Experts concerned about vaccination backlash - Page 2

[SunshineJ]

Originally Posted by anechka

The so-called "re-education camps" were first introduced by the chairman Mao during the times of the Cultural Revolution.

I told you my history sucked I just remembered that I'd heard of it before.

[mamadelbosque]

Oh, I know why they got immunity. I just think its totally, completely wrong that they did. Pharmacutical companies don't have immunity for all the new drugs they come out with, and they occasionally get sued and loose billions when one of their products hurst people, as they should. Can you imagine what would happen if we gave drug manufacturers immunity in order to "protect" them from lawsuits?? Because thats what we did with vaccines. They have ZERO risk when they come up with a new vaccine. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. So, wheres their incentive to make sure their product is safe?

My fear is for the safety of my children. And I just have zero faith in an industry that carries zero risk if their product hurts my children. No other industry in this country has immunity from lawsuits if their product hurts people. Why are vaccines so special?

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by no5no5

Well, okay, but it's the same principle. If there's liability but no insurance, people don't take that big of a risk unless there's a really big payoff. Regardless of what you believe, the people who passed the law did it because they believed that a higher cost or a break in the vaccine supply would be a national health risk. There's nothing nefarious about that motivation.

I feel like some of the motivation is suspect. There is no other product in this country where manufacturers are given a "get out of jail free" card if their product causes harm to an individual (or many many many individuals). All that happened was the government kept on the market a HUGE money making product and gave them no liability should something go wrong. And the process of proving damages is so impossibly difficult that very few people have been able to prove and collect damages.

If people were given the same process for vaccine injuries that they give to all other product liability, the process would be quite straight-forward, and the burden would be "more likely than not". Since the product liability laws were basically thrown out the window for vaccines, I cannot agree that the motivation was pure. There was certainly a lot of thought that went into how to keep a product on the market, while completely limiting any liability for it.

How much money do vaccine companies make each year? How much money is paid into taxes based on those sales? How many people directly and indirectly profiting from the sales of vaccines are on the decision making panels that sway the CDC? I've looked into these questions and more, and I do not reach the same conclusion that you do. I think the motivation that goes into the vaccine schedule and protection is quite suspect.

[no5no5]

Tort reform is not limited to the vaccine industry. I can't imagine where you got that idea. And it certainly does not remove all risk from the people who make vaccines. That's just absurd. In addition to the financial risk, which remains huge despite limited tort liability, vaccine manufacturers face criminal liability if they act with criminal negligence. Sure, they make lots of money. They also spend lots of money. It's a huge industry. That doesn't mean that the legislators who passed the bill didn't have the best interests of the country at heart.

While it may be true that it is difficult to prove an injury in the current system, it is also difficult to sue successfully under standard product liability law. In a tort for product liability, the plaintiff would have to prove that the injury was caused by a defect in the product. It is not simply enough to prove an injury. And some people with known injuries would not be compensated under tort law simply because their injuries were caused by known side effects that the manufacturers warned the plaintiffs about.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by no5no5

In a tort for product liability, the plaintiff would have to prove that the injury was caused by a defect in the product.

The current case going before the SCOTUS deals with the fact that there was a safer way to produce the vaccine that allegedly caused the injury, if that's where this conversation is ultimately going.

It is not simply enough to prove an injury. And some people with known injuries would not be compensated under tort law simply because their injuries were caused by known side effects that the manufacturers warned the plaintiffs about.

The scientific community has repeatedly stated that the side effects listed on monographs and circulars are not evidence that they were caused by the vaccine. Anyone that has ever tried to use a package insert as evidence of injury has failed. In a civil tort, vaccine makers are subject to rules that simply do NOT apply in vaccine court. Notably, discovery. Drug makers have repeatedly lost their a$$e$ when forced to produce information and data regarding their products when it has been alleged that said product has harmed or killed... because in those cases, it has been demonstrated that the drug companies knew about the risks, and did NOT disclose them.

The bean counters successfully demonstrated to their board members that by the time the public figures out (via rightful prosecution and actually having to face the judicial system) that product x increases the risk of disease x by its use, they have already made billions of dollars. What's coughing up a few million to an injured person, or a surviving family? A drop in the bucket.

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by no5no5

Tort reform is not limited to the vaccine industry. I can't imagine where you got that idea. And it certainly does not remove all risk from the people who make vaccines. That's just absurd. In addition to the financial risk, which remains huge despite limited tort liability, vaccine manufacturers face criminal liability if they act with criminal negligence. Sure, they make lots of money. They also spend lots of money. It's a huge industry. That doesn't mean that the legislators who passed the bill didn't have the best interests of the country at heart.

While it may be true that it is difficult to prove an injury in the current system, it is also difficult to sue successfully under standard product liability law. In a tort for product liability, the plaintiff would have to prove that the injury was caused by a defect in the product. It is not simply enough to prove an injury. And some people with known injuries would not be compensated under tort law simply because their injuries were caused by known side effects that the manufacturers warned the plaintiffs about.

I didn't say that tort reform was limited to the vaccine industry. But the extent to which it has been taken and the immunity granted to vaccine manufacturers granted by the government is limited to the vaccine industry.

