or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › US supreme court ruling today on vax case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US supreme court ruling today on vax case

post #1 of 37
Thread Starter 
I apologize if someone already brought this up, but the supreme court is supposed to rule today on a case of a vax damaged child

http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/su...urt/2010-10-12

I can't get they hyperlink to work, I'm on my phone, but I was wondering if there was a verdict yet? Anyone heard?

And I just have to say that I love how Obama is backing the vax companies, and telling the supreme court how he wants them to vote!
post #2 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by cubbbyaf View Post
I apologize if someone already brought this up, but the supreme court is supposed to rule today on a case of a vax damaged child
The Court heard oral argument on the Bruesewitz case today (transcript here [PDF]). It will be a while before there's a ruling.
post #3 of 37
Thread Starter 
Ok, I'm home now and got to read the whole article more thoughly, I am glad this family has taken the fight all the way to the supreme court though.
post #4 of 37
post #5 of 37
The family is provaccine.

The reason they sued is because their daughter's particular condition was taken off the list of compensatibles two months before they filed, and there were problems found in the particular lot and batch of the vaccine she was given, but Wyeth continued to sell it.
post #6 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by caned & able View Post
The reason they sued is because their daughter's particular condition was taken off the list of compensatibles two months before they filed, and there were problems found in the particular lot and batch of the vaccine she was given, but Wyeth continued to sell it.
The "hot lot" count of the original complaint never made it out of Philadelphia County, as far as I can tell.
post #7 of 37
I just read the NPR article,(thanks Turquesa) and it is awful. It's all about money, money, money. The courts are worried about how much money the vaccine manufacturers could lose.
Here's a neat little quote from the article,
"Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointedly asked: Why didn't Congress make the vaccine court the "exclusive" vehicle for such claims?
Sullivan repeatedly insisted that Congress intended to do just that because manufacturers were being driven out of business by lawsuits."
(Why would the manufacturers be driven out of business by lawsuits? The shots are safe!! That's what we are always told.)

So, here is another example of a "bad batch" of vaccines. This time, the manufacturer knew about it, but sold them anyway? How many times has this happened before? And this is just ONE reason I don't like vaccines.

Another thing we should research--who runs these vaccine courts? Who funds them? The vaccine courts were set up to determine if a person was damaged by a vaccine. Are they unbiased? I don't know, so I'm off to find out.
post #8 of 37
I hate to say it but I do believe that the people who "decide" cases in the vaccine court are influenced by the pharms. You cannot tell me that out of the thousands of cases going through the system, only a handful have been "proven"?

Who funds it? You do (or rather those who vaccinate do). There is a "surcharge" on every single vaccine that goes into a fund that is allocated to vaccine injured persons. The vaccine manufacturer's do not pay into this fund...they are protected behind a wall of green (money) and in 15 years have not had one lawsuit brought against them. If they were going out of business (I've not heard of one vaccine manufacturer going out of business over a lawsuit) then too bad. If they can stand behind their products so staunchly now...let's see how adamant they are about the safety of their products when they can be held liable.

I don't understand how they got this free pass...regular pharms get sued all the time (diet pills, diabetes meds, etc) for the damage their drugs cause to people...but vaccine manufacturer's do not?

I also wanted to add that the vaccine courts are totally biased. The testing for these vaccine injuries is done by the CDC and the HHS divisions. Sounds good, until you realize that not only are the CDC/HHS defendants in the cases, they are also the organizations that do the SAFETY TESTING for the vaccines. Does anyone really think that this was a good idea? They should be using someone who is unbiased for these things. How many cases have been dismissed wrongly? Probably a whole lot!
post #9 of 37
I agree 100% with NaturalBirthGoddess. I do *not* get it. Hell its one of the questions I asked our ped on vaccines: "Riddle me this: If vaccines are so safe, and so effective, then *why* do the manufactureres "need" immunity?"" Of course she had no answer. Nobody does. Untill you stop and think about it. Those same companies aren't immune from lawsuits for any of the other thousands of drugs they make. And occasionally they f' up and get sued and loose some money. But vaccines they're immune. They can sell "hot lots" they can sell defective products that get recalled after hundreds or thousands of kids get sick and some die. And they have no worries for being sued. Its absolute BS. Absolute, 100% BS.

To be perfectly honest, its one of the *main* reasons I don't trust'm and I don't vax. Cause' wheres the motivation in making sure their product(s) are safe? There is *none* if they can't be held liable. Absolutely *none*. We all became (largely) unknowing guinnea pigs for them. Cause' we can't sue'm if/when the f' up. Its *insane*.
post #10 of 37
There will not be a decision until next spring time probably.

Bear in mind that Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts sold his Pfizer stock before this day to avoid a conflict in interest.

