What’s really disheartening is the fact that the the people responsible the pharmaceutical industry will not pay a dime. They will walk away they’ll probably laugh about it like the laws protected us, it’s on these companies now. It’s out of their hands, they don’t care
This was a repeated claim made in this interview, but the truth is that the indemnification does not protect against fraud. It will be decided, of course, by the courts, which is less than certain as to how this will be ruled upon, but Pharma is far from being in the clear at present. Much will be decided with the Brook Jackson whistleblower case. She has clear evidence of fraud, and the defense of Pharma is not that the evidence of fraud does not demonstrate the presence of fraud, but that the govt was a collaborating party eliminating Pharma’s actions from being considered fraud. As Robert Barnes, Jackson’s lawyer explains:
“What is fascinating is that Pfizer has moved to dismiss the case, and their ground to dismiss as they repeated in the scheduling conference …is that it doesn’t matter if they submitted fraudulent certifications to the government, it doesn’t matter if they submitted false statements under penalty of perjury to the government; it doesn’t matter if they lied about the safety and efficacy of the drugs, mislabeled in my opinion as vaccines, because the government was in on this with them.”
https://zero-sum.org/pfizer-defense-against-vaccine-fraud-case/
Consequently, the conclusion that Pharma will not pay a dime is far from certain. It would require, once again, for a court to deem fraudulent activity as being legitimate, and in this case, it would mean that the legal system was certifying that the these corporations could get away with murder, the murder of literally unknowable numbers of people to which the number keeps rising. That is a tall ask for a court to stipulate, as I see things, but time will tell.
EDITOR
Ted Belman
tbelman3- at- gmail.com
Co-Editor
Peloni
peloni1986@yahoo.com
Customized SEARCH
ISRAPUNDIT DAILY DIGEST
Subscribe for Free
SUPPORT ISRAPUNDIT
If you are paying by credit card, when filling out the form, make sure you show the country at the top of the form as the country in which you live.
This was a repeated claim made in this interview, but the truth is that the indemnification does not protect against fraud. It will be decided, of course, by the courts, which is less than certain as to how this will be ruled upon, but Pharma is far from being in the clear at present. Much will be decided with the Brook Jackson whistleblower case. She has clear evidence of fraud, and the defense of Pharma is not that the evidence of fraud does not demonstrate the presence of fraud, but that the govt was a collaborating party eliminating Pharma’s actions from being considered fraud. As Robert Barnes, Jackson’s lawyer explains:
https://zero-sum.org/pfizer-defense-against-vaccine-fraud-case/
Consequently, the conclusion that Pharma will not pay a dime is far from certain. It would require, once again, for a court to deem fraudulent activity as being legitimate, and in this case, it would mean that the legal system was certifying that the these corporations could get away with murder, the murder of literally unknowable numbers of people to which the number keeps rising. That is a tall ask for a court to stipulate, as I see things, but time will tell.