It's not true that it's impossible to sue vaccine makers. You have to go thru the NVICP process but if the special master does not find in favor of your case, then the plaintiff can take the case to civil court.
Dont take my word for it, it's right there on the HRSA website:
"The special master's decision may be appealed and petitioners who reject the decision of the court (or withdraw their petitions within certain timelines) may file a claim in civil court against the vaccine company and/or the health care provider who administered the vaccine."
Aaron Siri has made millions of dollars suing vaccine manufacturers.
1. Aaron Siri has not made millions suing vaccine manufacturers. His firm represents many vaccine injured petitioners. And his firm does collect attorney fees for their work representing them in the NVICP.
2. Yes you can sue. Go find an attorney that will represent you in civil court to prove a near medical certainty. Will not happen due to the extreme cost and time that it will require. You will need 7 figures + to make this happen and more than 6-8+ years. Just like the tobacco suits. None were successful. It took several state AG's to sue for reimbursement of Medicare costs.
And who pays Aaron Siri's law firm thru the NVICP? Parents who pay health insurance premiums thru the NVICP vaccine tax that gets passed down.
Aaron Siri has made a fortune by saying vaccines are evil -- he gets paid directly by NVICP for every claim he files, regardless of whether it is successful.
Must be a nice gig. You can file endless frivolous claims thru NVICP and you get 100% reimbursement by premiums from childrens health insurance plans and taxpayers thru Medicaid.
This is why Aaron Siri doesnt want RFK to do any good RCT vaccine trials. If those trials come out and prove that Siri is a liar, his fortune goes up in smoke.
The tax per antigen is paid by the purchaser of the vaccine. Yes, a large segment is paid for by tax dollars. The Feds are the largest purchaser of vaccines. Your insurance plans pay, other private pay methods as well.
As for Aaron Siri's income from the NVICP. His law firm has several attorneys (12+) who are representing injured parties. There are financial risks for the attorneys to take every case. Many fail the reasonableness standard. It may be several years before attorney receives payment for services provided. And many of them have to front medical expert costs, medical records acquisition and other items. It is not cheap if you are handling 40 or 50 cases. Some attorneys have accts receivable with the NVICP of over $1million. They have to take out credit lines to support their staff and overhead. All fees are governed and approved by Special Master within the program. And several like to reduce fees. All petitions must be submitted in good faith and stand reasonableness. Many fee applications are denied because of that standard. The hourly rate is set by the attorney and must be approved by Special Masters based upon experience and years practicing in the Program. Your assertion of frivolous claims is false.
Most of the claims filed in the NVICP are from adult injuries. I do not have any dollar amount regarding adult sales vs children sales. Flu shots to adults is the #1 vaccine injury claims, Shoulder injury and GBS.
As for your last claim, I would be very careful in any slander statements. You really do not understand the inner workings of the HHS, CDC and FDA regarding vaccine policy and how injury claims are adjudicated.
Any more postings similar to what you have done and I will remove you from my substack and forward on to others who post articles.
Good, crisp discussion and debate is needed. But slander and false statements are not welcome.
Thank you for this- really want to read your continuations of the trials and verdicts. What has happened and the treatment to us has been beyond unethical.
It's not true that it's impossible to sue vaccine makers. You have to go thru the NVICP process but if the special master does not find in favor of your case, then the plaintiff can take the case to civil court.
Dont take my word for it, it's right there on the HRSA website:
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation
"The special master's decision may be appealed and petitioners who reject the decision of the court (or withdraw their petitions within certain timelines) may file a claim in civil court against the vaccine company and/or the health care provider who administered the vaccine."
Aaron Siri has made millions of dollars suing vaccine manufacturers.
1. Aaron Siri has not made millions suing vaccine manufacturers. His firm represents many vaccine injured petitioners. And his firm does collect attorney fees for their work representing them in the NVICP.
2. Yes you can sue. Go find an attorney that will represent you in civil court to prove a near medical certainty. Will not happen due to the extreme cost and time that it will require. You will need 7 figures + to make this happen and more than 6-8+ years. Just like the tobacco suits. None were successful. It took several state AG's to sue for reimbursement of Medicare costs.
And who pays Aaron Siri's law firm thru the NVICP? Parents who pay health insurance premiums thru the NVICP vaccine tax that gets passed down.
Aaron Siri has made a fortune by saying vaccines are evil -- he gets paid directly by NVICP for every claim he files, regardless of whether it is successful.
Must be a nice gig. You can file endless frivolous claims thru NVICP and you get 100% reimbursement by premiums from childrens health insurance plans and taxpayers thru Medicaid.
