[H/T ExTexasRedhead]
Posted on 03/03/2022 12:10:20 PM PST by ransomnote
[H/T ExTexasRedhead]
There have been 3.6 billion doses of Pfizer distributed worldwide, 554 million in the US.
No one. They all got immunity for fielding an experimental vaccine without proper testing.
I don’t know. My guess is that the attorney’s math is impaired.
If it was that high, we would see it in the mortality rates.
If it was that high, I doubt it would ever have been approved.
I seriously doubt that there is a pfizer document that claims a 3% mortality rate.
The attorney is probably doing his own calculation and it’s probably seriously flawed.
That’s my guess and I’m sticking to it.
I think the answer is that it takes two to five years to kill ya. Just you wait and see.
/s
That’s my question.
Wait? You are saying that the belief that people, who had been working for 20 years on this type of experimental gene therapy, had botched it is some sort of "conspiracy"?
No, I think they didn't test it thoroughly enough and they shoved it out the door before it was ready.
all a huge conspiracy to cover it up.
Of course people are going to try to cover it up if they are responsible for it. Every little child tries to hide what they did, and some dogs try to hide what they did too.
This is fear and shame at work.
Do you think those docs attribute those deaths to the vaccine?
So the 3% deaths includes lots of people who are still alive?
Fraud vitiates everything.
Fraud evaporates the immunity.
In December and January 2020-2021, severely debilitated elderly people living in nursing homes were prioritized for vaccination. If only 3% of THEM died in the ensuing two years, the vaccine would be a miracle.
Over the same time, we vaccinated 5000 health care workers. If 3% of THEM died, that would be 150 dead, and the correct number is zero.
The data in its current form is uninterpretable.
>>Clearly 3% mortality from vaccines is not occurring.
Don’t confuse people with match.
>>Don’t confuse people with match.
Make that MATH
Yeah! Don’t play with matches!
Your post effectively said “I want to believe this is true, but it probably isn’t true”. I understood it as you wrote it. The “but” doesn’t take away the “I want”. Maybe you DON’T want to believe it’s true, but that isn’t what you wrote.
I think that was Moderna.
Moderna has one product. Covid vaccine. Oddly enough they have a patent on Covid, the virus structure itself dated 2018. The entire company of 3,000+ people.
But we only saw 3.4 million total deaths in 2021 from all causes.
Up about 17% over 2020 when there was no vaccines.
—
So total deaths went up in 2021 when there were vaccines available over 2020 when vaccines were not available, but the virus was raging. Hmm. Sounds like the vaccine is not helping, but hurting.
Simple math, but the nuts won’t believe you. I’ve never supported mandates and would recommend most folks under 50 skip the vaccines...but 3% mortality? That would be incredibly hard to hide!
UNITED STATES
v.
THROCKMORTON.
October Term, 1878
"There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. There is also no question that many rights originally founded in fraud become—by lapse of time, by the difficulty of proving the fraud, and by the protection which the law throws around rights once established by formal judicial proceedings in tribunals established by law, according to the methods of the law—no longer open to inquiry in the usual and ordinary methods. Of this class are judgments and decrees of a court deciding between parties before the court and subject to its jurisdiction, in a trial which has presented the claims of the parties, and where they have received the consideration of the court."
https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/publications/supreme-court-confirms-fraud-unravels-all/
Takhar
v.
Gracefield.
March 20, 2019
Res judicata is the fundamental legal and public interest principle which states that there should be finality to litigation and that defendants should not face repeated litigation in respect of the same set of circumstances. The courts also have the power to strike out claims which amount to an abuse of process. Although there is no specific definition of ‘abuse of process’ in this context, it is clear that this covers (non-exhaustively) re-litigation situations; advancing a case or issue that is inconsistent with an earlier judgment [1]; and advancing claims or arguments that could and should have been made in earlier proceedings [2].
Res judicata is the fundamental legal and public interest principle which states that there should be finality to litigation and that defendants should not face repeated litigation in respect of the same set of circumstances. The courts also have the power to strike out claims which amount to an abuse of process. Although there is no specific definition of ‘abuse of process’ in this context, it is clear that this covers (non-exhaustively) re-litigation situations; advancing a case or issue that is inconsistent with an earlier judgment [1]; and advancing claims or arguments that could and should have been made in earlier proceedings [2].
Res judicata and the rules against abuse of process exist for the protection of all. The certainty and finality of litigation; the authority and supremacy of a judgment of the court; and the cost-efficiency of the court process for individual parties and for the public as a whole, all depend upon these important principles…
… but what is the position if an earlier judgment has been obtained by fraud?
Under English law, there is no defined cause of action of civil or commercial ‘fraud’. Instead, the term is used to cover a range of legal options, including deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation; claims arising out of conspiracy, bribery, forgery, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust; and inducing breach of contract, many of which often form elements of lender litigation. The common theme is deliberate action on the part of the wrongdoer which generally involves dishonest conduct. The law sees any such action as being so serious that the maxim ‘fraud unravels all’ is now well established. The presence of a fraud might therefore invalidate a contractual agreement or carve-out, or it might lift the bar on re-litigation which would otherwise exist.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/98/61
What this means is is that the protection racket that the Biden regime gave the Big Pharma crooks will not protect them. This concept is firmly rooted in both the Common Law and in American Supreme Court decisions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.