It's like the vaccine, a partial immunity that fades a lot over time.
They can't be sued over the damage the vaccine caused, but they can be sued over false statements about it. You can't sue them for getting myocarditis or turbo cancer, but you can sue for them hiding from you that they knew you would.
There's pretty much no level of lawsuit "immunity" that can't be pierced in the case of sufficient negligence, recklessness, and fraud. The difficulty is always in proving it.
Didn't they get lawsuit immunity for it?
It's like the vaccine, a partial immunity that fades a lot over time.
They can't be sued over the damage the vaccine caused, but they can be sued over false statements about it. You can't sue them for getting myocarditis or turbo cancer, but you can sue for them hiding from you that they knew you would.
Does the legal ''immunisation'' also flips-over to the negative after a while and results in a higher likelyhood of lawsuits, and repeat-lawsuits?
Various courts have recently ruled that it is not, nor ever could be considered an actual vaccine.
Thus any immunity to lawsuits would be as fictional and fraudulent as the vaxx itself is.
I hope that precedent sticks.
Any links or info on this?
https://www.westernstandard.news/news/us-appeals-court-rules-covid-mrna-shots-could-be-considered-not-traditional-vaccines/55202
Good.
There's pretty much no level of lawsuit "immunity" that can't be pierced in the case of sufficient negligence, recklessness, and fraud. The difficulty is always in proving it.
no such thing