Monday, May 3, 2021

"If COVID-19 vaccines are so safe why the necessity for blanket liability protection?"

 At the post, Are the COVID-19 Vaccines Safe?, a commenter asks a rhetorical question in an attempt to suggest that vaccines are not safe:

 [I]f they're so safe why the necessity for blanket liability protection?

Well, actually there are a few reasons.

In a purely free market, if I ran a pharmaceutical company, it is very possible that I would always sell my pharmaceuticals with non-recourse if something were to go wrong.  I would never want to put my entire company at risk.

I would put out the tests I ran and pretty much say: "Here is what I am offering come and get it if you want but don't come back to me if there are serious side effects. Sign here."

Of course, the degree to which I could pull this off would depend upon what the competition was doing but there is certainly the possibility that total liability protection could emerge as a regular factor in free market vaccines and other pharmaceuticals.

Second, another reason I might want total liability, even if I was 100% confident in a vaccine (or other treatment), is that if I am distributing it to tens of millions of people, there is a very good chance (even a certainty) that someone is going to experience a health crisis within a short period of taking the vaccine that may have nothing to do with the vaccine but would set me up for serious lawsuits. 

The commenter also adds, in response to my point, where I ask an earlier commenter to explain why he says vaccines are "inherently unsafe."  The current commenter writes:

[T]he burden of proof is on those claiming the covid shots are safe. 

Well, the original commenter is making a claim about all vaccines. I am making no claims at all. I am simply asking the original commenter to explain his claim. I don't have to prove anything. I am making zero claims.

The commenter then references the VAERS reports as proof that there is a problem with COVID-19 vaccines because of the larger number of VAERS reports. Indeed, this might be a sign of a problem BUT total context is not being provided here. It may very well be that people who are getting the COVID-19 vaccine are being monitored much more closely than those who get flu vaccines. It is possible this could account for the higher VAERS reports around the COVID-19 vaccines.

Finally, the commenter writes:

I'm not qualified to accurate describe the mechanisms, but with some searching you'll find numerous doctors who will elaborate on the possible mechanisms these experimental gene therapies could/should be considered dangerous.

And this has been my point. Comments are flowing from people who admit that when pushed, they really don't know what they are talking about. And as for numerous doctors raising concerns, there hasn't been one that I have seen (and I have watched dozens of these videos) that hasn't made basic logical errors when they lay out their arguments.

In conclusion, as I have stated before, I am highly suspicious of the COVID-19 vaccine which was rushed through trials but I want facts and sound explanations with the problems of the vaccines. In the current environment, we are not getting solid context to anything going on with COVID-19.

The large number of supposed deaths from COVID-19 appears to be a highly politicized number. As for the value of the vaccine, no one is pointing out that we are in the spring so COVID-19 cases (if they act like the flu) would be declining dramatically anyway. That is, it might be the case that the vaccines don't work at all. But nothing is put in proper context. The contextual data is not being put out by either side. And that is my warning.

We can state that the safety of the vaccine looks suspicious, that the crony sociopaths at the CDC are making some illogical arguments which suggest they are playing some other game, but this is all we can say about the vaccine at this time.

As I have said before, I have zero interest in taking any of the COVID-19 vaccines but I would have no problem with pharmaceuticals offering them with total liability protection if things emerged that way on a free market. But again I have no interest, liability protection or not.

There are all kinds of products that I don't buy, that in my mind make little sense, from whole life insurance to warranty protection on products that cost less than $1,000. Obviously, others think differently. It seems to be that way with the COVID-19 vaccines. 

Because of government propaganda, or whatever, by taking a COVID-19 vaccine, many are part of a de facto massive experiment where the results are unknown. Not the kind of risk-reward experiment that I want to be part of. But, who knows? Maybe in 5 or 10 years, mRNA vaccines may prove effective and safe and help against serious viruses. Or maybe in a year, they will prove to be extremely dangerous. We don't know at this point.

