Kansas family plans to file lawsuit after family member dies due to Covid-19 vaccine

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Good luck with that, the person who died signed a waiver. Not to mention that history is condemning enough to say that his official cause of death is from any one of those things they just listed, which was just exacerbated by the vaccine. So he'd of probably died from w/e they decide to put down in a couple of weeks anyway.

Sadly, the guy who took the shot has zero legal protection. More then likely what i just said above is how it will play out.

originally posted by: BlackArrow
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Good luck with that, the person who died signed a waiver. Not to mention that history is condemning enough to say that his official cause of death is from any one of those things they just listed, which was just exacerbated by the vaccine. So he'd of probably died from w/e they decide to put down in a couple of weeks anyway.

Sadly, the guy who took the shot has zero legal protection. More then likely what i just said above is how it will play out.

What do you mean when saying his official cause of death is from any one of those things they just listed?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

An autopsy report acquired by the Topeka Capital-Journal confirmed Evans died of "anaphylaxis due to COVID-19 vaccination." The 68-year-old reportedly had a history of hypertension, allergic disorder, environmental allergies, and reactive airway disease. She previously had an allergic reaction to Albuterol, a drug used to treat wheezing and shortness of breath, according to the autopsy report

That last one, 'reactive airway disease'

What is reactive airway disease? Reactive airway disease (RAD) is similar to asthma. RAD occurs when your bronchial tubes, which bring air into your lungs, overreact to an irritant, swell, and cause breathing problems.

It's in her history, that means they can say that she died from that and not the actual shot because (if they monitored she was fine for 30minutes so no allergic reaction occured during the initial shot). Second Then they will turn around and say that he had a default reaction to something else a day later because of her history(they will bring in a paid shill doctor that will argue how this is possible for them, and impossible to be an allergic reaction to the shot because it happened after 30minutes, allergic reactions to something occur pretty quick if they are allergic. Enabling plausible deniability, which means it could of been something other then that shot that caused her to have an allergic reaction which triggered the symptom that killed her the following day, to clear this up the report states anaphylaxis as cause of death, which means seconds or minutes not days this reaction would of needed to occur, not days by medical definition which i've posted below.) In her case she died the day AFTER the shot. So they can argue this but realistically they don't even need to.

Anaphylaxis is a severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reaction. It can occur within seconds or minutes of exposure to something you're allergic to, such as peanuts or bee stings.

Then they "could"(again not needed) argue she didn't share with the people who gave her the shot, her background. Then they will turn around and go she knew her history, and her conditions, didn't share any of it with the person who injected her. She knew she was allergic to everything under the sun. Then they will turn around and make up some lame excuse (they are multi-billionair company, so their they get the expensive lawyers to defend them, after bsing for about 2-3hrs). How said person got the shot, and didn't wait around for half an hour to see how they reacted to the shot. How it's not their fault it's their doctors fault, pretty much blaming everyone but themselves.


Then they 'will' will grab that little paper they have you sign that states you can't sue us for any harm that comes to you from said 'vaccine' because you signed this paper that acknowledges that it's an experimental vaccine and that data on said vaccine is limited. That you were provided all information and agree to said terms of the paper setforth yada yada yada. Then *IF* they some how manage to claim some form of distress. since the government has a contract stating no one can sue them for damages, they pull out that paper being that the court is part of the government... Whah-la court dismissed.

That's what I mean sadly, it sucks. But that's what happens when you sign a waiver (aka right to sue when injured). And agree to take an experimental treatment, from a company that is protected by the US government. Her case isn't unique, the courts won't take her case at all because of that signed waiver, and she wasn't in duress to take it. She walked into that office sat down, signed a paper and took the shot.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Sorry edited a few times, but that's going to be exactly how it goes. Sadly I don't have much hope for the family given her 'reported history', and that waiver she signed is pretty much a open and closed case. I ain't even bothering with all the protections they have by the government. But at this point the government won't be able to accept her case even if there was wrong doing. Because it would open the door for pfizer and moderna to sue them for breaking the agreement of being 'immune from lawsuits and protected'.

Which you bet your ass they will win since it would be the US government breaking the contract they signed in agreements to protect them from lawsuits, all while agreeing it's an experimental injection. The EUA is still active, which means they still have protections until the 'emergancy' is over. Which has yet to be declared. This means they get 100x more money, then they would EVER give that family, and they are still protected. *IF* a court does take the case, they might be fined a million or two out of sympathy but then be reimbursed by our government.

