"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.
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
oh god.
"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.
Thanks! Great info!