Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Big Pharma and Lawsuits related to vaccines


Recommended Posts

Glaxo Smith Klein.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/h1n1_narcolepsy_pandemrix.html

An increased risk of narcolepsyExternal Web Site Icon was found following vaccination with Pandemrix, a monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine that was used in several European countries during the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Narcolepsy is a chronic neurological disorder caused by the brain’s inability to regulate sleep-wake cycles normally. This risk was initially found in Finland, and then some other European countries also detected an association. Most recently, scientists at the United Kingdom’s (UK) Health Protection Agency (HPA) have found evidence of an association between Pandemrix and narcolepsy in children in England. The findings are consistent with studies from Finland and other countries.

The risk was there for sure, now GSK is in another 63 million dollar lawsuit because of it. The legal battle was won by those who got narcolepsy from the shots.

CDC recently published a studyExternal Web Site Icon on the association between 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, 2010/2011 seasonal influenza vaccines, and narcolepsy. The analysis included more than 650,000 people who received the pandemic flu vaccine in 2009 and over 870,000 people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2010/2011. The study found that vaccination was not associated with an increased risk for narcolepsy.

This is the site they reference in the study link.

http://www.neurology.org/content/early/2014/10/15/WNL.0000000000000987.short

Results: The number vaccinated with 2009 pandemic vaccine was 650,995 and with 2010–2011 seasonal vaccine was 870,530. Among these patients, 70 had a first-ever narcolepsy diagnosis code after vaccination, of which 16 had a chart-confirmed incident diagnosis of narcolepsy. None had their symptom onset during the 180 days after receipt of a 2009 pandemic vaccine compared with 6.52 expected, and 2 had onset after a 2010–2011 seasonal vaccine compared with 8.83 expected.

I have a problem with this. Were the two groups combined for the total and ratio? Specifically the accusation was against the Pandermix vaccine for the swine flu. Not the seasonal vaccines. So why include those numbers aside from padding the numbers so the ratio would be lower?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/22/us-narcolepsy-vaccine-pandemrix-idUSBRE90L07H20130122

I also find it interesting that the USA wont use these adjuvant vaccines in the USA. According to the Reuters article.

But then I find this..

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/adjuvants.html

Yep, they use adjuvants in some vaccines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements

Notice all of the lawsuits are because they violated the False Information Act. What false information is GSK putting out?

Apparently GSK has doled out about 9 billion in compensation since 2003 because of class action lawsuits.

Why don't we hear about this kind of stuff when we talk about vaccines?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aEr_s70bGdYo 1 billion. 2009

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/story/2012-07-02/glaxosmithkline-pleads-guilty-3B-fine-illicit-promotion-prescription-drugs/55979616/13 billion, 2012.

GSK's problems are worldwide. The following article is regarding China.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/glaxosmithkline-gsk-fined-4888-million-massive-bribery-network/story?id=25624684

http://www.phillipsandcohen.com/2012/Whistleblowers-played-major-role-in-Glaxo-case-leading-to-Glaxo-s-record-settlement.shtml

WASHINGTON DC, July 2, 2012 -- Two whistleblowers represented by Phillips & Cohen LLP provided the government with overwhelming evidence that was at the heart of the government's case against GlaxoSmithKline and the record-setting $3 billion settlement announced today.

The whistleblowers - Thomas Gerahty, a former senior marketing development manager for Glaxo, and Matthew Burke, a former regional vice president -- provided invaluable insider information that Glaxo was engaging in corrupt nationwide schemes to push sales of Advair, Wellbutrin, Imitrex and other popular prescription drugs for "off-label" (unapproved) uses, that it used improper financial inducements to market its drugs, and that it misrepresented the safety and efficacy of those drugs. Glaxo's illegal practices caused Medicare, Tricare - the healthcare program for the military -- and Medicaid to incur huge losses.

The civil settlement of Gerahty and Burke's whistleblower case against Glaxo and a separate whistleblower lawsuit filed in Colorado total $1.017 billion out of total settlement. It is the largest civil, False Claims Act (whistleblower) settlement on record. (Two other whistleblower lawsuits that alleged another improper practice concerning Advair marketing settled for $25 million, for a total of $1.042 billion paid under the settlement agreement for the four whistleblower cases.)

In addition, one of the government's criminal charges against Glaxo was based on information provided by Phillips & Cohen's qui tam lawsuit about the marketing of Wellbutrin. Glaxo paid $554.4 million to settle that criminal charge plus an additional $455 million to settle two other criminal charges.

