While "standard of care" is not the only measure of malpractice, it is the wall which is hardest to cross when mounting a malpractice lawsuit. I'm familiar with this in SSRI/psych drug lawsuits, and I've heard of others (hair loss or acne pill?). Impossible to sue, for example, over statin, PPI or heart drug damages because of "standard …
While "standard of care" is not the only measure of malpractice, it is the wall which is hardest to cross when mounting a malpractice lawsuit. I'm familiar with this in SSRI/psych drug lawsuits, and I've heard of others (hair loss or acne pill?). Impossible to sue, for example, over statin, PPI or heart drug damages because of "standard of care," and those damned algorithms which proclaim a doctor **should** prescribe a harmful drug. "Standard of Care" is an umbrella which catches and repels a lot of potential medical lawsuits.
Criminal is another matter (which is why CHD is being so clever on this one).
And the EUA does not cover DOD "emergency measures" i.e. biowarfare - read some Katherine Watt or Sasha Latypova. There is no liability for the shots. Even if you don't consider the mysterious contracts between governments and pharma.
And if Katherine and Sasha are right, even if there is a successful class action of all the harmed against all the pharmas - they will just file bankruptcy, go down, re-org, re-brand, and do it again under the auspices of a new emergency. Or just sneak mRNA into everything in our environment. By the time that becomes a problem, the people who started it will be passing their yachts on to their heirs.
Australia, in particular, somehow phrased it (I am obviously not a lawyer) so that doctors couldn't be sued over the shots, either. And while there were no official mandates (hunh) - they rigged the insurance & health & Safety regs so that an "unvaccinated workplace is a dangerous one." THAT's where most of our mandates came from. (I'm in Queensland, it may be different in other states, because these regs were passed at state, not federal level, so that our slimy PM could say, "I didn't do it!")
Sorry, rant mode off. Keep working it, Bitterroot. We need brains like yours to weasel through their words.
While "standard of care" is not the only measure of malpractice, it is the wall which is hardest to cross when mounting a malpractice lawsuit. I'm familiar with this in SSRI/psych drug lawsuits, and I've heard of others (hair loss or acne pill?). Impossible to sue, for example, over statin, PPI or heart drug damages because of "standard of care," and those damned algorithms which proclaim a doctor **should** prescribe a harmful drug. "Standard of Care" is an umbrella which catches and repels a lot of potential medical lawsuits.
Criminal is another matter (which is why CHD is being so clever on this one).
And the EUA does not cover DOD "emergency measures" i.e. biowarfare - read some Katherine Watt or Sasha Latypova. There is no liability for the shots. Even if you don't consider the mysterious contracts between governments and pharma.
And if Katherine and Sasha are right, even if there is a successful class action of all the harmed against all the pharmas - they will just file bankruptcy, go down, re-org, re-brand, and do it again under the auspices of a new emergency. Or just sneak mRNA into everything in our environment. By the time that becomes a problem, the people who started it will be passing their yachts on to their heirs.
Australia, in particular, somehow phrased it (I am obviously not a lawyer) so that doctors couldn't be sued over the shots, either. And while there were no official mandates (hunh) - they rigged the insurance & health & Safety regs so that an "unvaccinated workplace is a dangerous one." THAT's where most of our mandates came from. (I'm in Queensland, it may be different in other states, because these regs were passed at state, not federal level, so that our slimy PM could say, "I didn't do it!")
Sorry, rant mode off. Keep working it, Bitterroot. We need brains like yours to weasel through their words.