My comments are not about vaccines, effectiveness, reactions, and all the SubStack info therein.
I commenting on the bizarre hatred that mirrors the Left about Companies that are in business to make money, when the actually make money.
Mutual Funds by shares NOT FOR THEMSELVES or for Billionaires, but for groups that entrust them with their clients investments.
Like Unions, or Company provided 401Ks, or Pensions.
Or just Fidelity investors.
You people act like the Left when you convince yourselves a couple of fat greedy bankers are the only people involved in business or the stock exchange.
Very naive.
“My comments are not about the vaccines…” DC
You have been, for months, one of the biggest cheerleaders for these mRNA injections.
So, now that subterfuge on the approval process is demonstrated, you are switching your argument to: attacking these firms is an attack on capitalism itself.
PFE is fighting court orders in an attempt to hide the what they knew as they were trying to get approval. PFE has paid billions in fines for falsifying clinical trial information on previous, less profitable drugs.
Gmafb
Capitalism is fine. Lying for profit at the expense of the health of the human race, well that is criminal, even in capitalism.
The Supreme Court has been very clear that "Fraud vitiates everything."
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.