My brothers reason for not vaxing.

[MountainMamaGC]

My brother works in OHS. He is not vaxing because some of the toxins in the shots exceed workplace safety limits. I thought this was an excellent point of view. He was talking a couple of police officers in a coffee shop at 4 am after his son was born. The topic of the Vit K shot came up and then they started in on vaccines. One officer didnt vaccinate his kids and the other was shocked. My brother put it to the shocked one this way: Do you think it would be fair if police officers wrote the law? The officer answered No. That they are biased. He says well pharmaceutical companies write a lot of textbooks and guildlines for doctors and have money to lobby whatever the heck they want. Do you think thats fair? The cop could not argue with that.

[Marnica]

Yes and they are also the ones that test the vaccines for safety!

[PaigeC]

Originally Posted by Lydiah

He says well pharmaceutical companies write a lot of textbooks and guildlines for doctors and have money to lobby whatever the heck they want. Do you think thats fair? The cop could not argue with that.

ah a new explanation to put in my arsenal! thanks.

Also, they are not financially responsible for any damage. Even though they would be for other types of drugs.

[angie7]

Originally Posted by PaigeC

Also, they are not financially responsible for any damage. Even though they would be for other types of drugs.

And that bothers me the most. Why would you want to do any serious testing if you won't be held liable for the product that you are producing? That just doesn't make sense to me at all :

[medusaatemydog]

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by PaigeC

Also, they are not financially responsible for any damage. Even though they would be for other types of drugs.

Apologies for my ignorance, but is this true? I had no idea there was a special law to exclude vaccine damage from the ordinary avenues you can take when a drug harms you. Do you mean the special court that the autism test cases have been going through. Is that instead, rather than as well as the ordinary process.

[carriebft]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court

thats a rough outline of the issue

[jeliphish]

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by carriebft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court

thats a rough outline of the issue

Thanks. I had assumed that the reason for going through that route was the lower standard of proof, rather than because other routes were closed.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Thanks. I had assumed that the reason for going through that route was the lower standard of proof, rather than because other routes were closed.

Having had a look at the Wikipedia page, it isn't that any avenue is closed, it's just that you have to (?) do the vaccine court first and judgements in the vaccine court are no blame and damages are not payed directly by the manufacturer. Do I have it right now?

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Having had a look at the Wikipedia page, it isn't that any avenue is closed, it's just that you have to (?) do the vaccine court first and judgements in the vaccine court are no blame and damages are not payed directly by the manufacturer. Do I have it right now?

Right on track, but add in the fact that the parents are the ones paying for the vaccine injury because the price is added in to the cost of the vaccine. Also, it is almost impossible to get through the 1st step of the vaccine court to go to another court, such as state. There was one case, I believe in Georgia, that opened this possibility but I don't know how that one turned out.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

Right on track, but add in the fact that the parents are the ones paying for the vaccine injury because the price is added in to the cost of the vaccine. Also, it is almost impossible to get through the 1st step of the vaccine court to go to another court, such as state. There was one case, I believe in Georgia, that opened this possibility but I don't know how that one turned out.

Since you'd be moving from having lost in one court to another with a higher standard of proof for you to meet, I can't really see the point.

[Deborah]

the vaccine court is set up to reduce the number of cases that get through in every way possible

you have to realize that it is a vaccine injury within a certain amount of time (since doctors deny vaccine injury, this can be a major barrier).

the vaccine court takes forever to process cases, some run 10 years or more

lawyers cannot get any of their costs covered while in process, so unless the parents have lots of money, the lawyers have to work pro bono for many, many years

many things that are probably vaccine injuries are excluded from the list

there are other limitations and complications

these cases are fought very hard by the government

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Deborah

the vaccine court is set up to reduce the number of cases that get through in every way possible

you have to realize that it is a vaccine injury within a certain amount of time (since doctors deny vaccine injury, this can be a major barrier).

the vaccine court takes forever to process cases, some run 10 years or more

lawyers cannot get any of their costs covered while in process, so unless the parents have lots of money, the lawyers have to work pro bono for many, many years

many things that are probably vaccine injuries are excluded from the list

there are other limitations and complications

these cases are fought very hard by the government

So if you are claiming a vaccine injury that isn't on the list, or if it isn't within the time limit it's hard to even take it to the regular court?

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

So if you are claiming a vaccine injury that isn't on the list, or if it isn't within the time limit it's hard to even take it to the regular court?

Yes, that was my point. That is why that case I mentioned was important. It was one of the few times, they tried to get around the way the whole thing is set up and actually get to the pharmaceutical company.

The vaccine injury court is set up to hinder those seeking assistance with injury, not the other way around. It is very misleading. People think, "Hmm, there is a vaccine injury court. Isn't that nice for those families to have an avenue for help if they think their child has been injured." Unfortunately, that is not true at all.

This is also why I don't ever see autism getting added to the list. No way. They will do everything they can to not allow that to happen.

[carriebft]

I actually think the low burden of evidence is a huge plus for those bringing cases; in fact, it really, IMO, overshadows a lot of the other issues brought up here for me (not that I even agree with them all spoken of here, some factual errors as well).

I think that if the people who want to go to regular court got their way, they would be pretty sorry and a lot less cases would be won.

For example, you can prove causation simply by showing that the reaction happened in a certain time frame from the shot. That's all you need for many reactions and vaccines.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

This is also why I don't ever see autism getting added to the list. No way. They will do everything they can to not allow that to happen.

I don't understand. How come the autism test cases were up before the vaccine court then?

[carriebft]

They were seeing if there was sufficient evidence to 'open the gates' to cases where people claim autism resulted from vaccines.

I highly recommend reading or listening to the transcripts if you ever have the inclination or the chance; fascinating and very informative.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by carriebft

They were seeing if there was sufficient evidence to 'open the gates' to cases where people claim autism resulted from vaccines.

I highly recommend reading or listening to the transcripts if you ever have the inclination or the chance; fascinating and very informative.

Believe me, that is a treat I am saving up for myself. I find court transcripts (of interesting cases) fascinating reading. My understanding was, as you say, that they would open the gates. Since they failed, I don't see what purpose would be served by the rest going to court. Whatever issues caused the test cases to fail, whether problems with the court, or the evidence would need to be fixed before there was any point, surely?

[carriebft]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Believe me, that is a treat I am saving up for myself. I find court transcripts (of interesting cases) fascinating reading. My understanding was, as you say, that they would open the gates. Since they failed, I don't see what purpose would be served by the rest going to court. Whatever issues caused the test cases to fail, whether problems with the court, or the evidence would need to be fixed before there was any point, surely?

and you will be surprised by the things they tried to pass off as evidence...