6 Comments

What happens now that the Pfizer study data has been released and is public knowledge when a physician/nurse/other administer something they know is unsafe, dangerous? Are these healthcare providers liable for injury/death. How can they possibly defend themselves? Who would be willing to administer these dangerous products knowing full well they are unsafe?

Expand full comment
author

Good question, and I think that foreknowledge by the concerned party (Pfizer, in this context) legally invalidates liability protection. I suppose that change will happen in the US first, mainly due to the partisan nature of the federalised judiciary (for once that might be a good thing…)

Once class-action suits get rolling--and verdicts will inevitably follow, in particular since Pfizer admitted that ivermectin and HCQ are 'treatments', the entire (legalistic) base for the EUA of these 'products' is gone, hence there will be a kind of follow-up.

Remember--in the Norwegian case (Pandemrix, my previous post on this issue), it took some 2-3 years before that point, but maybe, given the larger numbers of affected, it won't take that long with these products.

As to the 'who would be willing to' continue to administer these outrageously unsafe products, well, I'd go for everyone. None of the physicians I know (which is, of course, anecdotal 'evidence') care enough to actually think, read up on the materials, and determine each patient's needs and treatments individually.

My fear is that, although, or perhaps because (?), the physicians I know are exactly like that, everyone will continue to administer these products for as long--and in some cases even beyond that hypothetical point in the future--public health authorities abandon the project altogether.

In other words: as to the 'public knowledge' thing, their administration will continue because physicians will be able to claim 'no-one told me specifically to stop', which, by the way, is about as (in-) valid an 'excuse' as the 'I was only following orders' defences thrown up by the accused in dock at Nuremberg.

Mind you, the main problem with comparisons like the Nuremberg Trials isn't whether or not it's (in-) appropriate to do so--not only do I think it's appropriate, but it's actually warranted as in both cases we have clear evidence now of foreknowledge of harm meted out by state and non-state actors alike.

The main problem arises from the fundamentally different scale of the legal matter at-hand: the victorious powers of WW2 went to great lenghts to differentiate clearly, in court as well as in the public sphere, between the Nazi régime and the German people.

Where, pray tell, if my above musing about the overwhelming majority of physicians holds any water, would one draw the line? I mean, it's utterly impracticable, if not outright impossible--lest we intentionally wish to destroy medicine as a private enterprise and, above all, public service--to summarily put all the doctors, nurse-practitioners, etc. on trial, isn't it?

As a bonus question: do you--or anyone else--think that a kind of 'truth and reconciliation committee' might be the 'better' (than what I outlined above) kind of way forward?

Expand full comment

I did mention to the head practice nurse, who drew my blood today, that Pfizer just released the first of their trial study data, showing their product is extremely dangerous. And I asked her if she knew this. Just planting small seeds💕

Expand full comment
author

Excellent

Expand full comment

And they keep on marching… Pfizer and Moderna seem to have applied for approval for a forth shot in the US. As „it is needed“ at least for people age 65+ and „vulnerable“ people. But better for everybody above 18. ☺️

Expand full comment
deletedMar 17, 2022·edited Mar 17, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author

It's only 'cynicsm' if you habour the expection of checks and balances, as well as individual accountability and integrity, actually working.

They worked, to certain degrees, 2009/10, but they are no longer working.

Expand full comment