by Keean Bexte
April 27, 2022
Why do you think a supposedly “safe and effective” vaccine needs legal indemnity?
While listening to the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was shocked to hear a line of questioning like this hurled at Kiersten Combs, the President of AstraZeneca Canada.
Finally, someone is asking questions that we need answers to.
“Could you please explain why [AstraZeneca] asked for indemnification clauses, why public bodies should assume those liabilities, and whether these indemnification clauses would apply in cases where information was withheld by your company with respect to risks,” MP Garnett Genuis asked.
As expected, AstraZeneca Canada President Kiersten Combs was dumbfounded by the straightforward question of why their company asked for legal liability, apparently being utterly unaware of what situations indemnity would even apply to or that it was requested.
You’ve got to check it out HERE.
As many will remember, AstraZeneca was the first of the big four vaccine manufacturers to have their product rejected worldwide after governments admitted that the vaccine led to an increased risk of blood clots forming and a whole host of other side effects.
Without indemnity, AstraZeneca would have been liable for every injury.
That is the way it should be.
Keep fighting for what is right,
Keean Bexte
Editor-in-Chief
TheCounterSignal.com
What do you think about this? I would love to hear from you about it. Also – if you could share this story with your friends, it would be a great help!
The Counter Signal does not take a dime from the government. We rely on viewers contributing to keep our work flowing. If you think news like this is worth it, please pitch it to keep our lights on.