Wonder why GSK keeps loosing lawsuits. I would assume other vaccine makers have had similar lawsuits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So much wrong, hard to know where to begin.

But, lets see:

Re: Vaccines "triggering" narcolepsy in europe......

First of all, the problems of narcolepsy are extremely rare. The lawsuit in the UK states that 1 in 55,000 may have developed narcolepsy. That means its something that affects less than 0.002% of the population. That is an extremely low rate for side effects. In Finland, the rate was also low (I believe around 0.006%) Even the most careful scientific testing would not be able to detect side effects that are that rare.

Lets put that into context... in Canada, the number of hospitalizations for influenza typically varies from 2000-6000 in a given year. Given our population base, that means 0.01% of people get hospitalized for influenza. That is roughly 5 times higher than the risk of contracting narcolepsy. (And that's only counting those sick enough to be hospitalized... doesn't count all the other millions of people who might get sick but without getting hospitalized.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10445062/Legal-bid-over-swine-flu-jab-link-to-narcolepsy.html

It should also be noted that the issue of narcolepsy and vaccines is not quite as clear cut as you might think... At least one of the papers linking the vaccine to narcolepsy have been withdrawn. Furthermore, some researchers are investigating the possibility that narcolepsy might have been triggered by an actual influenza infection (for example, in people who get exposed to the virus before the vaccine has allowed immunity to build up), rather than the vaccine itself.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/07/journal-retracts-paper-linking-vaccine-and-narcolepsy.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/swine-flu/8712366/Swine-flu-infections-trigger-narcolepsy-not-vaccine-says-study.html

Now, that doesn't prove the vaccine didn't trigger narcolepsy, and the issue is certainly worth exploring, but at this point its far too early to jump on the anti-vax bandwagon. (Especially for a side effect that is exceptionally rare.)


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/22/us-narcolepsy-vaccine-pandemrix-idUSBRE90L07H20130122

I also find it interesting that the USA wont use these adjuvant vaccines in the USA. According to the Reuters article.

But then I find this..

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/adjuvants.html

Yep, they use adjuvants in some vaccines.

If you take a look at the first article, it says that the U.S. is wary of the use of adjuvants. It does not say that the U.S. bans them altogether. It doesn't go into details about what it means to be "wary", but I assume it means the U.S. requires additional testing, something that may be seen as cost prohibitive for some vaccines.

The fact that you would take an article that uses the phrase "wary of adjuvants" and assume it means "bans them" demonstrates an inability to read and process information. Perhaps that may be why you seem appear to be anti-vax.


Notice all of the lawsuits are because they violated the False Information Act. What false information is GSK putting out?

Apparently GSK has doled out about 9 billion in compensation since 2003 because of class action lawsuits.

Why don't we hear about this kind of stuff when we talk about vaccines?

A few things need to be kept in mind:

GSK certainly has engaged in illegal activity. Certainly some of the things its done deserve punishment. But, its illegal activities tend to involve things like bribing doctors and marketing practices, and after skimming most of the references you gave seem to be mostly about regular medicines. Its science, in particular the science behind its vaccine, has not been subject to the same type of falsification.

When dealing with science (in particular of vaccinations), there are various checks and balances... peer review, replication by independent organizations, etc. The system is not perfect (hey, Wakefield got published), but it does give a higher degree of confidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and one more thing to add:

From: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2013/01/study-finds-post-h1n1-vaccination-rise-narcolepsy-3-nations

...the new study found increases in two Danish age-groups, even though Denmark had relatively low vaccine coverage.

...

They noted that although the signals in Finland and Sweden matched the background data they found, mismatches with age-specific diagnostic rates and pandemic vaccine coverage rates indicates that factors apart from the vaccine might also have a connection to the rise in narcolepsy cases that health officials detected.

Conclusion: science is hard, and medicine is complex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of the lawsuits against big pharma companies are regarding a false information act. Meaning they have lied about their products.

Lets see...

Looking at some of the links you provided:

- Chinese lawsuit: bribery. Noting to do with "false information"

- U.S. case: Case largely involved bad marketing practices. Pushing for doctors to proscribe products for "off brand" use. Which would not apply to vaccines, because the company is selling the vaccines for the specific reason they were manufactered, tested and approved for

And neither of those cases involved vaccines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So much wrong, hard to know where to begin.

But, lets see:

Re: Vaccines "triggering" narcolepsy in europe......

First of all, the problems of narcolepsy are extremely rare. The lawsuit in the UK states that 1 in 55,000 may have developed narcolepsy. That means its something that affects less than 0.002% of the population. That is an extremely low rate for side effects. In Finland, the rate was also low (I believe around 0.006%) Even the most careful scientific testing would not be able to detect side effects that are that rare.

Lets put that into context... in Canada, the number of hospitalizations for influenza typically varies from 2000-6000 in a given year. Given our population base, that means 0.01% of people get hospitalized for influenza. That is roughly 5 times higher than the risk of contracting narcolepsy.

Given a 5 times difference in risk between the flu, or getting a much worse side effect, I'd rather risk the flu. Wouldn't you?

In fact, if a vaccine has even a 1% chance of giving you a side effect worse than the disease it is trying to prevent, I'd say that's a vaccine that should not be generally used. Most mandatory vaccines are for diseases that have a high probability of being fatal or crippling in otherwise healthy individuals, and have extremely rare occurence of severe side effects. These vaccines are some of the greatest achievements of science and public health. Flu vaccines on the other hand...

I can't help but get the sense that the people trying to push mass vaccination for seasonal flu, which is marginally effective at best, never has time for proper testing (since it must be developed and deployed within a few months every year), and is targetting a disease which is only a minor inconvenience the vast majority of the time, are doing a disservice to public health, by making people more suspicious of vaccination in general (for many people, the distinction between different vaccines and different diseases is a distinction too far).

Edited by Bonam
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given a 5 times difference in risk between the flu, or getting a much worse side effect, I'd rather risk the flu. Wouldn't you?

Interesting point.

In fact, if a vaccine has even a 1% chance of giving you a side effect worse than the disease it is trying to prevent, I'd say that's a vaccine that should not be generally used. Most mandatory vaccines are for diseases that have a high probability of being fatal or crippling in otherwise healthy individuals, and have extremely rare occurence of severe side effects. These vaccines are some of the greatest achievements of science and public health. Flu vaccines on the other hand...

This is my view also. We have had vaccines that have been tested over and over again and proved to combat really debilitating ailments than can most likely result in death if it was not for the vaccines. Overall I have no problem with them, but rather most of the stuff that goes into a vaccine (mervury, formaldehyde and other things that should not be in the body in any amounts)

I can't help but get the sense that the people trying to push mass vaccination for seasonal flu, which is marginally effective at best, never has time for proper testing (since it must be developed and deployed within a few months every year), and is targetting a disease which is only a minor inconvenience the vast majority of the time, are doing a disservice to public health, by making people more suspicious of vaccination in general (for many people, the distinction between different vaccines and different diseases is a distinction too far).

I don't believe the seasonal flu shots are subject to the same testing standards as the vaccines you get once to prevent a certain disease. I get a shot for polio, and I never need one again. Making the risk very very very low.

Compare that with getting a seasonal flu shot or others that you need to take yearly. The risk is low, but now increased due to needing the shot every year. So one is gambling every year with the flu shot (sometimes more than one shot a year)

It's a good point Bonam, wish I had thought of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but get the sense that the people trying to push mass vaccination for seasonal flu, which is marginally effective at best, never has time for proper testing (since it must be developed and deployed within a few months every year), and is targetting a disease which is only a minor inconvenience the vast majority of the time, are doing a disservice to public health, by making people more suspicious of vaccination in general (for many people, the distinction between different vaccines and different diseases is a distinction too far).

This is an important point. Increasingly, those who are justifiably cautious regarding seasonal flu shots are getting labelled as "anti-vaxxers". Rather than brow-beating those people into submission, what it does is make them think that the anti-vaxxers might actually have a point. Inevitably, it has the opposite effect public health authorities were looking for. You can't put extreme labels on people who have legitimate concerns, because all it does is make them wonder who else you're doing that to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an important point. Increasingly, those who are justifiably cautious regarding seasonal flu shots are getting labelled as "anti-vaxxers". Rather than brow-beating those people into submission, what it does is make them think that the anti-vaxxers might actually have a point. Inevitably, it has the opposite effect public health authorities were looking for. You can't put extreme labels on people who have legitimate concerns, because all it does is make them wonder who else you're doing that to.

The process is to mock those who try to put forth a legitimate argument as Bonam has done. Talk over, talk down, ridicule, throw negative labels on them. Tow the line or be mocked. Works in other areas as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given a 5 times difference in risk between the flu, or getting a much worse side effect, I'd rather risk the flu. Wouldn't you?

In fact, if a vaccine has even a 1% chance of giving you a side effect worse than the disease it is trying to prevent, I'd say that's a vaccine that should not be generally used. Most mandatory vaccines are for diseases that have a high probability of being fatal or crippling in otherwise healthy individuals, and have extremely rare occurence of severe side effects. These vaccines are some of the greatest achievements of science and public health. Flu vaccines on the other hand...

I can't help but get the sense that the people trying to push mass vaccination for seasonal flu, which is marginally effective at best, never has time for proper testing (since it must be developed and deployed within a few months every year), and is targetting a disease which is only a minor inconvenience the vast majority of the time, are doing a disservice to public health, by making people more suspicious of vaccination in general (for many people, the distinction between different vaccines and different diseases is a distinction too far).

Go back and read what I wrote.

I never said that the risk of getting the flu was 5 times bigger than getting narcolepsy. I said that the risk of getting hospitalized with the flu was roughly 5 times bigger than getting narcolepsy.

I'm not talking about simply getting a fever, or having to call into work sick.... I'm talking about being so ill that the doctors decide to check you into the hospital to prevent serious complications... like death. In other words, your chance of being near death due to the flu is roughly 5 times bigger than the risk of narcolepsy.

In fact, your risk of getting the flu is actually roughly 2000 times bigger than the risk of catching narcolepsy.

And of course that's actually assuming the vaccine actually does have a causation effect on narcolepsy. I've already provided evidence suggesting that that link might not actually exist.

Most mandatory vaccines are for diseases that have a high probability of being fatal or crippling in otherwise healthy individuals, and have extremely rare occurence of severe side effects.

Lets see how many ways that particular statement has failed, shall we?

First of all, despite idiots trying to paint the influenza vaccine as some sort of bogey man, serious side effects are very rare.

Secondly, you don't just vaccinate to prevent death among the healthy... you also vaccinate to provide herd immunity. (Protection for people who cannot get vaccinated for some reason.)

Thirdly, influenza does have rather significant effects. In Japan, its estimated that the end of of mandatory vaccination in children (and a subsequent drop in vaccination rates) has lead to approximately 37-49,000 addition deaths per year. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11259722)

Of course, this doesn't include all the other types of secondary problems inflenza can cause...

- Myocarditis - destruction of heart muscle/tissue. By the way, if you look at the number of people affected, it surpasses the number of people who supposedly came down with narcolepsy

- Reye syndrom - Inflamation of brain and liver

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an important point. Increasingly, those who are justifiably cautious regarding seasonal flu shots are getting labelled as "anti-vaxxers". Rather than brow-beating those people into submission, what it does is make them think that the anti-vaxxers might actually have a point. Inevitably, it has the opposite effect public health authorities were looking for. You can't put extreme labels on people who have legitimate concerns, because all it does is make them wonder who else you're doing that to.

How would you prefer we label them?

People who don't understand science?

People who don't understand math?

People who lack reading comprehension?

People with anti-social attitudes?

That tends to be what I see whenever someone starts spouting the type of nonsense whenever anyone complains about the influenza vaccine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The process is to mock those who try to put forth a legitimate argument as Bonam has done. Talk over, talk down, ridicule, throw negative labels on them. Tow the line or be mocked. Works in other areas as well.

Perhaps if it sounds like your point is being ridiculed, its because your point deserves to be ridiculed and mocked.

If you don't want to be ridiculed, then perhaps you should, you know, educate yourself. Learn some science and critical thinking. And if there's something that you don't know, ask someone who's more knowledgable (which, at this point, would probably be a heck of a lot of people in the scientific community.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an important point. Increasingly, those who are justifiably cautious regarding seasonal flu shots are getting labelled as "anti-vaxxers". Rather than brow-beating those people into submission, what it does is make them think that the anti-vaxxers might actually have a point. Inevitably, it has the opposite effect public health authorities were looking for. You can't put extreme labels on people who have legitimate concerns, because all it does is make them wonder who else you're doing that to.

You see, here's the problem... when someone brings up supposed problems with the influenza vaccines, generally those issues are the result of misunderstanding something. So, information is presented.

Unfortunately it seems to be the same people repeating the same kind of bunk over and over again, unable to comprehend basic math or science. Its really hard to respect the opinions of people who are that adverse to critical thinking, or actually understanding the science they are commenting on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you prefer we label them?

People who don't understand science?

People who don't understand math?

People who lack reading comprehension?

People with anti-social attitudes?

That tends to be what I see whenever someone starts spouting the type of nonsense whenever anyone complains about the influenza vaccine.

Thank you for proving my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if it sounds like your point is being ridiculed, its because your point deserves to be ridiculed and mocked.

This is not helpful and very childish.

If you don't want to be ridiculed, then perhaps you should, you know, educate yourself. Learn some science and critical thinking. And if there's something that you don't know, ask someone who's more knowledgable (which, at this point, would probably be a heck of a lot of people in the scientific community.)

You are proving the point in which Bryan and Boman and I have put forth. Bonam made a legitimate argument in which you ridicule. I could create another thread on just this process alone, as this site has many examples of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 years later...

I recently found out that all of the big pharma companies in Canada and America cannot be sued if their vaccines does any harm to anyone after anyone has been vaccinated with their vaccines. Why is that anyway? Why should big pharma be protected from lawsuits by anyone for taking their vaccines if there is nothing to worry about taking those vaccines and that they all are safe. 

Is it because big pharma knows that most of their vaccines are harmful and dangerous and have been known to have done plenty of harm and damage and injury and even death to thousands of people who were suckered into taking a vaccine shot that may have had ingredients in them that will do great harm or kill anyone who takes one of their big pharma vaccine shots. 

I believe that this is why we have this so called China virus around today which is meant to eventually force the whole world to take an anti-virus vaccine shot which we will all be told that by taking Bill " Gates to hell" vaccine puss will surely save their lives. But from research done by many people, and even some doctors, they have reported and told us all that most if not all of those vaccines that have been created are not so great for anyone's health and well being.  All one has to do is go on the internet and punch in the dangers of vaccines and one will get plenty of information about what some vaccines have done to many people who took vaccines. I hope that our politicians with the help of the lying media will never try to force any of us to have to take a vaccine shot compliments of the deep state globalists like Bill "Gates to hell" vaccine. I have no problem with anyone who is willing to take the shot, go for it, but leave me and so many others who are against taking the shot. 

So, has this been all just a planned pandemic exercise that is now being reported by so many people and groups, and even some doctors, as a hoax that the deep state globalists like Gates, Zuckerborg, Bloomborg, Soros, Fauci, Birx, and the WHO, and so many other billionaires are pushing and whom all stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars by getting people to take their vaccine shot, and who have been able to create such a plandemic to the point where we are now all being pretty much forced into a lock down, and the enforcement of social distancing, or as some call it social engineering?

Many Canadians have had hefty fines placed on them which ranged anywhere from $880.00 - $1200.00 for daring to violate the China virus no contact law or for just being outside. Those are pretty much hefty fines for violating some no contact law. A $100 - $200.00 fine should have been plenty enough even though I think that any fines like those heavy handed fines issued above is nothing more than criminal. 

As I have said above. Why is big pharma being protected from lawsuits if their vaccines are supposed to be so safe for all, and we the people should have no fears or worries about taking their vaccines? The only reason why there is such a law against being allowed to sue big pharma over some vaccines is probably and maybe because there is no doubt that most of those vaccines and the junk that they put in those vaccines have and still are harming and killing thousands of people today. One can find many stories on the internet of people that have been injured or have died from taking some vaccine. A good question for you all to be asking and think about. Yes/no?  It's your call as to whether you still want to take the vaccine shot or not. I for one will not and never have taken any vaccine shots of any kind or or anything all my life. I just do not believe in them. Any comments on what I have said above? What say you? :)

 

 

 

 

Edited by taxme
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, taxme said:

I recently found out that all of the big pharma companies in Canada and America cannot be sued if their vaccines does any harm to anyone after anyone has been vaccinated with their vaccines. Why is that anyway? Why should big pharma be protected from lawsuits by anyone for taking their vaccines if there is nothing to worry about taking those vaccines and that they all are safe. 

Is it because big pharma knows that most of their vaccines are harmful and dangerous and have been known to have done plenty of harm and damage and injury and even death to thousands of people who were suckered into taking a vaccine shot that may have had ingredients in them that will do great harm or kill anyone who takes one of their big pharma vaccine shots. 

I believe that this is why we have this so called China virus around today which is meant to eventually force the whole world to take an anti-virus vaccine shot which we will all be told that by taking Bill " Gates to hell" vaccine puss will surely save their lives. But from research done by many people, and even some doctors, they have reported and told us all that most if not all of those vaccines that have been created are not so great for anyone's health and well being.  All one has to do is go on the internet and punch in the dangers of vaccines and one will get plenty of information about what some vaccines have done to many people who took vaccines. I hope that our politicians with the help of the lying media will never try to force any of us to have to take a vaccine shot compliments of the deep state globalists like Bill "Gates to hell" vaccine. I have no problem with anyone who is willing to take the shot, go for it, but leave me and so many others who are against taking the shot. 

So, has this been all just a planned pandemic exercise that is now being reported by so many people and groups, and even some doctors, as a hoax that the deep state globalists like Gates, Zuckerborg, Bloomborg, Soros, Fauci, Birx, and the WHO, and so many other billionaires are pushing and whom all stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars by getting people to take their vaccine shot, and who have been able to create such a plandemic to the point where we are now all being pretty much forced into a lock down, and the enforcement of social distancing, or as some call it social engineering?

Many Canadians have had hefty fines placed on them which ranged anywhere from $880.00 - $1200.00 for daring to violate the China virus no contact law or for just being outside. Those are pretty much hefty fines for violating some no contact law. A $100 - $200.00 fine should have been plenty enough even though I think that any fines like those heavy handed fines issued above is nothing more than criminal. 

As I have said above. Why is big pharma being protected from lawsuits if their vaccines are supposed to be so safe for all, and we the people should have no fears or worries about taking their vaccines? The only reason why there is such a law against being allowed to sue big pharma over some vaccines is probably and maybe because there is no doubt that most of those vaccines and the junk that they put in those vaccines have and still are harming and killing thousands of people today. One can find many stories on the internet of people that have been injured or have died from taking some vaccine. A good question for you all to be asking and think about. Yes/no?  It's your call as to whether you still want to take the vaccine shot or not. I for one will not and never have taken any vaccine shots of any kind or or anything all my life. I just do not believe in them. Any comments on what I have said above? What say you? :)

 

 

 

 

Wow? I guess that everyone here must be in agreement that big pharma should be protected with laws that protect them from lawsuits even though it is a well known fact that vaccines do cause serious injuries or even death. They do not even have to do ant tests when they come out with a new vaccine anymore as they once had to. But I will point out that not all people that have taken vaccines have suffered any injuries or death, but many have. Are you still ready to take that vaccine virus chance? If so, good luck to you, it's your body.

Aw well, I thought that this thread would create some discussions on vaccines here but I guess nobody appears to give all that much of a care at all. I guess that there are probably some here who will no doubt think that this is just more propaganda conspiracy nonsense. Aw well, what more can be said. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti Vaxxers are damaging to modern society. They should be marginalized. 

If they had their way we'd still be getting Polio, Measels and Smallpox in the Western World. 

Edited by Boges
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, taxme said:

I recently found out that all of the big pharma companies in Canada and America cannot be sued if their vaccines does any harm to anyone after anyone has been vaccinated with their vaccines. Why is that anyway? Why should big pharma be protected from lawsuits by anyone for taking their vaccines if there is nothing to worry about taking those vaccines and that they all are safe.

 

Here is why....Canada is only one of two G20 nations without a federal vaccine injury compensation (VIC) program. Quebec has one.  

https://canvax.ca/brief/overview-vaccine-injury-compensation-programs

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2020 at 4:17 PM, taxme said:

Gates, Zuckerborg, Bloomborg, Soros, Fauci, Birx, and the WHO.

FEMA, One World Government, Camps, Anti-Christ, Pope Francis. Anyone else want to add some more ? 

On a more serious is ok to be suspicious, but there is a fine line between that and paranoia.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2020 at 12:08 PM, Boges said:

Anti Vaxxers are damaging to modern society. They should be marginalized. 

If they had their way we'd still be getting Polio, Measels and Smallpox in the Western World. 

And the taking of vaccines can cause serious injury or even death for those who have taken the many vaccine shots out there. I would rather be on the side of caution rather than on the side of a chance of developing some serious injury or maybe even death from taking some of those vaccines that are being used and promoted out there by big pharma. 

Again, why does big pharma need protection from lawsuits if there is nothing to fear from taking any of their vaccines?  Answer that one for me instead of avoiding that one question?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, taxme said:

And the taking of vaccines can cause serious injury or even death for those who have taken the many vaccine shots out there. I would rather be on the side of caution rather than on the side of a chance of developing some serious injury or maybe even death from taking some of those vaccines that are being used and promoted out there by big pharma. 

Again, why does big pharma need protection from lawsuits if there is nothing to fear from taking any of their vaccines?  Answer that one for me instead of avoiding that one question?  

Cite Peer review studies that indicate the risk of a vaccine is worse than, say, the measles. 

People sit on the shoulders of doctors who have pretty much destroyed diseases that killed millions in the 20th Century and earlier. 

But, at the same time, believe long debunked studies about Autism. 

You can only feel comfortable about being an Anti-Vaxxer because a majority of the population doesn't share the idiocy and a level of herd immunity has been reached, But the more people think fake risks of autism outweigh re-introducing such deadly diseases back into society, that will chance. 

Every Anti-Vaxxer should be ashamed of themselves. 

Vaccine makers need protection because people, especially in the US, are litigious. It's the same reason grocery stores need protection against lawsuits if they want to donate food that may otherwise get thrown away. 

Edited by Boges
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Boges said:

Cite Peer review studies that indicate the risk of a vaccine is worse than, say, the measles. 

People sit on the shoulders of doctors who have pretty much destroyed diseases that killed millions in the 20th Century and earlier. 

But, at the same time, believe long debunked studies about Autism. 

You can only feel comfortable about being an Anti-Vaxxer because a majority of the population doesn't share the idiocy and a level of herd immunity has been reached, But the more people think fake risks of autism outweigh re-introducing such deadly diseases back into society, that will chance. 

Every Anti-Vaxxer should be ashamed of themselves. 

Vaccine makers need protection because people, especially in the US, are litigious. It's the same reason grocery stores need protection against lawsuits if they want to donate food that may otherwise get thrown away. 

The measles virus is like the SARS, and this China virus, all three start out as a respiratory virus problem. Measles remains a significant cause of deaths world wide despite the availability of a safe and effective measles vaccine. Robert Kennedy Jr. has a great video out on Autism. A great cite to get more information about Autism. 

Looking after ones health by getting plenty of fresh air, and sunshine, and exercise can help keep any virus at bay from entering your body and being able to make someone sick from the virus. Doctors may give someone a vaccine shot for some virus but how do we know that it was the vaccine shot that made someone feel better. It may have even killed people. Or was it doing the things I mentioned above that helped to get rid of the virus to help build up your immunity. 

It is now believed that some vaccine injections that are being given to new born babies and young children today is the reason why we are seeing more of a rise in Autism than what we ever saw in the past. Robert Kennedy Jr. has a video out that talks about Autism. Go check his video out on the internet as he can better explain the reasons why Autism is more prevalent today then what it was, say, twenty years ago.

I am very comfortable about being an anti-vaccine cowboy, and I am not alone anymore. Millions are starting to wake up about the dangers of vaccines. They have caused tens of thousands of people to get ill or even die. That is a fact, and not fiction. 

Maybe people like you who believe and would promote vaccines should be the ones that should be ashamed of themselves. Vaccines have done plenty of harm then good, and there is plenty of proof out there that vaccines can cause very serious reactions and injury, and even death from taking some vaccines. Hey, if you want to take a vaccine shot then go for it. Take them all, I could careless. But for those of us who do not want to take the shot, then leave us bloody well alone. Besides, once you have taken the shot then you are okay, right, and you have nothing to fear from someone who has not taking the shot like me.  You will live, and I will die. :D

The vaccine manufacturers should have nothing to fear from any lawsuits from anyone because someone took one of their vaccine shots. If the vaccine is supposed to be safe and effective then what's the bloody problem? A government law was implemented that no one can sue any vaccine manufacturer but all other businesses and corporations do not have the same protection and can be sued for a product that they make that could injure or kill someone. Why is that?  Those businesses and corporations need to obtain private insurance to protect themselves from possible lawsuits. Come on, stop acting like a dummy. If you cannot get what I am trying to say and point out here, then what is the point of keeping up this conversation with you? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peddling the Autism myth is an excellent way for me to discredit everything you say. 

BTW your boy Trump will be the first one looking to peddle a COVID-19 Vaccine. 

Edited by Boges
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...