EUAs confer protection for vendors and prescribers against liability. That indemnification is voided by fraud. Seems likely that fraud will be proven, opening the doors for lawsuits. The first few to get their cases in front of juries will own the companies.
Government employees who approved them aren't liable financially, but can be prosecuted criminally. It will take a few years.
Very interesting article. I wrote a post, which as you know I retracted, on these seropositive people. I misinterpreted them as previously vaccinated, which we know did not agree with the original study presumably rejecting vaccinated people. While I have some suspicions that vaccinated people were actually included, it would be crazy to write about it, so I canceled my article.
Anyway, you are assuming here that these seropositive people just seroconverted from the ongoing infection. Are you sure that this is why they were seropositive? Could it be that it was a second infection to them?
Did you see this Washington Post article?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/04/27/paxlovid-second-case-covid/
It shows a ton of vaccinated people not clearing the virus after Paxlovid
Did you see this? Thailand Medical in his usual style, but related to our conversation
https://www.thailandmedical.news/news/warning-mutations-in-new-emerging-ba-2,-ba-4-subvariants-are-changing-the-main-coronavirus-protease-drastically,-rendering-many-previous-antivirals-ob
EUAs confer protection for vendors and prescribers against liability. That indemnification is voided by fraud. Seems likely that fraud will be proven, opening the doors for lawsuits. The first few to get their cases in front of juries will own the companies.
Government employees who approved them aren't liable financially, but can be prosecuted criminally. It will take a few years.
In the link to FDA they refer to "pregnant people". These are the folks that some people trust to provide accurate information.
Very interesting article. I wrote a post, which as you know I retracted, on these seropositive people. I misinterpreted them as previously vaccinated, which we know did not agree with the original study presumably rejecting vaccinated people. While I have some suspicions that vaccinated people were actually included, it would be crazy to write about it, so I canceled my article.
Anyway, you are assuming here that these seropositive people just seroconverted from the ongoing infection. Are you sure that this is why they were seropositive? Could it be that it was a second infection to them?
At least they're distributing it to people for whom it has shown no benefit.
What a sci-fi horror comedy.