Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Bowerbird, Aug 9, 2021.
It would have to be proved that is was done with malice towards the company.
Odd that you would ask about accountability when the vaccine comes with a "use at your own risk" disclaimer. It turns out that the benefits of taking the vaccine were over-promised. Vaccinated people are still catching and spreading it. They still have to wear masks and distance.
Those pushing the vaccine are not doing so from a position of honesty or accountability.
You do over there because the unvaccinated have spread it so far and fast that herd immunity is harder to achieve. Meanwhile here in Aus we are using it to contain an outbreak that at the monument has peaked to over 600 people - ummm sorry what were your stats again?
Stats: Not living in Australia and not infected with Covid.
Give it time over there meanwhile
Malice is probably the wrong word. All the company would have to prove was that the data was fake/fraudulent.
For example suppose someone with a strong anti-vaxer bias is tempted to publish false/fake information about a vaccine (or alternately draw conclusions from real data selectively so as to make legitimate research appear to show the vaccine concerned was harmful when if fact it does nothing of the sort. Even if their concern was vaccines in general and they have zero interest in the company that produced it their actions might, I suppose be grounds to go after them.
As I recall, the first to make light of the virus and pandemic were Democrats who called the President a xenophobe and then went on to counsel American to ignore the President, to mingle and carry on as usual and to "eat Chinese" (wink, wink). Democrats were also the original anti vaxxers, saying they wouldn't trust any vaccine resulting from the Trump administrations labors. What both these instances have in common is reckless politics and a loathing of the Presidents personality, a self perpetuating rage, stoked and preceded by four years of the same. Now they are the self righteous converts, spitting hell fire and damnation upon anyone but themselves for whom they have the uttermost regard and mercy. What a bunch of evil, shameless, power hungry hypocrites.
Wow! A history rewrite
Good heavens. I'm not aware that "anti-vaxxers" spread disinformation. They are simply afraid of the vaccines. My wife is one and nothing will motivate her to get a vaccine of any sort - ever. The snake oil and neighbor's dog business is childish nonsense. Try to keep some sincerity in a serious subject.
Your quote said that people on Fox viewed the response to the virus as a form of government social control. It seems really obviousl to me given the amount of misinformation the government has provided. If government could have stayed out of the response to covid at least the medical community would have followed the science. As it is they had the government shouting over their heads.
What the quote didn't say is that they were anti-vaxxers. Sorry, this was a really bad post.
In theory, those who malign specific vaccination doses by name, produced by specific companies, could indeed be sued once those products have been officially pronounced to be safe for use in the United States.
That official approval is expected to be officially announced by the government for the Pfizer vaccine on Monday, Aug. 23rd, and subsequent approval for the Moderna product is likely not far behind.
I haven't heard if approval regarding safety is coming for the J&J vaccine or not....
Why hasn't Robert Kennedy Jr and a host of other Hollywood longtime anti-vaxers not been sued into the poor house?
Read my original posts again. Then ask yourself, did Kennedy or any of the other persons on your imagined 'list' actually deliberately set out to knowingly forge/concoct/publish false data on vaccines? Or did they just parrot/recirculate already existing false information?
If the former (which almost certainly isn't the case) then yes they could perhaps be prosecuted. If latter, then no. Like the vast majority of anti-vaxers they could claim ignorance or naivety as a defense since they're not the authors of the rubbish they spout/repeat.
I don't know who are you talking about that did? They put up all kinds of charts and data and studies proclaiming to back their claims and sell their books and give speeches and seminars and TV appearances.
Such lawsuits are easy to file but hard to win.
The problem with Fox news is the fact that Fox news is NOT a news channel. It is an entertainment channel. That is always the defense they use. So I don't see how you can prosecute an entity for expressing opinion. The best that could be done is a disclaimer before the particular "news" coverage.
Who gets to decide what is "misinformation"?
The original authors of the files and reports would be the target, not those who just spread them. Those and possibly a (very) small additional category.
That would be the tiny number of Doctors & scientists in the anti-vaxer camp whose chosen areas of expertise e.g. virology or immunology etc should make them aware of the facts around immunization vs anti-vax propaganda but who instead deliberately chose to spout lies anyway from a supposed position of authority. Frankly I'm not even aware of any 'expert's who fall into that category, although I suppose there could be some out there. Most of the scientists etc going on the public record with anti-vax claims aren't patently experts in the field. So they can (truthfully or not) claim the same 'general ignorance' defense their adoring fans have.
Well I think they both would be, but again they can try but it's not a simple matter of you were wrong in what you believed to be true.
I don't know. I know they wrote a lot of books and make a living off their assertions. You know people who are anti-vax also present studies and data that they believe. I don't know who you are talking about that is KNOWINGLY presenting false information in order to harm the pharma companies. I don't think it is any different from other anti-vaxes. What is the distinction your are trying to make being anti COVID vaccination and anti measles or flu or other vaccinations people oppose and speak out against?
No, they'd had to have deliberately faked data, altered it or otherwise knowingly taken it out context, then published it with a view to discrediting products. In this case that would be vaccines.
No problems with presenting data. So long as it complies with normal standards for such papers i.e its peer reviewed and accepted for publication by legitimate journals. After all the original science behind the vaccines has to jump through these hoops to get published/accepted. Criticism of those results should be held to the same standard.
If they claim their research has produced results contradicting vaccine research? All to the good, they should publish. But those results have to be be A) testable & B) repeatable by independent studies before being accepted for publication. Even statistical meta-reviews of other peoples work have to comply with the standard rules and have the maths verified..
As for knowingly harming specific pharma companies? I don't think that need be an issue. Take smoking as an example. Peer reviewed studies implying harmful affects from smoking weren't deliberately targeted at specific companies but at the practice of smoking in general. That didn't stop the studies from harming the profits of the tobacco industry (at least in the West anyway). Same thing for vaccines. As I said legitimate science poking holes in vaccination? Fire away (if you can produce it)! Illegitimate/forged.faked data? That could have civil law consequences if intent can be shown. I'd argue (deliberately) defective research is a product like any other.
Not sure about the other Hollywood elite, but the Kennedy's have a SpendThrift trust. So does OJ. It's neat.
I do not need to government to tell me how to avoid a virus. Those that need their thinking done for them were crowding Walmart to buy TP.
Bower, you're "down under" right??
How do you justify arresting people?? Brutalizing kids?? Forcing people out of work who have families to feed??
Austrailia is going full-blown authoritarian!! Papers please!! Unvaccinated people are subhuman, right??
2+2=5, right?? Only after they admit it, will they be "humanely euthanized"??
You zealots are walking a very dangerous line.
Should government officials, bureaucrats, police and those who push injections that are not vaccines but experimental biological agents and will cause death within 3 years, be held accountable for breaking laws
YES THEY SHOULD
FORMER AUSTRALIAN SOLDIER’S MESSAGE TO PUBLIC OFFICERS & THE PUBLIC
Btw this very thread and all who said yes are in violation of the Nuremberg Code
the whole "experiment" is in violation of the Nuremberg Code along with all the coercion that goes with it by the media and big tech
Separate names with a comma.