There is a question that is rarely asked, but that puts the entire debate in a different light:
Why do vaccine manufacturers need statutory liability protection if their product is safe?
USA 1986: The End of Manufacturer Liability #
In 1986, the US Congress passes the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). The trigger: several vaccine manufacturers had left the US market because damages lawsuits were becoming too expensive.
The solution: manufacturers can no longer be directly sued for vaccine injuries. Instead, there is a state compensation fund (VICP). The taxpayer bears liability, not the manufacturer.
Congress explains it openly: intervention was necessary because “increased liability would drive vaccine manufacturers out of the market.”
This is remarkable. The market — i.e., the aggregated decisions of millions of informed actors — had decided: the liability risk is too high. The legislature overrode this market decision.
Important: the law contains an exception. Liability is possible in cases of fraud or intentional concealment of information. This exception is becoming increasingly relevant in the current debate around Pfizer/BioNTech — see BGH ruling March 2026.
EU: The Same Principle for Covid #
In the EU, von der Leyen negotiated that the EU Commission assumes liability for Covid vaccines — not the manufacturers. This is publicly known, barely discussed.
Former Pfizer Chief Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz has taken a clear position: in cases of proven fraud, the liability exemption no longer applies. And he sees the missing safety studies, the DNA contaminations, and the change in manufacturing process as a possible basis for exactly this allegation.
The Logical Consequence #
When a manufacturer is exempted from liability for its product:
- There is no financial incentive to test safety beyond the minimum
- There is no consequence when post-market data shows harm
- The harmed party bears the risk, not the manufacturer
This is not criticism of vaccinations per se. It’s criticism of a system that neutralizes the fundamental mechanism of liability — the manufacturer bears the risk of its product.
A car manufacturer saying “my cars are safe, but I need statutory protection from damages lawsuits” would rightly be questioned. With vaccines, this question was not asked for decades.
Sources:
- AMA Journal of Ethics (2012): NCVIA and Supreme Court’s Interpretation — journalofethics.ama-assn.org
- Congress.gov: H.R.5546 NCVIA 1986 — congress.gov
- Bhakdi/Sterz Interview: The human was genetically altered — elizaonsteroids.org