However, if these protected companies turn and sue the government instead of reimbursement you can expect lawsuits in the billions, which means they get more money and we are stuck paying for it. Which I don't think the government is willing to pay unless they wanna keep throwing money at these companies.. which who knows.. could be the case.

So this case *if* that family actually pulls it off and wins their case, we get stuck paying for it and more money goes to these companies, she loses nothing happens and no other lawsuits will be processed. She wins, a huge can of worms opens up and lawsuits in the thousands occur overnight. Which means even more money to these companies for not protecting them, so they get refunded for every cent they spend paying these off with tax payer money..

So in the end it really depends on if our government feels like Pfizer and Moderna, did a good job and deserve a Christmas bonus. But given the current backbone of the supreme court they won't rule in her favor, and Pfizer and Moderna would both have any lesser court overruled without paying a dime - all the way to the supreme court.

originally posted by: BlackArrow
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Sorry edited a few times, but that's going to be exactly how it goes. Sadly I don't have much hope for the family given her 'reported history', and that waiver she signed is pretty much a open and closed case. I ain't even bothering with all the protections they have by the government. But at this point the government won't be able to accept her case even if there was wrong doing. Because it would open the door for pfizer and moderna to sue them for breaking the agreement of being 'immune from lawsuits and protected'.

Which you bet your ass they will win since it would be the US government breaking the contract they signed in agreements to protect them from lawsuits, all while agreeing it's an experimental injection. The EUA is still active, which means they still have protections until the 'emergancy' is over. Which has yet to be declared. This means they get 100x more money, then they would EVER give that family, and they are still protected. *IF* a court does take the case, they might be fined a million or two out of sympathy but then be reimbursed by our government.

However, if these protected companies turn and sue the government instead of reimbursement you can expect lawsuits in the billions, which means they get more money and we are stuck paying for it. Which I don't think the government is willing to pay unless they wanna keep throwing money at these companies.. which who knows.. could be the case.

So this case *if* that family actually pulls it off and wins their case, we get stuck paying for it and more money goes to these companies, she loses nothing happens and no other lawsuits will be processed. She wins, a huge can of worms opens up and lawsuits in the thousands occur overnight. Which means even more money to these companies for not protecting them, so they get refunded for every cent they spend paying these off with tax payer money..

So in the end it really depends on if our government feels like Pfizer and Moderna, did a good job and deserve a Christmas bonus. But given the current backbone of the supreme court they won't rule in her favor, and Pfizer and Moderna would both have any lesser court overruled without paying a dime - all the way to the supreme court.

I know they have legal indemnity until 2024. The State cannot protect them forever. I don't think it depends on the Government as they are complicit in this scandal. But you definitely need good politicians, lawyers, and lawmakers to make a change. It's difficult but not impossible.

You also forgot the human factor and what anger and frustration can do if the victims accumulate either those who have been injured or died.

Although the coroner or medical examiner did rule out that she died due to the vaccine. In a few words if the vaccine wasn't administered what would have been the outcome? The catalyst was the vaccine.

originally posted by: BlackArrow
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Sorry edited a few times, but that's going to be exactly how it goes. Sadly I don't have much hope for the family given her 'reported history', and that waiver she signed is pretty much a open and closed case. I ain't even bothering with all the protections they have by the government. But at this point the government won't be able to accept her case even if there was wrong doing. Because it would open the door for pfizer and moderna to sue them for breaking the agreement of being 'immune from lawsuits and protected'.

Which you bet your ass they will win since it would be the US government breaking the contract they signed in agreements to protect them from lawsuits, all while agreeing it's an experimental injection. The EUA is still active, which means they still have protections until the 'emergancy' is over. Which has yet to be declared. This means they get 100x more money, then they would EVER give that family, and they are still protected. *IF* a court does take the case, they might be fined a million or two out of sympathy but then be reimbursed by our government.

However, if these protected companies turn and sue the government instead of reimbursement you can expect lawsuits in the billions, which means they get more money and we are stuck paying for it. Which I don't think the government is willing to pay unless they wanna keep throwing money at these companies.. which who knows.. could be the case.

So this case *if* that family actually pulls it off and wins their case, we get stuck paying for it and more money goes to these companies, she loses nothing happens and no other lawsuits will be processed. She wins, a huge can of worms opens up and lawsuits in the thousands occur overnight. Which means even more money to these companies for not protecting them, so they get refunded for every cent they spend paying these off with tax payer money..

So in the end it really depends on if our government feels like Pfizer and Moderna, did a good job and deserve a Christmas bonus. But given the current backbone of the supreme court they won't rule in her favor, and Pfizer and Moderna would both have any lesser court overruled without paying a dime - all the way to the supreme court.