In the 1950s, the King of Torts, Melvin Belli, wrote the law for product liability law, and one of the ways was his prosecuting of Cutter for their polio vaccine. There were many suits against the vaccine companies in the late 1970s because of the swine flu vaccine of 1976 and an awareness in the early 1980s of vaccine damage.

All but two vaccine companies went out of business or left the US.

This culminated in the system we have now: VAERS. It is a no-fault system of reimbursement, similar to workmen's compensation in most states, but it is a federal system with cases heard by "masters", appointed by the government.

The idea was that vaccines are a necessary part of our US health care plan and all children should have access to vaccines; vaccines are so important to the national health that the companies that make them should not have to go out of business or need to defend themselves in civil court if their product does occasionally injure one child in a million.

Yet, parents feel abandoned by the medical profession when their child is damaged by a required vaccine and cannot receive compensation or help for their child. The doctors deny that the vaccine caused the injury, the hospitals refuse to acknowledge parents' fears and despair, and the legal system ignores them. Or the parent is accused of doing the damage as has happened in a few cases.
post #11 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto View Post
The "hot lot" count of the original complaint never made it out of Philadelphia County, as far as I can tell.
So, how would you know if that particular batch or lot ever made it out of Philadelphia County?
post #12 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by caned & able View Post
So, how would you know if that particular batch or lot ever made it out of Philadelphia County?
I was referring to the original venue and the hot-lot claim, which was also rejected by the Third Circuit. It's not part of the Supreme Court case, to my understanding.
post #13 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by caned & able View Post
There will not be a decision until next spring time probably.

Bear in mind that Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts sold his Pfizer stock before this day to avoid a conflict in interest.
This is the third time I've seen you say this. If you don't mind... why is that important to you? Are trying to pre-emptively find reasons why the judges are biased just in case they don't reach the decision you'd like them to? Or are you happy that Justice Roberts is being as straightfoward as he can by ridding himself of a possible conflict of interest? Or some other reason I can't think of?
post #14 of 37
See....and I think that BECAUSE Justice Roberts ever OWNED stock, he should have been dismissed from a decision. I realize that just because you own stock in a company doesn't mean that you'll always side with the company...but still. He can make his decision and then go buy more stock--or depending on how he "sold" it--buy it back. The very fact that someone was investing in the vaccine industry...and is now in a position to make a decision regarding that industry just leaves me cold.

Keep in mind that in the 70's, the vaccine industry was not making anywhere NEAR what they are making these days (estimated to reach almost $40 Billion by 2013). If there were a "few" vaccine damaged children, it wouldn't be such a big deal, I don't think and the vaccine courts would be fine. But, people are being denied claims in vaccine courts because of "lack of proof"...when the "proof" is being decided upon biased sources.

But, if the car manufacturer's were doing this, they would be put out of business, as well. While people may believe that vaccines are important to the health of the country...at what cost? There are people being vaccine damaged in mass (the CDC even admits that only about 10% of adverse reactions are reported). What incentive do the vaccine manufacturer's have to make safer vaccines? Car manufacturers make safer vehicles to make money...baby products are made safer to ensure that they do not get put out of business. But vaccine manufacturers don't care because either way, they are sustained, profiting, and have a 'free pass'.

There have been many vaccines released that have caused damage...how have these even made it to the market? Scientists have stated, clearly, that the vaccine never should have been released...but the FDA approves it...why? Because the vast majority of the individuals that sit on the FDA have some kind of financial tie to the vaccine industry.

If the vaccine industry is so concerned with going out of business, maybe they should stop being so damn greedy and start really trying to make vaccines that are safe. Right now, they are coming up with so many new vaccines that are untested, unproven and unsafe and there are no consequences to their actions except a "few deaths" when their vaccine gets pulled. But, they still made their money, so why should they care?

If this ruling goes in favor of the vaccine industry, I see a huge backlash happening from it. Just make sure you keep passing the word around.
post #15 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by caned & able View Post
The idea was that vaccines are a necessary part of our US health care plan and all children should have access to vaccines; vaccines are so important to the national health that the companies that make them should not have to go out of business or need to defend themselves in civil court if their product does occasionally injure one child in a million.
I think many times we forget this, and over-villainize the vaccine manufacturers. Yes, they have done awful things. But who allows them to do it? Who continues to protect them, to fund them, to give them multi-billion dollar contracts for R&D and to prove out new capabilities? We live in a pro-vaccine society, and our government is VERY pro-vaccine.
post #16 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaturalBirthGoddes View Post
See....and I think that BECAUSE Justice Roberts ever OWNED stock, he should have been dismissed from a decision. I realize that just because you own stock in a company doesn't mean that you'll always side with the company...but still.
Why should he be dismissed for ever owning their stock? Should they not hear cases involving the tire company Firestone if they've ever bought Firestone tires? Should they not hear cases involving little girls if they've ever had a daughter? There's a million ways this could be applied. Financial biases aren't the only ones that exist, nor are they always the most powerful.

