I feel rather uncomfortable 'liking' this article with a love-heart , because it makes me very angry indeed that people are being treated like this. But this deserves a far wider audience. People may reasonably assume that as most people don't get compensation, most cases are frivolous. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Every part of the VDPS is deliberately unfit. If the doors are opened and a fair and honest assessment is given to the vaccine injured where they are allowed to present the facts of their injury and those facts are received honestly and without bias then it will encourage even more vaccine damaged to become vocal and before we know it the trickle will become a flood. All that is being done is deflecting, minimising and dismissing the few people who have the courage and are desperate enough to come forward. There is no protection for the vaccine injured but there is plenty of protection for the governments and their controlled institutions.
All the unfair and dishonest behaviour you've described is very necessary if the goal is to avoid vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is detrimental to OTT profits. Drug companies invest a huge amount in attempting to minimise this. One e.g. is that studies on vaccine hesitancy are commissioned worldwide employing both academia and private organisations, I suspect in order to increase buy-in.
1) It is discriminatory against disabilities in violation of the Equality Act 2010; it demands a prejudicial standard trying to label a disabled person a percentage of a disability, which is impossible. 60% disabled... compared to what? 60% of what?
2) It violates Due Process by denying victims fair and just compensation for harms suffered.
3) It prohibits the required discovery processes often used in legal processes necessary to unearth corruption and wrongdoing. The compensation scheme merely assesses a suspicion of disability; it does not give the claimant the necessary legal tools to prove it.
4) The compensation system is not impartial. A third party corporation is not an independent judiciary nor is it a suitable replacement for one.
5) Overreliance on writing is due to the fact it is not a proper court system. Court systems are set up to receive eyewitness and expert testimony. This failure denies a person their legal right to redress harms - rights that cannot be violated by the very government that is causing them!
6) It attempts to insinuate someone who is 59% disabled - harmed by the shot - is undeserving of compensation for the harms, which is another violation of victims' legal rights that would be present under a normal civil lawsuit.
7) It does not permit legal representation, which is a right of every person in the legal system.
8) The compensation being capped at £120,000 is arbitrarily far too low. It denies victims of harm the required level of financial compensation for significant harms. Are you telling me a person who is near death as a result of this shot only requires a mere £120,000 to get better? It wouldn't even cover a single major surgery, let alone a lifetime's worth of harm.
9) The system discriminates against the severely crippled because they are unable to submit to the system if they are in a crippled state that is significant enough to negatively impact their ability to pursue justice (read: they're unable to appoint an attorney to pursuit their legal rights on their behalf).
10) What is a 100% disabled person? Someone who is dead? What kind of medical farce is this? It is not legally sound. How does a doctor or a medically qualified expert give testimony on the percentage of disability? How is it calculated? It distorts the valid testimony required into a simple number.
Abolish this corporate protectionism racket. Victims can get compensation under normal litigation schemes. They do not need an unsound and highly questionable "compensation" scheme designed to deny compensations.
I feel rather uncomfortable 'liking' this article with a love-heart , because it makes me very angry indeed that people are being treated like this. But this deserves a far wider audience. People may reasonably assume that as most people don't get compensation, most cases are frivolous. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Every part of the VDPS is deliberately unfit. If the doors are opened and a fair and honest assessment is given to the vaccine injured where they are allowed to present the facts of their injury and those facts are received honestly and without bias then it will encourage even more vaccine damaged to become vocal and before we know it the trickle will become a flood. All that is being done is deflecting, minimising and dismissing the few people who have the courage and are desperate enough to come forward. There is no protection for the vaccine injured but there is plenty of protection for the governments and their controlled institutions.
Take down all the gain of function labs!
All the unfair and dishonest behaviour you've described is very necessary if the goal is to avoid vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is detrimental to OTT profits. Drug companies invest a huge amount in attempting to minimise this. One e.g. is that studies on vaccine hesitancy are commissioned worldwide employing both academia and private organisations, I suspect in order to increase buy-in.
My legal objections to VDPS are as follows:
1) It is discriminatory against disabilities in violation of the Equality Act 2010; it demands a prejudicial standard trying to label a disabled person a percentage of a disability, which is impossible. 60% disabled... compared to what? 60% of what?
2) It violates Due Process by denying victims fair and just compensation for harms suffered.
3) It prohibits the required discovery processes often used in legal processes necessary to unearth corruption and wrongdoing. The compensation scheme merely assesses a suspicion of disability; it does not give the claimant the necessary legal tools to prove it.
4) The compensation system is not impartial. A third party corporation is not an independent judiciary nor is it a suitable replacement for one.
5) Overreliance on writing is due to the fact it is not a proper court system. Court systems are set up to receive eyewitness and expert testimony. This failure denies a person their legal right to redress harms - rights that cannot be violated by the very government that is causing them!
6) It attempts to insinuate someone who is 59% disabled - harmed by the shot - is undeserving of compensation for the harms, which is another violation of victims' legal rights that would be present under a normal civil lawsuit.
7) It does not permit legal representation, which is a right of every person in the legal system.
8) The compensation being capped at £120,000 is arbitrarily far too low. It denies victims of harm the required level of financial compensation for significant harms. Are you telling me a person who is near death as a result of this shot only requires a mere £120,000 to get better? It wouldn't even cover a single major surgery, let alone a lifetime's worth of harm.
9) The system discriminates against the severely crippled because they are unable to submit to the system if they are in a crippled state that is significant enough to negatively impact their ability to pursue justice (read: they're unable to appoint an attorney to pursuit their legal rights on their behalf).
10) What is a 100% disabled person? Someone who is dead? What kind of medical farce is this? It is not legally sound. How does a doctor or a medically qualified expert give testimony on the percentage of disability? How is it calculated? It distorts the valid testimony required into a simple number.
Abolish this corporate protectionism racket. Victims can get compensation under normal litigation schemes. They do not need an unsound and highly questionable "compensation" scheme designed to deny compensations.