"Unintentionally" is doing a lot of work there. This is to incentivize pharma makers to create vaccines without having to worry about spurious lawsuits. If they

"Unintentionally" is doing a lot of work there. This is to incentivize pharma makers to create vaccines without having to worry about spurious lawsuits. If they commit some kind of outright fraud, selling substances that aren't what they say or fabricating research results, they're still liable. This isn't much different from the way medical malpractice works. You can't (successfully) sue a doctor who performed open heart surgery on your husband because he died afterward, in most cases, because it's a risky procedure and that risk is something you have to accept. But if they were drunk while performing the surgery, you can absolutely sue for that. In this specific case, though, there isn't necessarily this kind of informed consent. People can be legally mandated to get vaccines, so it would make no sense to hold the company providing the vaccines liable. The entity creating the mandate, in this case the government itself, should be the one liable, and they are. Your number doesn't mean a whole lot, either. The most dangerous vaccines are for things like malaria and anthrax that typically only military members get, and when they end up harmed, the VA pays them disability benefits. There are way more than 29 people getting VA disability because of events like this.