Isn't this because the mRNA vaccines were manufactured at a massive scale that guaranteed some batches would be fouled? And wasn't the Defense Department overseeing all of this manufacturing?
Isn't this because the mRNA vaccines were manufactured at a massive scale that guaranteed some batches would be fouled? And wasn't the Defense Department overseeing all of this manufacturing?
Actually Pfizer and Moderna were overseeing their own manufacturing, in a total conflict of interest. The State of Texas is suing both corporations for Medicaid Fraud, after a whistleblower came forward and admitted that the DNA fragments reported by Sasha Latypova and in more detail by a team of 4 Canadians including "Unacceptable Jessica" Rose, PhD, were obtained by growing the mRNA in E coli bacteria. The mRNA vaccine that passed FDA safety tests and is approved for human use, was grown in a cell line bequeathed to researchers by a dead human infant in 1985, which has been kept growing in culture media. According to the whistleblower, Bourla approached the US Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops with a last-minute proposal: Some medical ethicists argued that injecting ourselves with a product made from surviving cells of a human infant, was cannibalism. Bourla, says the whistleblower, proposed to the Bishops that growing the mRNA in bowel bacteria would overcome the cannibalism assertion, and the Bishops agreed to promote the vaxx in their churches if it were not grown in human cells. Bourla never informed the FDA of this change of plans, realizing that FDA would order Pfizer and Moderna to repeat all the safety tests to see if growing the mRNA in bowel bacteria would cause new problems not seen in the original vaxx. Net result: Millions of people got injected with DNA from E coli, an organism that makes water dangerous to drink.
case of fraud. They paid for an FDA-approved vaccine and were shipped a vaccine the FDA never approved.
Getting the Texas lawsuit dismissed is nearly impossible, because Texas has all the elements of a fraud, alleged and supported with statements from witnesses. So the only remaining questions are whether President Trump had the authority to grant Pfizer and Moderna immunity from lawsuit, and whether they are, in fact, immune.
In the 2020 elections case argued last week before the US Supreme Court, Trump asserted that all actions by a President are immune from suit, but under questioning by Chief Justice John Roberts, Trump's lawyer quickly admitted that Presidents do not have absolute immunity.
Since President Trump's own immunity is not absolute, reasonably he lacked the authority to grant absolute immunity from lawsuit, to anybody else.
In the present context, that would mean Moderna and Pfizer can claim immunity from the Texas fraud lawsuit, Texas AG Ken Paxton can claim they have no such immunity, and the immunity issue becomes a controversy to be settled at trial.
When George W Bush granted airline companies immunity from lawsuit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he combined the immunity grant with tens of millions of dollars in compensation to victims of the attacks and their heirs. Accepting the money required signing an agreement not to sue the airlines nor the US for the attacks. This made moot the issue of whether Bush could grant immunity from suit.
But neither Trump nor Biden got any such contractual agreement from anybody, not to sue Pfizer and Moderna. Pfizer and Moderna's sole defense is to claim that Trump had the legal authority to grant immunity to the two corporations, when he granted it.
Isn't this because the mRNA vaccines were manufactured at a massive scale that guaranteed some batches would be fouled? And wasn't the Defense Department overseeing all of this manufacturing?
Might be, they just were careless when producing it. Or the technology is difficult to master.
Actually Pfizer and Moderna were overseeing their own manufacturing, in a total conflict of interest. The State of Texas is suing both corporations for Medicaid Fraud, after a whistleblower came forward and admitted that the DNA fragments reported by Sasha Latypova and in more detail by a team of 4 Canadians including "Unacceptable Jessica" Rose, PhD, were obtained by growing the mRNA in E coli bacteria. The mRNA vaccine that passed FDA safety tests and is approved for human use, was grown in a cell line bequeathed to researchers by a dead human infant in 1985, which has been kept growing in culture media. According to the whistleblower, Bourla approached the US Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops with a last-minute proposal: Some medical ethicists argued that injecting ourselves with a product made from surviving cells of a human infant, was cannibalism. Bourla, says the whistleblower, proposed to the Bishops that growing the mRNA in bowel bacteria would overcome the cannibalism assertion, and the Bishops agreed to promote the vaxx in their churches if it were not grown in human cells. Bourla never informed the FDA of this change of plans, realizing that FDA would order Pfizer and Moderna to repeat all the safety tests to see if growing the mRNA in bowel bacteria would cause new problems not seen in the original vaxx. Net result: Millions of people got injected with DNA from E coli, an organism that makes water dangerous to drink.
case of fraud. They paid for an FDA-approved vaccine and were shipped a vaccine the FDA never approved.
Getting the Texas lawsuit dismissed is nearly impossible, because Texas has all the elements of a fraud, alleged and supported with statements from witnesses. So the only remaining questions are whether President Trump had the authority to grant Pfizer and Moderna immunity from lawsuit, and whether they are, in fact, immune.
In the 2020 elections case argued last week before the US Supreme Court, Trump asserted that all actions by a President are immune from suit, but under questioning by Chief Justice John Roberts, Trump's lawyer quickly admitted that Presidents do not have absolute immunity.
Since President Trump's own immunity is not absolute, reasonably he lacked the authority to grant absolute immunity from lawsuit, to anybody else.
In the present context, that would mean Moderna and Pfizer can claim immunity from the Texas fraud lawsuit, Texas AG Ken Paxton can claim they have no such immunity, and the immunity issue becomes a controversy to be settled at trial.
When George W Bush granted airline companies immunity from lawsuit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he combined the immunity grant with tens of millions of dollars in compensation to victims of the attacks and their heirs. Accepting the money required signing an agreement not to sue the airlines nor the US for the attacks. This made moot the issue of whether Bush could grant immunity from suit.
But neither Trump nor Biden got any such contractual agreement from anybody, not to sue Pfizer and Moderna. Pfizer and Moderna's sole defense is to claim that Trump had the legal authority to grant immunity to the two corporations, when he granted it.