AstraZeneca President can’t answer why the company needed indemnity

Keean Bexte

April 27, 2022

MP Garnett Genuis recently grilled the President of AstraZeneca Canada, who couldn’t answer why their company needed indemnity (protection from legal liability) for their safe and effective COVID vaccine.

“A previous witness has told us that the global distribution of vaccine[s] is subject to indemnification clauses that countries have to sign on to, meaning that if something goes wrong, your companies are shielded from liability,” MP Genius began, speaking in front of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

“People cannot sue if they experience or perceive they have experienced vaccine injuries. Instead, any compensation would be paid out by a no-fault mechanism funded by COVAX, to which industry does not contribute. This witness further told us that you had asked for this protection as part of your agreements,” he continued.

“So, could you please explain why your company 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?” [Emphasis added]

As expected, AstraZeneca Canada President Kiersten Combs is 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.

“So, I’m not privileged as to a specifically the indemnification clause and the contract you speak of. What I can say is that AstraZeneca stands behind our medicines and the safety profile of our medicines. And so —”

Genuis steps in, calling out Combs for being the President of AstraZeneca Canada but apparently sitting in total ignorance of what liabilities the company is subject to or is even asking for.

Again, Combs is dumbstruck, dodging the question as Genuis is prevented from continuing.

As many will remember, AstraZeneca was the first of the big four vaccine manufacturers to have their product rejected around the world 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.

Moreover, they likely knew that the vaccine carried with it such risks. As international relations columnist Rupa Subramanya notes, vaccine manufacturers who were not given indemnity in countries, specifically in India, immediately backed off.

When push came to shove, the companies weren’t confident enough in their vaccine’s safety to risk the never-ending wave of lawsuits that would follow millions of vaccine adverse reactions.

Share this story

Help Keep your News Free

Share this story

It's crucial we stay in touch

Big Tech wants to censor us, that’s why you need to stay in touch.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE THESE...

Trending News

Canada’s 2022 excess deaths trajectory is on pace to shatter the total from 2021 – and obliterate that from 2020.

Mike Campbell

January 27, 2023

Trending News

A Pfizer employee who was secretly recorded saying his company has considered mutating the Covid virus for profit said he was lying to impress a date. 

Mike Campbell

January 27, 2023

Trending News

Canada had more excess deaths in vaccine-coerced 2021 than in 2020 when the pandemic supposedly ravaged the country coast to coast — without vaccines.

Mike Campbell

January 26, 2023

Trending News

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said Albertans would lose 25% of their economy if the federal government’s Just Transition proposal becomes law under a provincial NDP government.  

TCS Wire

January 17, 2023

Trending News

Over 53,000 Canadians have suffered an adverse effect from the Covid-19 vaccine, whereas just under 50,000 Canadians have died from the virus. 

Mike Campbell

January 17, 2023

Trending News

Alberta professor and Covid-19 vaccine influencer Tim Caulfield blocked a debate moderator on Twitter after she shared an open letter from vaccine critic Byram Bridle challenging Caulfield to a debate.

Mike Campbell

January 16, 2023

We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information that you’ve provided to them or that they’ve collected from your use of their services. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.