I think that some of the legislators who helped to limit the vaccine industry's liability did have the country's best interest at heart. But I think that they are woefully misled, answering to their under-informed constituents (for the most part), and receive a ton of pressure from lobbyists.

Of course you need to prove that a product caused the injury that you are trying to claim in a product liability case and not just that you were injured. But the standard that needs to be met is that it is more likely than not that the product caused the injury. That is a landslide away from what parents of vaccine injured children need to prove. And not only are they taking on the vaccine industry, they are also fighting all sorts of immunities and the government. It is nearly an impossible battle. Product liability for other products is not as easy walking into small claims court, but it is a much more even handed battle.

And it isn't as simple as saying that the injury needs to be caused by a defect in the product. There are other ways that a company can be held liable for injuries caused by their product, many of which would be applicable to vaccines, but that process was taken away.

[no5no5]

Just to be perfectly clear, I am not arguing that we should have limited liability for vaccine manufacturers. I entered this discussion to provide an answer to what appeared to me to be a genuinely confused person, seeking to understand the reason limited liability exists. Clearly I was mistaken.

But whether tort reform in the context of vaccine manufacture is a good idea is not something I know enough about to decide. I do know enough about tort reform in general to believe that in some cases it is a very good thing. And I don't think that it is fair to assume that those who have sought to apply it to the vaccine industry have done so as part of some sort of evil conspiracy to make money and poison our children.

But to address the issue of a product liability lawsuit (something I know a bit more about), I can say that it is necessary to prove that your injury was caused by a defect in the product. No, it's not simple, but yes, it is necessary. It's often very, very difficult. It's certainly not as easy as proving that there is a safer alternative.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by no5no5

JAnd I don't think that it is fair to assume that those who have sought to apply it to the vaccine industry have done so as part of some sort of evil conspiracy to make money and poison our children.

I don't think reasonable people think this.

I can say that it is necessary to prove that your injury was caused by a defect in the product. No, it's not simple, but yes, it is necessary. It's often very, very difficult. It's certainly not as easy as proving that there is a safer alternative.

I didn't mean to imply that just proving there was a safer alternative was all that was necessary. My point regarding Bruesewitz, is that it will be necessary to subject Wyeth to appropriate civil procedures (discovery) in order to determine whether or not they were negligent. Absent a handful epidemiological studies, a safe level of thimerosal exposure in humans hasn't been established.

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

I don't think reasonable people think this.

I've known plenty of seemingly reasonable people who've believed completely unreasonable things.

Originally Posted by an_domhan

I didn't mean to imply that just proving there was a safer alternative was all that was necessary. My point regarding Bruesewitz, is that it will be necessary to subject Wyeth to appropriate civil procedures (discovery) in order to determine whether or not they were negligent. Absent a handful epidemiological studies, a safe level of thimerosal exposure in humans hasn't been established.

There hasn't been discovery in Bruesewitz? I'm reading the COA opinion, and it sounds as if there was discovery. Also, I'm not sure it's about thimerosal. It seems that the claim is that the whole-cell pertussis vaccine caused the injury. Am I missing something?

[newmum35]

I think we should turn the tables on them and instead of having people hastily sign their initials on a paper they probably haven't even read, prior to administering vaccine, they should be required to attend vaccine class to learn more about each and every disease they are planning on getting a vaccine for, how mild or severe it usually is, and what the risks and benefits of getting that disease are. (poor choice of wording here, what I mean is for example in addition to lifelong and permanent immunity is getting a particular illness at a given age being much less risky - chickenpox for example) And of course, the risks of the vaccine including disability and death. Let the ones who choose the vaccine have to take the class. That makes more sense does it not?

[Marnica]

delete

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by no5no5

I've known plenty of seemingly reasonable people who've believed completely unreasonable things.

Indeed. Duly noted.

There hasn't been discovery in Bruesewitz?

I'm sorry. My drivel is confusing you.... It's not you, it's me.

No, there hasn't been discovery. I meant that the vaccine industry is insulated from this very crucial procedure in Vaccine Court.

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

I'm sorry. My drivel is confusing you.... It's not you, it's me.

No, there hasn't been discovery. I meant that the vaccine industry is insulated from this very crucial procedure in Vaccine Court.

Thank goodness, for once it's not me. Bruesewitz isn't in Vaccine Court, though. I guess that's why they did get discovery. Or, at least, the COA opinion says they got discovery so it'd be weird if that was wrong.

As for Vaccine Court, it's a no-fault system. There's usually no need for discovery if fault isn't at issue.

[Poogles0213]

Just posting some info re: the vaccine court and how it works (from Wikipedia):

"The VICP uses a no-fault system for resolving vaccine injury claims [...]If certain minimal requirements are met, legal expenses are compensated even for unsuccessful claims[...] To win an award, a claimant must show a causal connection; if medical records show a child has one of several listed adverse effects soon after vaccination, the assumption is that it was caused by the vaccine. The burden of proof is the civil-law preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, in other words a showing that causation was more likely than not. Denied claims can be pursued in civil courts, though this is rare."

"By 1999 the average claim took two years to resolve, and 42% of resolved claims were awarded compensation, as compared with 23% for medical malpractice claims through the tort system"

[Tracy]

The Eli Lily Free Ride bill had a name change and was attached to the Homeland Security Bill in 2002.

more here:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ighlight=frist