Quote:
Originally Posted by Solemnus
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I'll take it when they remove the indemnity contracts that state you can't sue them for damages. The only possible reason they could need that is that they're expecting there to be damages and they're covering their asses. No one confident in their own product needs a legal agreement of immunity to prosecution.
And it's nothing new either. Pfizer, one of the big pharma companies making this new vaccine, have already paid over 7 billion in damages to people afflicted by their faulty drugs, including vaccines. The major proponents of this shit is usually coming from people like Lune who openly express their desire for a leftist authoritarian censorship nightmare of an internet where only opinions like their own are allowed to exist, too. "Other people don't agree with me" = "Other people are dumb" = "We should shut all those people up."
|
The best way to have zero innovation or advancement in medicine is to allow 100% liability. Would not longer be worth it for these companies to put out products. Nobody is perfect and even less so when it comes to medicine and our bodies.
Indemnities aren't in contracts because you're expecting there to be damages. that's one of the dumbest statements I've seen in awhile. Indemnities are standard contractual provisions and any lawyer who didn't put one in should be sued for malpractice.