Source – zerohedge.com
- “…The court recognizes the classification of the insurer who, in view of the announced side effects, including death, legally regards participation in the phase three experiment, whose proven harmlessness is not given, as voluntarily taking a fatal risk that is not covered by the contract and legally recognized as suicide. The family has appealed. However, the insurer’s defense is recognized as well-founded and contractually justified, as this publicly known fatal risk is legally considered suicide, since the customer has been notified and has agreed to voluntarily take the risk of death without being obliged or compelled to do so”
Suicide? How Some Life Insurance Companies Are Dealing With Experimental Vaccines Deaths
INSURANCE: A FOLLOW UP
The last two weeks we have spent some time looking at the health insurance industry with particular focus on the campaign of… ahem, injections.
The UK government now oddly admits that vaccines have damaged the natural immune system of those who have been double-vaccinated.
(Also Read: Vaccinated people are walking biological time bombs…- By Mike Adams @ https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-03-26-situation-update-mar-26-vaccinated-people-are-walking-biological-time-bombs.html#
The UK government has admitted that once you have been double-vaccinated, you will never again be able to acquire full natural immunity to Covid variants… or possibly any other virus.
Do we now get a “real” pandemic? In its Week 42 “COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report”, the UK Department of Health admits on page 23, that “N antibody levels appear to be lower in people who become infected after two doses of vaccination.”
It goes on to say that this drop in antibodies is essentially permanent. What does this mean? We know that vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus (indeed, the report elsewhere shows that vaccinated adults are now much more likely to be infected than unvaccinated ones).
The Brits now find that the vaccine interferes with the body’s ability to make antibodies after infection not only against the spike protein but also against other parts of the virus.
In particular, vaccinated people do not appear to form antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein, the envelope of the virus, which is a crucial part of the response in unvaccinated people. In the long term, the vaccinated are far more susceptible to any mutations in the spike protein, even if they have already been infected and cured once or more. The unvaccinated, on the other hand, will gain lasting (if not permanent) immunity to all strains of the alleged virus after being naturally infected with it even once.
Sure, we don’t expect the corrupt media to cover this, but it’s there for us to read in the government’s own reports. What’s been stunning to watch during the last two years is how the government’s various bodies put out data, independent non-mainstream journalists report on it and are immediately censored, demonized, and/or discredited with hit pieces done, while the MSM ignores it and instead provides narratives that are completely opposite.
It is, therefore, crucial to read the source material yourself so as to not be hoodwinked by propaganda.
The first insurance companies may well be the first to bring this into the open as they’ve real money at stake, and I can’t see them coughing up for claims which threaten their existence.
Here, take a look… over in the land of the guillotine an insurance company has been backed up in court after refusing to pay out a life insurance policy after the insured died from the vaccine.
Remember the “conversation” you had after telling your wife you’d be back for dinner, only to then spend the night having beers with your friends, stumbling in at 2am?
Yeah, that’s a precedent set.
Courts are like that, too. Once courts have established reasoning and subsequent judgements, these are relied upon in future legal battles. In short, they form the established norms.
It is therefore highly probable that in France at least deaths resulting from vaccines will be treated as suicides.
The court allegedly justified its ruling as follows:
The side effects of the experimental vaccine are published and the deceased could not claim to have known nothing about it when he voluntarily took the vaccine. There is no law or mandate in France that compelled him to be vaccinated. Hence his death is essentially suicide.
The court had this to say:
The court recognizes the classification of the insurer who, in view of the announced side effects, including death, legally regards participation in the phase three experiment, whose proven harmlessness is not given, as voluntarily taking a fatal risk that is not covered by the contract and legally recognized as suicide. The family has appealed. However, the insurer’s defense is recognized as well-founded and contractually justified, as this publicly known fatal risk is legally considered suicide, since the customer has been notified and has agreed to voluntarily take the risk of death without being obliged or compelled to do so.
As mentioned last week, insurers, or should we say the quants in cardigans, couldn’t and can’t adequately assess the risk associated with an experimental drug, and as such can’t insure against it.
It will be interesting to watch cases elsewhere in the world, however, the odds I think favour much of the same. The issue I see is this. The deaths that may result from ADE such as the now 20x increase in cancer cases being noted may not be easily identified as being caused by the jabs. Insurers will be on the hook for these and will be fighting with the establishment to prove causality.
While this is all playing out there are hundreds of other medical professionals noticing the same things.
So what does this mean?
Well, I can think of a couple of things. One is that the insurance industry isn’t going to let itself be hampered by political correctness and obfuscating the fact that the vaccines are experimental and that some of the short-term side effects are stated and known.
So this means that health insurance policies will come into question for those who thought they were covered but realise now they’ve jeopardized their policies. I can certainly imagine those who were coerced by employers to turn around and sue their employers for compensation, even if nothing happens to them.
Consider the case referenced above and now consider that precedent is set. Any employee that has been forced by their employer to effectively void their life insurance policy may have recourse to sue their employer for compensation.
The US, being more litigious than a trophy wife to an old rich guy, seems like it’s primed for this. Time will tell, but this could become an entire fustercluck to US companies that forced employees to experiment with drugs.
Thinking ahead, if we see this explode (and I’m not saying it will, but if we do), one thing to look out for is a basket of companies that mandated vs a basket that didn’t. That could be a really interesting arbitrage opportunity. Let’s keep our eye on it.