So I am going to sit back for 5 or 10 years to see what happens and warn close friends that the vaccine at this point doesn't seem to have been properly tested. But I am not going to jump to the other end of the spectrum and hold that, at this point, there is sound evidence that the vaccines are ineffective or very dangerous. 

The government is running a vaccine scam with unknown consequences is the way I look at the current situation. Maybe things will settle down in 10 years and we will get full context.



  1. Be that as may be the liability exemption in many cases extends to governments themselves, including governments which are not only using taxpayers' money to propagandize for the vaccines, but which are softly mandating them by setting them up as a condition to work as a teacher, nurse, or engage in parts of public life.

    1. Be that as it may, what does that have to do with the topic of the post: The safety and effectiveness of the vaccine?

  2. RW, Okay, technically I can concede your point, but still there's something about the way that you're framing this that seems off to me... You seem to be addressing the question as though it's on a par with other important decisions in life such as with financial investment, or career choice, and as such your reasoning seems appropriate. However, the issue of this vaccine is a question that is different in KIND. We are talking about a new procedure injecting synthetic material into the blood stream of the human body - making a judgement or having a reasonable doubt standard here must consider this heightened context. You agree the vaccines appear to be risky, and I say that in this case: risky = dangerous. Add to this the abundant circumstantial evidence of pharma cronyism and a government belching deceit, deceit, deceit, for a year now with no end in sight, etc., and I think the ground is solid enough to call this "vaccine" dangerous. To say you're pettifogging would be too strong a word to use, but still, the word does come to mind... Also, I question whether you've looked closely enough at the experts who are decrying this "vaccine" and making their case; there is Yeadon (ex Pfizer VP) in England, and others in Germany and Scandinavia. See also Andrew Kaufman and Tom Cowan. JMJ

    1. Watched all the videos.

      They either make logical mistakes, do not provide full context, etc.

      As for "I can concede your point, but...," you sound like Alan Greenspan on his "theoretical" support for gold when he was Fed chair.

    2. Hah! Hard to feel insulted when you got me laughing! Theoretical support! - That bastard!

      Got to read too.


  3. Injected genetic modification.

  4. Dr Lidiya Angelova – Microbiologist in a three part (so far) article makes the point about these mRNA “vaccines” for C-19, which induce creation of the virus Spike protein, can, have and will cause health issues for recipients. And as the title eludes for those receiving blood donated by the vaccinated.

    “We should have the right to refuse blood transfusions from vaccinated for COVID-19 but can we?”

    1. @Wenzel

      Yeah because when you're unconscious and bleeding out you're certainly going to be able to give clear and concise instructions on where your stash of personal blood is. Of course I'm sure you would only give such sage advice to the goyim who you loathe so much.

    2. LOL, nail meets hammer! "Why should I care about the public blood supply, I'm a NAPster..."

  5. But the ***CASES*** are coming down for the vaccinated!! Gee, it couldn't be that the FDA recommends 40 cycles of PCR for the unvaccinated but only 28 cycles for the vaccinated. Kinda on a par with the mysterious disappearing Flu.

  6. Regarding the blanket liability protection: we aren't in a free market.
    These products are coerced on us (schools, work, and soon possibly more). Just yesterday CT removed its religious exemption. Here in CA, I can’t even send my kids to a private school without the full CDC recommended schedule.
    Debate regarding vaccine safety or the covid shot is not tolerated. It's dogma or a religion at this point... "vaccines are safe and effective".
    Most (ALL?) of these covid jabs were at least partially funded by the US Government who then grants the liability protection (but the profits are private of course). To protect their investment (and for other reasons), alternative medical options have been suppressed and in many cases made illegal. If Ford receives blanket liability protection I still have the option of buying a Toyota or other brand. In this case those options were denied to people. Why?

    Regarding the VAERS data:
    What evidence do you have that anything has changed since Harvard Medical Schools findings that less than 1% of adverse events are reported?
    I can’t help but think of this story: Do you think that doctor is aware of VAERS and files reports for suspected adverse reactions?

