The Hart group has been focusing on issues of the “appropriateness and efficacy, as well as safety of vaccinating children. After collating twelve months of data, attention has increasingly begun to turn to vaccine efficacy and vaccine damage, according to a report from the Hart Group. One of the issues that have not been explored by anyone is the liability for vaccine-induced damage.

This means liability to those not covered by the blanket government indemnity given to the vaccine manufacturers, but the potential liability of those pushing the vaccines.

That may be the personal liability of government officials, NHS employees, schools as well as public and private sector employers (or potentially the officials and employees of these organisations themselves).

The real issue here is that none of the individuals encouraging, administering, or “in other ways nudging or coercing the acceptance of these procedures has any idea of the content of the vaccines, nor of the medium or long term side effects that these might produce” says Hart.

Death Classified as Suicide

The group was prompted to report about this issue due to an unconfirmed report (court papers have not been published so as far as we are concerned this remains anecdotal) from France that a life insurance company had refused a claim under its policy against the death of an insured individual who died of the vaccine.

The insurance company was said to have been justified on their refusal on the basis that damage from experimental voluntary medical procedures is not covered (the vaccines are currently still of course only approved under an emergency protocol) and that such a death would therefore be classified as suicide.

The case was taken to the highest court in France and the claimants lost, as suicide from this cause was also not covered under its policy.

The authors of the report state that It is not clear that an English court, for a similar situation in England and Wales under English law, would come to the same conclusion. However, the view from discussions in the insurance market is that it would not, but this is also anecdotal at this stage. Although, suicide would almost invariably be covered under an English law life insurance policy.

Increase in Deaths

There have also been reports from an insurer in the United States (OneAmerica) that deaths of 16-64-year-olds have increased by 40%, based on its numbers in comparable quarters year on year. Similar increases have been reported by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India.

This is a catastrophic increase, given that a 1-in-200-year event would correspond to a 10% increase and would in itself be categorised as a catastrophe event by insurers if it were widely experienced, according to Hart, who says that “This is an unfolding event that insurers and regulators will be watching closely”  

Insurers begin to report on their Q4/21 numbers this month, but the picture is not likely to improve throughout the year. Swiss Re and Munich Re, the world’s most prolific reinsurers, will be worth keeping an eye on, as a key market bellwether.

“If the numbers are half or even a quarter as bad as OneAmerica’s data, there will have been some actuarial deep dives and the focus will soon turn to begin investigation of the vaccine as one of the only materially different exogenous factors that could have influenced the data.” 

Primary Legislation to Make Employers Liable

Notably, one of the states of the USA is in the early stages of introducing primary legislation to make employers liable for events such as these. The U.S. is “notoriously litigious”, argues Hart, who adds that “Canada and Australia are very close behind.”

The principle of requiring the manufacturer and in some cases distributor as well as in this instance the administrator of a product to be liable if it causes harm is a perfectly sound one.

Although this ultimately would be for the courts to decide, in a liability policy, all parties involved with the drug that does harm would be in the chain of people to sue.

However, in the case of vaccinations, a key part of that principle has long been abandoned, in that for decades now, since the first Reagan administration and Thatcher’s era in the UK, governments have given full indemnities to the pharmaceutical industry for vaccine-related liabilities.

Yet governments themselves offer only paltry and complex compensation schemes that can take years to pay out at huge actual, as well as emotional cost to the victims, for sums that come nowhere close to being real compensation.

Profit Over Safety

This is and always has been unjust, legally unwise, and morally wrong as it is effectively encouraging pharma’s immoral priorities who prioritise profit over safety, leaving their victims powerless, jobless, and injured and essentially families are forced into crippling financial difficulties.

Additionally, this does nothing to stop the behaviour of pharmaceutical companies, who are being allowed to continue to pass the responsibility onto others through their blanket indemnity. They are harming people with their unsafe products, yet still, pocket enormous profits.

One Family Speak of Their Experiences

March of 2020 Emma Burkey got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine because she worked with young children and was told she was putting their lives at risk. This decision would change her life.

On April 2nd she had a seizure and was rushed to the hospital. After four strokes and three brain surgeries, she is now confined to a wheelchair with little to no ability to move her arms or walk. She and many doctors believe this is the direct result of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but it is Emma’s parents who will be responsible for paying the medical bills for the rest of Emma’s life.

So not only did they experience the harmful physical, emotional, and life-changing impacts but also the huge financial impacts to the whole family, who say life will never be as they had envisioned.

Add to that, cooperative governments that then mandate vaccines and encourage or coerce employers to do so, says Hart

This is disproportionate given the risk from the virus in most younger people and we witness a healthcare system that seems to have become prone to forget — or even relegate — what should be a sacrosanct principle of First Do No Harm. The result is a toxic mix in which the only beneficiaries are the balance sheets of pharma and their shareholders.

“One sure-fire way of stopping vaccine mandates in their tracks is for primary legislation to ensure that employers are liable if they go along with government mandates or nudges. Insurers are likely to react by reviewing coverage for such scenarios, where under legislation they can.”

Employers will not wish to assume such liabilities without adequate insurance.

And should they fall foul of this obvious pitfall, shareholders may resort to Director’s and Officer’s liability insurance lawsuits before which Workers’ Compensation (and their European and other-world equivalents) actions are likely to play out.

“Let us hope that such legislation passes and spreads swiftly around the world”

If those who are pushing the experimental vaccine had to accept liability, I wonder how many would still be in favour of it.

SOURCE – The Hart Group