This is why Aaron Siri doesnt want RFK to do any good RCT vaccine trials. If those trials come out and prove that Siri is a liar, his fortune goes up in smoke.
The tax per antigen is paid by the purchaser of the vaccine. Yes, a large segment is paid for by tax dollars. The Feds are the largest purchaser of vaccines. Your insurance plans pay, other private pay methods as well.
As for Aaron Siri's income from the NVICP. His law firm has several attorneys (12+) who are representing injured parties. There are financial risks for the attorneys to take every case. Many fail the reasonableness standard. It may be several years before attorney receives payment for services provided. And many of them have to front medical expert costs, medical records acquisition and other items. It is not cheap if you are handling 40 or 50 cases. Some attorneys have accts receivable with the NVICP of over $1million. They have to take out credit lines to support their staff and overhead. All fees are governed and approved by Special Master within the program. And several like to reduce fees. All petitions must be submitted in good faith and stand reasonableness. Many fee applications are denied because of that standard. The hourly rate is set by the attorney and must be approved by Special Masters based upon experience and years practicing in the Program. Your assertion of frivolous claims is false.
Most of the claims filed in the NVICP are from adult injuries. I do not have any dollar amount regarding adult sales vs children sales. Flu shots to adults is the #1 vaccine injury claims, Shoulder injury and GBS.
As for your last claim, I would be very careful in any slander statements. You really do not understand the inner workings of the HHS, CDC and FDA regarding vaccine policy and how injury claims are adjudicated.
Any more postings similar to what you have done and I will remove you from my substack and forward on to others who post articles.
Good, crisp discussion and debate is needed. But slander and false statements are not welcome.
Appleination works. Get boosted everyday this apple season.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LELFIuhSPCI
Thank you for this- really want to read your continuations of the trials and verdicts. What has happened and the treatment to us has been beyond unethical.
Stealing Your Vote = Stealing Your Fundamental Freedoms = Treason.
How to Check Your Vote
https://sleazeexpo.wordpress.com/questions-to-put-to-usa-federal-election-commission-inspector-general-ms-lynne-a-mcfarland-dl/
ARCHBOLD 2013
SWEET & MAXWELL
II NATURE OF INDICTABLE OFFENCES
A. WHEN AN INDICTMENT LIES
(1) GENERAL
1-2 An indictment is the ordinary common law remedy for all treasons,
misprisions of treasons and offences of a public nature:
2 Hawk. c. 25, ss.1, 4. It is also the means by which certain
offences created by or under statute are brought before the Crown
Court for trial
(2) Breach of common law duty
1-3 An indictment lies at common law for a breach of duty which is not
a mere private injury but an outrage on the moral duties of society,
e.g. neglect to provide sufficient food, medical aid or other
necessaries, for a person unable to provide for himself, and for
whom the defendant is obliged by duty or contract to provide, where
such neglect injures the health of that person, whether the person
injured is of extreme age (R. v. Instan [1893] 1 Q.B. 450), or of
tender years (R. v. Senior [1899] 1 Q.B. 283 at 289), or is the
defendant or servant (R. v. Smith (1865) L. & C. 607), or an
apprentice (R. v. Smith (1837) 8 C. & P. 153), or is a person of
unsound mind (R. v. Pelham [1846] 8 Q.B. 959). See also post, 19-22
et seq. (manslaughter). The common law is strengthened by statutory
provisions, e.g. Offences against the Person Act 1861, s.26 (servants
and apprentices); CYPA 1933, s.1 (persons under 16); MHA 1983, s.127
(persons of unsound mind).It being a democratic principle, however,
that it is for Parliament and not the executive or judges to
determine whether conduct not previously regarded as criminal should
be treated as such, statute is now to be regarded as the sole source
of new offences: R. v. Jones; Ayliffe v. DPP; Swain v. Same [2007]
1 A.C. 136, HL; and R. (Gentle) v. Prime Minister [2008] 1 A.C. 1356,
HL (at [40]) (and see post, 1-5).
Unless a statute specifically so provides, or the case is one
in which the common law, in the criminal context, imposes a duty or
responsibility on one person to act in a particular way towards
another, then a mere omission to act cannot make the person, who so
fails to do something, guilty of a criminal offence: see R. v. Miller
[1983] 2 A.C. 161, HL, where the appellant was held liable for his
reckless omission to take steps to nullify a risk of damage to
property which had been created by his own earlier inadvertent act
(see furth post, 23-10, 23-31). The House of Lords approached the
facts on the basis that-unlike the case of the mere bystander-the
appellant had a duty to act.
It'll be interesting to watch how C19 plays out. Were they Vaccines or Gene Therapy or something else to the courts, I have no idea.