    Regarding your point about the mechanisms:
    What video’s or articles are you referring to and what logical errors were made?
    Why should we accept the theories being put forward by Moderna, Phizer, J&J, Fauci, the CDC, but not other doctors or those with the knowledge to speak intelligently on the matter? Who has the more honest track record? What motives do each of these parties have?
    I can’t recall who (may have been Dr. Sherri Tenpenny or someone interviewed on The Highwire) raised the concern of the covid shots causing the immune system to attack the cells that line the placenta. But, then we see this: Doesn’t mean that’s what’s happening, but certainly worth looking into.
    Interview with Dr. Bhakdi regarding blood clots and more:

    1. Also Robert, thank you for following this issue and allowing debate. I'm also glad you have not gotten the covid shot.

    2. great comments!

  7. Why would anyone get an experimental “vaccine” for an alleged disease for which the recovery rate is something like 99.97% amongst the general population.
    And that is without even considering the data in relation to the alleged death toll of the entire non-pandemic which this would have been considered had it happened a couple years ago. But then strangely just before it all began the WHO decided to change that definition. How odd?
    Compared to the 1957 Asian Flu the numbers are right in line when one adjusts for population increases.
    Compared to the 1917-1918 Spanish Flu and the OMFGVIRUS of 2020 does not even come close.
    Would have been a literal blip on the radar had the media, the WHO, governments, industry, etc etc not MARKETED it to the masses with fear and misinformation.
    Huh, wonder what they did that?

    1. TL;DR, JUST TRUST THE PSCIENCE! Facts only matter when they suit my narrative; I prefer to be scared!

  8. There is now very strong evidence that Ivermectin significantly reduces C-19 death rates. See Dr Tess Lawrie's interviews about her meta-analysis work below.
    ( (approx 30min). The full hour interview linked below.)

    Some of this is fairly technical - but worth sticking with. Dr Lawrie compares her large multi-survey meta-analysis of ivermectin as a Covid treatment with a WHO study of same. In contrast, the WHO recently recommended against ivermectin for prescription.

    Lawrie's comparison shows the WHO's study was inferior to the larger meta-analysis she performed. Not only that, but WHO did not follow it's own established guidelines when issuing their negative report. Lawrie argues that had WHO followed it's own guidelines, the WHO's study would yield a positive recommendation.

    (Dr John Campbell, her interviewer is about as mainstream and "middle of the road" a reviewer and commentator on Covid as you are likely to get. Dr Tess Lawrie's specialty is a "guideline methodologist". Her role and procedures are discussed briefly here. (7min). For a more detailed review of Dr Lawrie's methodology and the history of her study of ivermectin and Covid, see here. (1 hour))

    Dr John Campbell has been doing a more or less daily Covid review from the start of the pandemic. He subequently interviewed US specialist - Dr Pierre Kory - (Part 2.)

    Kory believes the case for ivermectin has now been scientifically established. He believes the "ban" on ivermectin is political and bureaucratic - not scientific. He believes it is related to the "Emergency Use Authorisation" exemptions granted to all the vaccines. If Ivermectin were accepted, the "Emergency Use" exemption status for the expensively developed vaccines could not be justified. If the rules were to be followed, the EUAs would need to be withdrawn and the vaccines would need to spend the next few years working their way through the "normal process" before being approved.This would be a commercial and fiscal disaster for the vaccine developers. He believes the pecuniary and intellectual/reputational investment in the "vaccines are the way out" position is so great as to be now inhibiting reform and needlessly costing human lives.

    I don't have expertise in this area to judge - but it is interesting to see the arguments being made by some technical specialists who do have the required expertise.

  9. Until a year ago I, like most people, believed that viruses caused diseases. When it became evident that governments intended to use this event for control I started to study the topic. Now, I understand that virologists are the Keynesians of biology and they've been getting away with their fraud since 1954 (Enders).

  10. VAERS is a scam run by General Dynamics. Look it up.

  11. When I go to a sushi bar, I always go to the ones who have a sign on their door that reads: "We have blanket immunity protection if the fish we serve you makes you ill."