different Act

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, however, is not the one that covers the toxic so-called ‘COVID-19 shots’, as the NCVIA is only for shots with full approval, not emergency authorisation.

Emergency authorisation shots would be governed under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). It is a much more restrictive act, and also a complex piece of legislation, so we need to untangle it first.

Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act 2005

In December 2005, President George W. Bush passed the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).

The act by itself does not immediately give immunity to vaccine manufacturers, but instead offers immunity for ‘countermeasures’ to pandemics under specific conditions.

The conditions that must be all true are:

1. A State of Emergency has been declared by the US government, and

2. The Health and Human Services secretary makes a PREP Act declaration, which must declare:

   1. Diseases the declaration applies to, and;

   2. Populations ‘countermeasures’ apply to, and;

   3. Geographic areas where the ‘countermeasures’ will be deployed, and;

   4. When the emergency for the ‘countermeasures’ will end

Once the declaration by the HHS secretary is made, then manufacturing of the ‘countermeasures’ can begin (not before, note), as vaccine manufacturers will have immunity to liability, with one exception…

Willful Misconduct For Serious Physical Injury Or Death

Quoting directly from the PREP Act, it says:

[…] the sole exception to the immunity from suit and liability of covered persons set forth in subsection (a) shall be for an exclusive Federal cause of action against a covered person for death or serious physical injury proximately caused by willful misconduct, as defined pursuant to subsection (c), by such covered person.

And it also says:

Persons who can sue.--An action under this subsection may be brought for wrongful death or serious physical injury by any person who suffers such injury or by any representative of such a person.

That is to say, anyone seriously injured by the COVID-19 poison shots, or anyone who represents those either seriously injured or killed (read: the family or lawyer can bring a suit on behalf of the dead), may bring a lawsuit against the pharmaceutical companies who engage in “Willful Misconduct”.

What Is Willful Misconduct?

It is defined in the PREP Act as:

• an act or omission, that,

• intentionally achieves a wrongful purpose,

• knowingly without legal or factual justification, and,

• in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit

• of which the plaintiff (read: one initiating the lawsuit) will have to prove, by "clear and convincing evidence" of willful misconduct that causes either death or serious physical injury.

We can be confident that with the deployment of the shots in children who are at minimal risk from SARS-CoV-2 (~1 in 500,000 risk of death compared to say, 1 in 20,000 blood clots from shots which can be fatal) that harm outweighs benefit, we can conclude…

…Pfizer & Co have disregarded known and obvious risks, knowingly, without any legal or factual justification, that achieves a wrongful purpose (I.E. kills children) that is both an act (Pfizer continue to promote the shots) and an omission (Pfizer refuse to withdraw the shots and compensate victims).

That is to say, under the PREP Act, the vaccine manufacturers are actually liable.

Also: Duration

Now, it strikes that the HHS cannot ‘foresee’ when an emergency declaration would end (a requirement for PREP Act), and thus, it is very likely they have constantly moved the goalposts in relation to the emergency duration.

Indeed, if you under their COVID-19 Prep Act declarations, you will find they have made constant amendments, which to me seems to violate the intention of declaring when the emergency would end if they can keep forever-extending it.

It is clearly evident therefore, whichever act you apply to the shots, neither of them extend actual liability protections to Pfizer and their cohorts.

Part 2 will be going over why both acts are unconstitutional, and why the acts are horrendously invalid and in violation of US Citizens rights.

---

Subscribe to get more content like this from The Daily Beagle.

Learned something new?

Or leave a comment below: