If COVID-19 mRNA is safe where are the libel lawsuits by Pharma?

Originally posted this question in response to another mRNA news thread, but someone suggested standing up its own thread because it's a question I haven't heard anyone address here. Some background: In 2021 FOX News and Rudi Giuliani were successfully sued by two manufacturers of voting machines, Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems, for defamation over their claims their products were willfully used to fraudulently throw the 2020 elections for Joe Biden. With the huge revenues at stake, why are pharmaceutical companies seemingly reluctant to take the apparently relatively easy path of suing mRNA detractors for libel? Smartmatic chose this path successfully for voting machines, and Smartmatic's annual revenue in 2020 was estimated at around $115 Million. That may seem like a lot but the company operated at a loss despite that. Compare that with Pfizer's 2020 full year sales of US $41.9 Billion. That's more than 340 times Smartmatic's annual revenue. Add a literal army of pharmaceutical industry attorneys to boot.

The pharmaceutical industry is perhaps one of the most litigious industries on the planet. None are more dependent on intellectual property law, where ownership of formulations can come down to the arrangements of specific atoms in a molecule. Also, reputational damage from a public perception of a product can sink a medication just as easily as a false public reputation hit can kill a Suzuki Samurai (thanks, Consumer Reports).

My question is given the stakes and seemingly unanimous claims from governments, NGOs, the media, and celebrities that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, why have there been no defamation lawsuits at all targeting attacks on their safety or development? It's not like they've shied away from other COVID-19 related lawsuits. Indeed, Big Pharma wasted no time when Moderna sued Pfizer for patent infringement regarding the intellectual property of the mRNA technology itself. But get close to the secret deals, inner workings, manufacturing and effectiveness, and the reluctance becomes excruciatingly clear in publicly disclosed court cases. Pfizer specifically filed a motion to block the USDA from even releasing the terms of its licensing agreement with the US Government under court order because it might expose details about the vaccine. Source: Those Far Rightist conspiracy theorists at *checks notes* Reuters. www.reuters.com...

There are frequent calls for "Show me the peer reviewed studies" of which several have been presented over the past couple years on top of public evidence from VAERS and DOD data. Pharma apologists are now asked to explain themselves. If mRNA vaccine safety concerns aren't 'disinformation' and 'conspiracy theories' why is the only voice silent in defending their products the manufacturers of the products themselves?

Way to go creating this thread. Indeed this a huge question since pharma avoids going after the army of doctors and scientists who use evidence based arguments to show the covid vaccines are toxic clot shots.

If they are so safe and effective their billions of dollars worth of lawyers should be able to shut this down with ease.

Thanks for prompting me to post. Will be interested to see the responses from the usual suspects. a reply to: v1rtu0s0

With the vax makers getting a 'no liability' clause from some in government, they don't have to prove nothing and have no risk of litigation. Why would they risk all that getting caught up in litigation that ain't going to win or achieve anything for them?

They realize they are not going to get a 100% vax rate, so just cut their losses and don't draw any unnecessary attention to themselves.

With some of the cases going on, fraud is one thing that can stop the 'no liability' cause. But what is coming out so far with those taking this approach is that the government asked for the fraud. It is a messy case still buried and covered up in a lot of non disclosure agreements. As things go on more will gradually come to light.

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

Uh, the easy answer is that Pfizer (or anyone else) has never been able to PROVE that it IS safe.

There aren't any damages.

Here me out, in order to sue someone you need to prove loss. If you get into a car accident you need to prove your loss, car repairs in this case. The law also includes the fact that you were there, so you were a part of the loss. If you weren't there, the loss wouldn't have happened.

The vaccine was labeled "experimental". So if we go back to the car accident example, you knew you were driving a car with your own risk. Now you have zero basis to claim a loss.

Sorry folks, not only do they have legal indemnity but even in a court of law from your peers, they will win.

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit
All anybody can do is speculate why there hasn't been any lawsuits. They did a damn good job silencing anybody who spoke about the vaccine negatively, even top doctors and scientists. A team of Pfizer or J&J lawyers threatening/bribing YouTube and Twitter can do more than thousands of lawsuits would. Public image and everything. It's not like they had to spend any on advertising for this product.

The vaccine makers aren't liable for the vaccine side effects. This was already an unbelievable no-lose opportunity for them. Just shut em up rather than getting dirty and prove anything in court. Push the hype train that 2020 created.

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

Discovery might end up putting things into record they'd prefer not to and it would be a bad look. It's hard when your CEO makes fraudulent public statements about the drug being criticized.

They had the power of an unchecked government leveraging big tech so it's hard to imagine the judiciary adding much more power anyway. Dominion would love that kind of taxpayer funded PR and censorship of criticism. Defamation payday is nothing compared to that. Hundreds of millions went toward convincing taxpayers, then trying to force them, to take a drug they already paid for while the government censored opposing views. It may not be fascist, but if you squint a little it looks awful close.

originally posted by: kwakakev
With the vax makers getting a 'no liability' clause from some in government, they don't have to prove nothing and have no risk of litigation. Why would they risk all that getting caught up in litigation that ain't going to win or achieve anything for them?

Exactly this.

Didn't people also have to sign a release to get the shot?

The math was quite simple for me:

Experimental + "Warp Speed" + No Liability ÷ Fear = NOPE

I get others reasons with the information on hand at the time, but how in the "bleep" do you overlook those four GLARING red flags and roll up your sleeve VOLUNTARILY???

Not too smart.

Then governments should be sued...

If they bought into the vaccines as experimental, then they cannot enforce mandates on the people.

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

The Covid vaxxes are not safe, or Congress and the White House (and their staffs and families) would have been vaccinated.

They weren't: www.foxnews.com...

That one action (inaction) is all anyone needs to know.

The C19 mRNA was fully approved on 12 October 2021 by the FDA. I would think anybody claiming to have been harmed by vaccination after that date would have the right to sue-especially in light of the fact that severe adverse reactions were deliberately hidden.

The FDA should be leading the charge on this....unless they were complicite.

originally posted by: litterbaux
There aren't any damages.

Here me out, in order to sue someone you need to prove loss. If you get into a car accident you need to prove your loss, car repairs in this case. The law also includes the fact that you were there, so you were a part of the loss. If you weren't there, the loss wouldn't have happened.

The vaccine was labeled "experimental". So if we go back to the car accident example, you knew you were driving a car with your own risk. Now you have zero basis to claim a loss.

Sorry folks, not only do they have legal indemnity but even in a court of law from your peers, they will win.

Right. And people who took this jab due to their job's request, did so out of fear of losing their livelihood. (feared for their very life/existence in this world). These people should start by suing their employers. Then their employers can then sue their local governments. Then on and on all the way up to the supreme court and and then eventually we can have the Nuremberg 2.0.

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

Very good question.

That was a PR stunt. Do some more looking into that, you'll figure it out. That actually made me laugh, wow.

originally posted by: nugget1
The C19 mRNA was fully approved on 12 October 2021 by the FDA. I would think anybody claiming to have been harmed by vaccination after that date would have the right to sue-especially in light of the fact that severe adverse reactions were deliberately hidden.

The FDA should be leading the charge on this....unless they were complicite.

originally posted by: SentientBunnySuit
Originally posted this question in response to another mRNA news thread, but someone suggested standing up its own thread because it's a question I haven't heard anyone address here. Some background: In 2021 FOX News and Rudi Giuliani were successfully sued by two manufacturers of voting machines, Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems, for defamation over their claims their products were willfully used to fraudulently throw the 2020 elections for Joe Biden. With the huge revenues at stake, why are pharmaceutical companies seemingly reluctant to take the apparently relatively easy path of suing mRNA detractors for libel? Smartmatic chose this path successfully for voting machines, and Smartmatic's annual revenue in 2020 was estimated at around $115 Million. That may seem like a lot but the company operated at a loss despite that. Compare that with Pfizer's 2020 full year sales of US $41.9 Billion. That's more than 340 times Smartmatic's annual revenue. Add a literal army of pharmaceutical industry attorneys to boot.

The pharmaceutical industry is perhaps one of the most litigious industries on the planet. None are more dependent on intellectual property law, where ownership of formulations can come down to the arrangements of specific atoms in a molecule. Also, reputational damage from a public perception of a product can sink a medication just as easily as a false public reputation hit can kill a Suzuki Samurai (thanks, Consumer Reports).

My question is given the stakes and seemingly unanimous claims from governments, NGOs, the media, and celebrities that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, why have there been no defamation lawsuits at all targeting attacks on their safety or development? It's not like they've shied away from other COVID-19 related lawsuits. Indeed, Big Pharma wasted no time when Moderna sued Pfizer for patent infringement regarding the intellectual property of the mRNA technology itself. But get close to the secret deals, inner workings, manufacturing and effectiveness, and the reluctance becomes excruciatingly clear in publicly disclosed court cases. Pfizer specifically filed a motion to block the USDA from even releasing the terms of its licensing agreement with the US Government under court order because it might expose details about the vaccine. Source: Those Far Rightist conspiracy theorists at *checks notes* Reuters. www.reuters.com...

There are frequent calls for "Show me the peer reviewed studies" of which several have been presented over the past couple years on top of public evidence from VAERS and DOD data. Pharma apologists are now asked to explain themselves. If mRNA vaccine safety concerns aren't 'disinformation' and 'conspiracy theories' why is the only voice silent in defending their products the manufacturers of the products themselves?

Simply because there is no libel and defamation. They will loose their case and will get exposed irreversibly giving the chance to all those who want to take them down to do it much more easily.

originally posted by: SentientBunnySuit
Originally posted this question in response to another mRNA news thread, but someone suggested standing up its own thread because it's a question I haven't heard anyone address here. Some background: In 2021 FOX News and Rudi Giuliani were successfully sued by two manufacturers of voting machines, Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems, for defamation over their claims their products were willfully used to fraudulently throw the 2020 elections for Joe Biden. With the huge revenues at stake, why are pharmaceutical companies seemingly reluctant to take the apparently relatively easy path of suing mRNA detractors for libel? Smartmatic chose this path successfully for voting machines, and Smartmatic's annual revenue in 2020 was estimated at around $115 Million. That may seem like a lot but the company operated at a loss despite that. Compare that with Pfizer's 2020 full year sales of US $41.9 Billion. That's more than 340 times Smartmatic's annual revenue. Add a literal army of pharmaceutical industry attorneys to boot.

The pharmaceutical industry is perhaps one of the most litigious industries on the planet. None are more dependent on intellectual property law, where ownership of formulations can come down to the arrangements of specific atoms in a molecule. Also, reputational damage from a public perception of a product can sink a medication just as easily as a false public reputation hit can kill a Suzuki Samurai (thanks, Consumer Reports).

My question is given the stakes and seemingly unanimous claims from governments, NGOs, the media, and celebrities that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, why have there been no defamation lawsuits at all targeting attacks on their safety or development? It's not like they've shied away from other COVID-19 related lawsuits. Indeed, Big Pharma wasted no time when Moderna sued Pfizer for patent infringement regarding the intellectual property of the mRNA technology itself. But get close to the secret deals, inner workings, manufacturing and effectiveness, and the reluctance becomes excruciatingly clear in publicly disclosed court cases. Pfizer specifically filed a motion to block the USDA from even releasing the terms of its licensing agreement with the US Government under court order because it might expose details about the vaccine. Source: Those Far Rightist conspiracy theorists at *checks notes* Reuters. www.reuters.com...

There are frequent calls for "Show me the peer reviewed studies" of which several have been presented over the past couple years on top of public evidence from VAERS and DOD data. Pharma apologists are now asked to explain themselves. If mRNA vaccine safety concerns aren't 'disinformation' and 'conspiracy theories' why is the only voice silent in defending their products the manufacturers of the products themselves?

One small correction... Not pharma apologists but vaccine apologists and defenders of the pharmaceuticals as well as denialists of reality.

ehlinelaw.com...

Pfizer Trial Hid Injuries

The US District Court of Texas ordered FDA to release documents of clinical trials of the Covid-19 shots after getting sued by attorneys at Siri & Glimstad. The documents revealed Pfizer classifying adverse events as non-related to the vaccine.

Falsification of data
Lying and deceiving the public and authorities
Criminal deception
Harming citizens with their junk products
Accusing scientists and academics and trying to assassinate their characters via third parties

Stanley Milgrams study of Obidience... in short, 65% of us dont have the capacity to resist authority.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
That was a PR stunt. Do some more looking into that, you'll figure it out. That actually made me laugh, wow.

originally posted by: nugget1
The C19 mRNA was fully approved on 12 October 2021 by the FDA. I would think anybody claiming to have been harmed by vaccination after that date would have the right to sue-especially in light of the fact that severe adverse reactions were deliberately hidden.

The FDA should be leading the charge on this....unless they were complicite.

So, CNN is now doing PR stunts and reporting false information? Good to know! Wow, indeed!

Mon August 23, 2021:

The US Food and Drug Administration on Monday granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine for people age 16 and older. This is the first coronavirus vaccine approved by the FDA, and is expected to open the door to more vaccine mandates.

[www.cnn.com...]

They did not use the "Cormirnaty" vaccine because, as noted below, they continued to use the EAU version hence a PR stunt. Please don't use CNN as a trusted source, you should have done more digging. I am not trying to be disagreeable just pointing out that the "approved" version was just a PR stunt just like when CNN said ivermectin was horse dewormer ignoring its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older. The vaccine also continues to be available under emergency use authorization (EUA)

here you go

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
That was a PR stunt. Do some more looking into that, you'll figure it out. That actually made me laugh, wow.

originally posted by: nugget1
The C19 mRNA was fully approved on 12 October 2021 by the FDA. I would think anybody claiming to have been harmed by vaccination after that date would have the right to sue-especially in light of the fact that severe adverse reactions were deliberately hidden.

The FDA should be leading the charge on this....unless they were complicite.

So, CNN is now doing PR stunts and reporting false information? Good to know! Wow, indeed!

Mon August 23, 2021:

The US Food and Drug Administration on Monday granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine for people age 16 and older. This is the first coronavirus vaccine approved by the FDA, and is expected to open the door to more vaccine mandates.

[www.cnn.com...]