Defense attorneys in a Remdesivir injury in Michigan seeking to claim immunity from liability were shot down.
Facts of the case: A man was injured by glass shards in the Remdesivir vial used to treat him. He sued Gilead Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Remdesivir. Their lawyers tried to get the case removed on the grounds that they enjoyed immunity from prosecution. The judge did not allow it because the glass shards were not listed on the ingredients disclosure documents and therefore could not be subject to liability protection.
Remember my post about the DNA plasmids that were inserted into E. Coli in the process of making RNA copies to be converted into mod RNA and used in the vaccines? It turns out Pfizer did not list the SV-40 promoter and enhancer additions to the DNA plasmid genome in their ingredients disclosure documents submitted to the FDA.
You can see that the SV-40 promoter and enhancer segments of the plasmid were not disclosed to the FDA by Pfizer (upper figure) but when the genome was sequenced independently By Kevin McKernan and later confirmed by at least six other labs, the SV-40 promoter and enhancer are shown to be part of the DNA plasmid contaminants (lower figure)
I wondered if this left them open to liability because of the precedent set by the Michigan judge since the glass shards and the SV-40 contaminants are analogous. I asked Sasha Latypova, whom many of you know, for her opinion on this. Sasha is an expert in the manufacture of vaccines. Here is our exchange
Writes First Principles with Dr. Sheft…
7 hrs agoLiked by Sasha Latypova
Sasha, great as always. Did the precedent set by the judge in the "glass-in-vials" Remdesivir case change anything? His ruling was that because the recipient was injured by the glass fragments (which were not part of the ingredients disclosures), any immunity from liability did not apply and Gilead must stand trial. (I'm sure you know all of this)
LIKED (2)
REPLY (1)
SHARE
5 hrs agoAuthor
I need to read that case, I heard of it but didn't get the chance to read the ruling.
LIKED (1)
REPLY (1)
SHARE
Writes First Principles with Dr. Sheft…
Thank you. I'll wait patiently. I know you're super-busy.
LIKE
REPLY (1)
SHARE
41 mins agoAuthor
I don't know when I will get to reading the actual case, but from what I did read - this case is going to do extremely little to bring real justice even if successful. It will create more damage overall (and maybe that's why it was "allowed"). It enshrines in case law several falsehoods, namely that there was a viral pandemic (a lie), and that PREP Act is a legitimate piece of legislation, with proper protection for consumers built into it (false, PREP is a government license to kill), and that there is some sort of recourse for the injured "if" FDA "finds" something of concern in the product. So, arbitrarily, FDA decided to "notice" the glass shards to ensure that all of the above is documented and solidified by court decisions.
LIKED (1)
REPLY (1)
SHARE
Writes First Principles with Dr. Sheft…
Ah, I see. Very interesting (and sneaky). Thank you, Sasha.
LIKE
REPLY
SHARE
So there you have an expert’s opinion. These things are always more complicated than they appear. We’ll see how it turns out. I was thinking this might give the FDA the “out” they’ve been looking for and blame it all on Pfizer by saying something like. “Well, it’s not our fault. Pfizer didn’t tell us what was in the plasmids.”
Sasha’s Substack, “Due Diligence and Art”, is excellent, by the way. I highly recommend it.
Katherine Watt is pessimistic: "Yes, the whole thing is a coordinated red herring to pull attention and money away from attacks on DoD and WHO."
https://open.substack.com/pub/bailiwicknews/p/on-civil-suits-against-pfizer-for?r=wwaub&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
"Enshrining falsehoods in case law" was my objection to lawsuits over "mandates." There's no such thing in US law as a mandate that's defined as the ability of one American to compel or constrain the health care choices of another American. The proper response, if you object to a politician telling you to stand on a floor sticker and strap a rag on your face, is to ignore him. If you sue him you legitimize the idea that he had the right to order you around in the first place, even if your suit to make him stop is successful.
The Katherine Watt article that Charles links to in his comment contains an important and hopeful note, though: "[I]f some of the civil cases are framed properly, to draw Pfizer into pointing to DoD as the source of the raw materials and contractual obligations to put 'contaminants' like SV-40 promoters into the products and not disclose those ingredients to regulators or victims, then the civil cases could be useful to continuing to expose the whole criminal enterprise to the public and mobilize Congress to withdraw the US from WHO and the UN, and repeal PREP Act, the EUA laws and the rest of the 'public health emergency' legal structure." That would represent a huge win.