US JUDGE RULES AGAINST ASTRAZENECA IN COVID VACCINE INJURY CASE

 

ULTIMATE PROOF COVID IS A CRIMINAL SCHEME PIERCING ALL IMMUNITY SHIELDS OF PHARMA COMPANIES ARE THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT GREEK PROSECUTOR PROBES, WHICH GOOGLE, SOCIAL MEDIA HAS DONE EVERYTHING TO CENSOR FROM SEARCH ENGINES WHILE FLOODING THE INTERNET WITH FAKE PICS AND STORIES

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xmvdermyzjhnje9z1hbkq/GRKProsecutorProbesConvictSoros-GatesOfMurderAttemptsOnReporter.pdf?rlkey=n4gz1whwa9vj8iktkg7ymxn6v&st=obi9i3b4&dl=0 

JUDGE RULES AZ IS LIABLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT IN THE CASE OF TRIAL PARTICIPANT INJURED BY ITS COVID JAB

AZ SOUGHT TO AVOID ALL THE COSTS AND RESPONSIBILITY ASSOCIATED WITH BRIANNE DRESSEN SEVERE INJURIES, ALL THE TIME KNOWING THAT THEIR COVID JABS WERE A PART OF A CRIMINAL SCHEME 

AZ DEVELOPER SIR JOHN BELL STATEMENT IMPLICATES THE COMPANY IN MASSIVE FRAUD

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qw5g6affesx5jze/SirJohnBellProsecutor.pdf?dl=0

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/judge-denies-astrazenecas-motion-dismiss-vaccine-injury-case

A federal law that grants broad legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers does not protect AstraZeneca against a breach of contract claim brought by a woman who was injured by the company’s vaccine, a U.S. judge ruled on Nov. 4.

A dose of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in an undated file photograph. Louai Beshara/AFP via Getty Images

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act protects manufacturers of vaccines during times of emergency, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Brianne Dressen sued AstraZeneca for neglecting to, as promised in a contract, cover the costs of injuries she suffered after participating in the company’s clinical trial in 2020. The pharmaceutical company said it was immune from the lawsuit under the PREP Act.

U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby disagreed, ruling on Monday in favor of Dressen and denying AstraZeneca’s motion to dismiss.

“The basis of Dressen’s claim is a broken promise, not a countermeasure,” he said, adding later: “Dressen was administered a covered countermeasure, and she was warned that she may suffer from an adverse reaction, but the fact that she suffered from such reaction was not sufficient to ripen her claim. Rather, she only has a claim because AstraZeneca made a contractual promise to her that happened to involve the effects of a covered countermeasure.”

AstraZeneca put forth a theory in legal filings that immunity from breach of contract claims helps encourage the quick development and deployment of countermeasures during health emergencies, which is the purpose of the PREP Act. Dressen’s lawyers argued enforcing contracts achieves the same result. The judge sided with the latter.

“If the PREP Act immunized deceptive contractual inducement and sanctioned illusory promises, then no one would agree to undertake the high-risk activities that are critical during public health emergency responses,” Shelby said. “The PREP Act drafters could not have intended to allow pharmaceutical companies to make illusory promises to clinical trial participants because doing so would erode public trust and undermine the ability to recruit willing participants, which in turn would erode and undermine pandemic preparedness.”