Covid 'Vaccines' and Legal Immunity from Prosecution is what Big Pharma's Craves, Your Health is, of course, not their concern

Millions of refugees 'may be denied [jabs] because some major manufacturers are worried about legal risks from harmful side effects' (doh)

This piece of information is actually a couple of weeks old by now, but since it may have escaped your notice, here goes.

Writing for Reuters, Francesco Guarascio and Panu Wongcha-um reported the following on 16 Dec. 2021 (my emphasis),

Tens of millions of migrants may be denied COVID-19 vaccines from a global programme because some major manufacturers are worried about legal risks from harmful side effects, according to officials and internal documents from Gavi, the charity operating the programme.

Funny, isn’t it? You and I may not be entitled to sue ‘major manufacturers’ if we suffer ‘from harmful side effects’, but refugees are not covered by the supply contracts between, on the one side, state actors and pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca, J&J, BioNTech/Pfizer, and Moderna, on the other side.

Many COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have required that countries indemnify them for any adverse events suffered by individuals as a result of the vaccines, the United Nations says.

Where governments are not in control, that is not possible.

The concerns affect people, such as those displaced by the Myanmar, Afghanistan and Ethiopian crises, who are beyond the reach of national governments' vaccination schemes.

For refugees, migrants and asylum-seekers, as well as people afflicted by natural disasters or other events that put them out of reach of government help, the global programme known as COVAX created a Humanitarian Buffer—a last-resort reserve of shots to be administered by humanitarian groups.

And here’s the key issue at hand (again, my emphasis)

Gavi, which operates COVAX with the World Health Organization (WHO), says that where those applying for doses, mainly NGOs, can’t bear legal risks, deliveries from that stockpile can only be made if vaccine-makers accept liability.

The companies that are willing to do so under these circumstances provide only a minority of the programme's vaccines, according to people familiar with the matter and the documents, written by Gavi staff for a board meeting starting at the end of November.

And in case you’re wondering about the names of those companies that won’t accept liability, well, here goes (emphasis mine, again):

More than two-thirds of COVAX doses have come from Pfizer Inc. (PFE.N) and its partner BioNTech SE (22UAy.DE), AstraZeneca PLC (AZN.L) and Moderna Inc. (MRNA.O), Gavi says. Moderna declined to comment. AstraZeneca and Pfizer said they were in talks with Gavi but declined to comment further. All three said they are committed to making doses available to poorer nations at relatively low prices. Pfizer said it was collaborating directly with governments in Jordan and Lebanon to donate doses for refugees.

If you’re not incensed by this behaviour ‘already’, you should be now, esp. if you’ve elected a ‘vaccine’ by one of these manufacturers that you government has exempted from liability.

You see, at any other time the adage of ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help’ is probably quite true already, yet in this particular case avoiding ‘government help’ (read: jabs) because of liability for harmful side effects is a kind of saving grace for ‘tens of millions of refugees’. Spread out in shameful conditions in camps all over the world, at least they will be spared this particular curse.

There is more, of course, in this piece, including the authors’ sympathetic take on the plight of manufacturers (emphasis mine):

It would be hard to continuously monitor vaccines for safety in refugee camps, and delivery is logistically very challenging and not suitable for all types, said the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), which represents large pharmaceutical companies in Europe.

People may blame vaccines for problems that emerge afterwards even if they are unrelated, it said [it = EFPIA; you can’t make this up].

‘This could then lead to an increased number of litigation cases…during which the safety and efficacy of the vaccine would be publicly questioned’, it said in a statement to Reuters. That might lead to increased vaccine hesitancy and a slower recovery from the pandemic, it said.

So, now you know. Do spread the word and talk to your doctor and representatives about it.