I don't really think that the pharmaceuticals will get anything if they sue the government under the current climate which has become very hostile for them. The public here is a catalyst. The pharmaceuticals must be dismantled as they don't serve the public interest. And there is plenty of discussions on the subject.

This is probably one of the greatest if not the greatest scandal in medical history.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Nah i didn't forget about that, but it's been why other countries have taken other means to help families when they lose a loved one. Like the UK pays people who get injured by it, but at the same time they can't really sue so they get stuck with a meager amount.

If anything though the family will probably get payments from the injured funds here. If they can prove it was the vaccine that caused the death to begin with. Since the payout rate is less then 6%, if they win that case that will be where the money comes from, sadly not the company themselves.

originally posted by: BlackArrow
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Nah i didn't forget about that, but it's been why other countries have taken other means to help families when they lose a loved one. Like the UK pays people who get injured by it, but at the same time they can't really sue so they get stuck with a meager amount.

If anything though the family will probably get payments from the injured funds here. If they can prove it was the vaccine that caused the death to begin with. Since the payout rate is less then 6%, if they win that case that will be where the money comes from, sadly not the company themselves.

Yes I know the UK pays up to £120,000 for the vaccine injured. It's something but may not be enough especially when someone is crippled for the rest of their lives or when they have a disability now that they need to spend much more on therapies, medications, and so on.

I have created many threads for those who were injured or died from the vaccines. Most of these cases have been verified by coroners or medical examiners and some of my threads deal with the compensation they have received in various countries.

Well, I don't think they have to prove the vaccine caused the death as the autopsy revealed the cause of death to be a serious allergic reaction due to the vaccine. Anaphylaxis is the official cause of death because of the vaccine. The coroner or medical examiner has verified the cause of death.

Yes all the compensations have to come from the government at the moment. Just as the compensation scheme works in the UK and everywhere else. But this has to change in the future.

When I say they must be indicted, I mean indicted for a number of crimes. Financial compensation is just one aspect of the process.

The story also covered here

www.cjonline.com...



and here

www.fox8live.com...

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Actually the pharmaceutical companies have legal indemnity permanently, well beyond 2024....FOREVER, because the Covid-19 vaccine has been added to the childhood vaccine schedule, manufacturers will NEVER be held liable for any injuries. Adding it to the vaccine schedule means it is a part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation fund. Which means the government (taxpayers) will pay for any damages.

Covid-19 vaccines will be part of recommended immunization schedules in 2023 for both children and adults, after a unanimous vote by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s independent Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

www.cnn.com...

Here is a link to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation fund....

It was created in the 1980s, after lawsuits against vaccine companies and health care providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce U.S. vaccination rates, which could have caused a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases.

www.hrsa.gov...

originally posted by: Antimony
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Actually the pharmaceutical companies have legal indemnity permanently, well beyond 2024....FOREVER, because the Covid-19 vaccine has been added to the childhood vaccine schedule, manufacturers will NEVER be held liable for any injuries. Adding it to the vaccine schedule means it is a part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation fund. Which means the government (taxpayers) will pay for any damages.

Covid-19 vaccines will be part of recommended immunization schedules in 2023 for both children and adults, after a unanimous vote by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s independent Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

www.cnn.com...

Here is a link to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation fund....

It was created in the 1980s, after lawsuits against vaccine companies and health care providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce U.S. vaccination rates, which could have caused a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases.

www.hrsa.gov...

Yes, I am aware of the laws and the injury compensation fund. And obviously the laws have been created to protect the pharmaceuticals from legal actions taken. But these are not balanced laws and are massively skewed in favour of the pharmaceuticals. The don't serve the public interest and new legislation has to be introduced.

The idea that lawsuits will create vaccine shortages (which I have seen before discussed) is just outrageous. Good vaccines and medicines will be appreciated and remain in the market for long time. The opposite happens when the products are not of good quality.

From what I read their legal indemnity ends in 2024. And eventhough there would be attempts to protect them beyond that stage the public anger, frustration, feeling of unfairness, the potential crimes committed against unsuspected citizens, will create and have created an environment where the Date cannot longer protect them forever even if the laws are there.

youtu.be...

An interesting video from a local TV Station which covers the story although at the time the cause of death wasn't verified yet.

Interestingly, the reporter mentioned that at the time there were 2,216 registered deaths in VAERS. She said also this is no proof all these deaths were caused by the vaccines but mentioned that many don't know the system exists or they don't go publicly.