It should have already been considered a crime against humanity decades ago that law makers were lobbied (bribed) into passing legislation in which vaccine manufacturers cannot be held legally liable for any damage their products may cause. It was an act which established official protocols, such as the secret vaccine injury court to largely sweep under the rug any instances of such side effects.
But now a new lawsuit filed by the world's largest vaccine manufacturer Serum Institute of India, in association with multinational pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, seeks to take this a step further — by attempting to set the precedent that vaccine manufacturers can actually sue those that may have been harmed by their faulty products.
The litigation filed in an Indian court is a countersuit to a lawsuit that has been filed against SII by one of the volunteers who participated in a trial study for the developmental Covisheild. A vaccination for SARS-CoV-2.
After participating in the trial study, the yet to be named volunteer flagged severe neurological and psychological symptoms 10 days after the first injection. Symptoms which were then diagnosed as acute neurological encephalopathy, resulting in memory loss, lapses in cognitive functions such as reasoning, and changes in personality. A legal notice had been sent to ICMR, DCGI, AstraZeneca and Oxford University to stop testing, manufacturing and distributing the vaccine. The plaintiff filed a suit after the notice failed to receive response.
SII then filed a countersuit, worth $13.5 million, for defamation after alleging that the volunteers illness had nothing to do with the vaccine trial. This is a statement which was also backed up by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) and DCGI (Drugs Controllor General of India). However, these assertions have been challenged by independent researcher Dr. Anant Bhan, the former President of the International Association of Bioethics and current professor at India's Yenepoya Medical University. Dr. Bhan notes that both of these institutions are government entities directly affiliated with SII, and stresses that transparency should be the top priority given that the parties vested financial interests.
Speaking to Indian national news outlet Firstpost, he claims that the countersuit is totally "uncalled for", and called for transparency, stating —
"It’s an unusual response, because the reasons for volunteers to participate are altruistic. If there is a concern that a volunteer has, it’s good to engage with them and understand what those concerns are, and to make efforts to try and address them. It’s in the interest of the sponsor, and is also a signal to other participants already in the trial, and potential participants."
"(It) could spook a few people, if and when a vaccine becomes available. When you do get into these situations, it’s better to be open and transparent,"
"It’s quite possible that everything they’re saying is true. But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s a conflict of interest," said Bhan. "The regulator is being paid taxpayer money to be able to provide adequate oversight in these circumstances. The expectation is for the regulator to come forward and speak on the issue."
It has also been alleged, both by the plaintiff's attorneys, and spokesman for the AIDAN (All India Drug Action Network), that the countersuit amounts to "an attempt of intimidation."
In a statement released by the former participants legal team, they say —
"This is a clear attempt to intimidate our client. Why else will they file a Rs.100 crore defamation suit. Our client is merely asking for Rs.5 crore compensation for the health problems he is facing and to take care of his family."
"Moreover, if you look at their statement it is clear that they are unwilling to even investigate what exactly happened and if the side-effects are due to the vaccine. Our client wants the manufacturing of the vaccine to be stopped because he fears others could get affected the same way," says advocate NGR Prasad, a practicing attorney of over five decades.
Spokesman for the AIDAN also said in a press release —
Recommended for You
"Instead of explaining why they have been silent about the reports of the SAE, Serum Institute is attempting to divert public scrutiny of its trial. Bear in mind that in Serum's Phase 2/3 trial, safety is one of the primary endpoints in addition to immunogenicity." explained AIDAN.
"Given that the SAE took place in October, it is of serious concern that CDSCO did not pause the trial to investigate the SAE when it was reported. The silence from the CDSCO which granted permission for the trial is deafening."
The monumental ramifications of this cannot be understated. The world's most lucrative and powerful vaccine manufacturer along with their government allies are attempting to set a dire precedent; that in place of transparency, investigation, and accountability they can instead overtly threaten those who are potentially harmed by their products with lifelong financial ruin as a tactic to intimidate them in to silence.
Even now, before the rollout has taken place the public is already being conditioned to accept this lack of accountability as commonplace. On October 11th, 2020, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled "People Harmed by Coronavirus Vaccines Will Have Little Recourse". In it, they indicated that those possibly harmed by a Covid-19 vaccine will instead not have their claim heard by the NVCIP, but rather the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Fund. A program even more parsimonious than the aforementioned.
The article stated — "This year, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar said the countermeasures fund should also cover injuries from Covid-19 vaccines, giving drug companies immunity from potential liability lawsuits."
This is particularly insidious when put into the proper context. It has been established in numerous instances that while vaccinations are largely beneficial, the human element involved in the manufacturing process are not infallible. With specific regard to our current state of affairs it has already been highlighted in a number of publications several issues arising with the development of a Covid-19 vaccine rushed through production, as noted by journalist Derrick Broze.
Even at the time of writing this, a new report has come out of yet more volunteer injuries taking place during another CV19 vaccine trial. This time resulting in facial paralysis, and including a document from the FDA which indicated 84% of participants experienced some sort of adverse reaction. And a separate report released by the FDA on the same day confirming two post-vaccine deaths in yet another trial.
But fret not, Reuters fact checked these claims and assures us there is nothing to worry about.
No causal relationship was established between the vaccine and the two deaths, which occurred in line with the normal death rate for the general population.
Four cases of Bell’s Palsy (partial facial paralysis) were also not considered to necessarily be caused by the vaccine but the symptom will be under surveillance when the vaccine is distributed.
Furthermore these concerns are compounded with the well-documented history of malfeasance by every major manufacturer involved and it's production (see here, here, here, here, & here), specifically AstraZeneca in the case of this SII lawsuit, who is already exempt from liability of any potential damages caused by their current Covid-19 vaccine in development.
The ethical struggle to maintain bodily autonomy and freedom of choice via informed consent may be the new battle of our generation.
About the author – Don Via Jr. is an independent researcher and journalist from central Virginia, who has dedicated the last ten years to studying history, political science, geopolitics, and covert operations, and raising awareness about government corruption and abuses. He is the founder of the up-starting independent media outlet Break The Matrix, where more of his work can be found as well as on associated social media on MeWe, Twitter, and Minds.