Is Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla a Criminal?

Big moment on CNBC as they grill Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla on vaccine liability shields: 'If your products are safe and effective, why the need for protection?' Bourla’s response? FDA approval means they’re safe, and litigation risks—like someone claiming a car accident was caused by a vaccine—could spiral out of control. He points to Congress passing laws to shield FDA-approved vaccines, calling it a safeguard against frivolous lawsuits. Fair point or dodge?

But the Jaxen Report pushes back hard: Why only vaccines? Every other pharmaceutical product—like ZEPIC or anything else—has side effects, and people can sue over those. What makes vaccines so special? They argue Bourla’s appeal to FDA authority ('FDA approves it, so it’s safe') falls flat when the FDA often relies on the companies’ own testing. And in the middle? People, including kids, allegedly getting hurt. Jaxen says this is finally being questioned after years of taboo—thanks in part to voices like Robert Kennedy Jr. shining a spotlight.

This debate’s been simmering for decades, but it’s hitting a boiling point. Do liability shields protect innovation, or do they shield negligence? And if vaccines are so safe, why not let the courts decide like with every other product? Drop your thoughts—what’s the real reason vaccines get this unique pass?

TEXT and VIDEO SOURCE: https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/1900159802099061048