Quote:
He can make his decision and then go buy more stock--or depending on how he "sold" it--buy it back.
So could any of them.

Quote:
The very fact that someone was investing in the vaccine industry...and is now in a position to make a decision regarding that industry just leaves me cold.
That's the point. There will always be some way in which they could be biased. They're appointed, in some part, because people trust them to make as unbiased decisions as possible. ALL of them could have been influenced in one way or another. One of them could have had a brother who was very severely affected by a vaccine and had to be hospitalized. Does that mean that they shouldn't be allowed to hear the case? No. Their job is to judge based on the facts. I'm not saying that always happens, but they all have biases that they need to try to ignore. Roberts did his due dilligence up front by ridding himself, as much as possible, of anything that could influence him.


P.S. Honest question: Are Supreme Court Justices allowed to recuse themselves from cases? I know normal judges are, I just don't know if different rules apply for the Supreme Court.
post #17 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirogi View Post
I think many times we forget this, and over-villainize the vaccine manufacturers. Yes, they have done awful things. But who allows them to do it? Who continues to protect them, to fund them, to give them multi-billion dollar contracts for R&D and to prove out new capabilities? We live in a pro-vaccine society, and our government is VERY pro-vaccine.
Over-villanize the vaccine manufacturers? No. If they REALLY cared about the health of the population, as they claim, they would not release products that they know will harm people. The government is being bought out by the vaccine companies so they can keep doing what they are doing...not because they feel that what they do is in the best health interests of the population, but because vaccines are the ONE thing they can release en masse, harms hundreds or thousands of people and not have any accountability or financial loss from it. The vax simply gets pulled and they come out with a new one. You can't sue them...so they make their couple millions of dollars and move on. It's not concern. It's greed.

We can still live in a pro-vaccine society...but it will also be in a "take accountability for your vaccines" society, as well.

If you do not like what is going on, you need to speak out and work to make changes. You can't sit and complain and do nothing. Contact your State Rep, etc. Write to the president. Support groups who are fighting this...$5 a month is a lot if EVERYONE contributed.

I'm not saying banish vaccines. I do believe in free choice. But I also believe in safe products and if the vaccine industry is held to the same standard of liability that every other manufacturer is, maybe we'll get it. But, this release of "mandatory vaccines" that harms people with no accountability to the manufacturer has got to stop.
post #18 of 37
Supreme court judges can be recused, but I'm not sure what the parameters are.


I don't have any hope the court will rule to remove the liability shield in the case of vaccines. But if you are going to shield the manufacturers, get rid of the mandates. Coupling mandates with liability protection....it is an invitation for corruption. You only have to look at the explosion of the vaccine schedule to see it. Hard to resist creating new products in a lucrative, guaranteed market that has no recourse if harmed.
post #19 of 37
Yeah, I think the whole idea that he can't hear the case cause' he ever owned pfizer stock is a bit sillly too. I just inherited a bunch of stocks from my grandmother, and I *think*I pfiizer is in there. Just cause' I own stock in them for the moment, doesn't mean I neccarily wish them well. Or ill. I just happen to own a bit of stock.
post #20 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaturalBirthGoddes View Post
Over-villanize the vaccine manufacturers? No. If they REALLY cared about the health of the population, as they claim, they would not release products that they know will harm people. The government is being bought out by the vaccine companies so they can keep doing what they are doing...not because they feel that what they do is in the best health interests of the population, but because vaccines are the ONE thing they can release en masse, harms hundreds or thousands of people and not have any accountability or financial loss from it. The vax simply gets pulled and they come out with a new one. You can't sue them...so they make their couple millions of dollars and move on. It's not concern. It's greed.

We can still live in a pro-vaccine society...but it will also be in a "take accountability for your vaccines" society, as well.

If you do not like what is going on, you need to speak out and work to make changes. You can't sit and complain and do nothing. Contact your State Rep, etc. Write to the president. Support groups who are fighting this...$5 a month is a lot if EVERYONE contributed.

I'm not saying banish vaccines. I do believe in free choice. But I also believe in safe products and if the vaccine industry is held to the same standard of liability that every other manufacturer is, maybe we'll get it. But, this release of "mandatory vaccines" that harms people with no accountability to the manufacturer has got to stop.
I agree with you on every point. I only wanted to highlight that people often forget, in their haste to crucify the vaccine manufacturers, that our government has given the manufacturers the power and immunity they have. The question is, why?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › US supreme court ruling today on vax case