The very simple — and unexpected, coming from CNBC, which usually runs cover for pharmaceutical corporations as a matter of course — question posed to Albert Bourla:
Vaccine makers like yourself [are] largely shielded from liability. If the products are safe and effective, what is the need to continue to shield, to have these liability shields, and what happens if those shields are changed or go away completely?
The very simple answer, assuming the vaccines are actually “safe and effective,” would be: “Nothing happens if we lose our liability shield. We don’t need it because our product is safe and effective, and we are willing to prove that in court if need be.”
That’s not what Bourla said. Instead, he offered a word salad about how the trustworthy FDA would never approve a dangerous and ineffective vaccine. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that the FDA allowed the COVID shots to go to market, they are by definition “safe and effective.”
Also, he adds, American juries are too stupid to decide whether an injury was caused by a vaccine or a car accident.
If the product is not safe and effective, it would never get approval from the FDA or from the other health authorities… They are very strict when they are approving products, particularly for vaccines… However, in a system that litigations can flourish, anyone can create, demand that the accident in the car happened because of the vaccine, and uh, with a jury, it’s going to be flip of the coin. And this is, I think, why the Congress — it was not an administration — had passed this legislation that is protecting those that they have approval from the FDA from federal liabilities.
Hellbound and Down 