US supreme court ruling today on vax case - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 37 Old 10-19-2010, 08:51 PM
 
an_domhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post
?
from the post above #28 where my use of the word insertion is bolded...

Before recanting his recusal, we had 7 Justices, which would have ensured precedent (good, bad and ugly - let the chips fall where they may)... now? We have 8 (making it more challenging for BOTH sides), and all it ensures, is that if his opinion favors Wyeth it will stink forever... because you will never be able to convince a growing population of vaccine critics already skeptical of the role of conflicts of interest in the vaccine program that the maneuver was agenda-free.
an_domhan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 of 37 Old 10-20-2010, 10:32 AM
 
NaturalBirthGoddes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 66
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by an_domhan View Post
from the post above #28 where my use of the word insertion is bolded...

Before recanting his recusal, we had 7 Justices, which would have ensured precedent (good, bad and ugly - let the chips fall where they may)... now? We have 8 (making it more challenging for BOTH sides), and all it ensures, is that if his opinion favors Wyeth it will stink forever... because you will never be able to convince a growing population of vaccine critics already skeptical of the role of conflicts of interest in the vaccine program that the maneuver was agenda-free.
Agreed! But, he also sold off his stock because he wants to hear another case involving Wyeth/Pfizer. It's very concerning to say the least. I mean, if he finds against them, can't say much...but, you're right...if he finds for them, it will just increase the distrust many already have in the justice system and the impartiality of the Supreme Court. I hope that it turns out well for all...but, have a feeling that it may not (well, except for Wyeth/Pfizer and the other vax companies).
NaturalBirthGoddes is offline  
#33 of 37 Old 10-20-2010, 11:36 AM
 
13Sandals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: north of NY
Posts: 1,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
NBG - I love the analogy to the tainted meat and protecting the meat industry because its too important an industry to go under...you could even add to that.....when people start walking around with colostomy bags, muscle weakness etc...image you can't opt out of eating meat...that to enter school you must prove via blood test that you have ingested meat in the last year...mandates plus liability protection.

thanks for the great post!
13Sandals is offline  
#34 of 37 Old 10-20-2010, 12:28 PM
 
Geigerin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 626
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm really new to this topic (just started researching this stuff a year ago). But a few things were brought up that I found interesting.

First: As far as judges being biased by owning stock, I trust that they are balanced and wise. I think the stock was only sold to eliminate the perception of bias. I'm reading "Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View" by Stephen Breyer. It's an excellent book about why our system works. And his description of behind the scenes debate really renewed my faith in out democracy. My grandfather was a judge (nominated to the CT supreme court before he died). He was one of the most level-headed, reasonable people I've ever known. I would trust him to make decisions and make sure his personal biases didn't influence his decision.

Second: I own stock in Pfizer (gift from aforementioned gpa) and hold mutual funds that own stock in several pharma companies. Also, my husband supports us (I'm a SAHM) by working in the pre-drug approval side of the
pharmaceutical industry. However, I'm very suspicious of most forms of modern allopathic medicine. We're a homebirthing, delayed/selective vaxing, homeopathic family. When I talk about the evils of the pharma industry, my dh likes to tease me about the source of our livelihood.

I guess my point is that people and situations are more complex. It's not a black and white, good vs. evil situation. (ie. The justices who vote how we want- good, justices who don't- bad).

Geigerin violin.gif, wife to geek.gif ; mama to 2 cat.gif ; mama to jog.gif and blahblah.gif
Geigerin is offline  
#35 of 37 Old 10-20-2010, 09:31 PM
 
an_domhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geigerin View Post
First: As far as judges being biased by owning stock, I trust that they are balanced and wise. I think the stock was only sold to eliminate the perception of bias.
I like to trust in that as well. But removing the perception of bias, and actually removing it are not the same. There is no way to know, which is why recusal is the best course. This is an issue that is very black and white, IMO.

Quote:
Second: I own stock in Pfizer (gift from aforementioned gpa) and hold mutual funds that own stock in several pharma companies. Also, my husband supports us (I'm a SAHM) by working in the pre-drug approval side of the pharmaceutical industry.
But you are not a Supreme Court Justice about to take part in the first case of this design and magnitude.

Quote:
I guess my point is that people and situations are more complex. It's not a black and white, good vs. evil situation. (ie. The justices who vote how we want- good, justices who don't- bad).
The complexity (of this issue) arises out of the fact that he only decided to participate after Justice Kagan stated she would recuse as well. Why? That left the court in a far better situation to truly hear the merits of this case and definitively rule in one direction or another. A 4-4 split goes to Wyeth leaving the 3rd Circuit Ruling in place. From a legal standpoint, this is highly strategic. I challenge anyone in the legal industry to claim otherwise, if they do, they are lying.

The transcript has Roberts on record saying, "It doesn't take too many $60 million verdicts to discourage the manufacture of vaccines." I think it's pretty clear where his bias lies, stock ownership aside.
an_domhan is offline  
#36 of 37 Old 10-20-2010, 10:47 PM
 
Geigerin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 626
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I hear ya. I'd hate to think a decision as big as this would be influenced by personal prejudice. I really think the way the vaccine court is set up really doesn't work.

Ultimately, I'll hope that personal views don't cloud legal decisions. Their job is to review the law and determine if it's constitutional, not whether companies could go out of business. I'll be very curious to hear what happens. I'm so sorry for that family and can't believe they're up against big pharma, the chamber of commerce, and the aap. Talk about David vs. Goliath. :/

Geigerin violin.gif, wife to geek.gif ; mama to 2 cat.gif ; mama to jog.gif and blahblah.gif
Geigerin is offline  
#37 of 37 Old 10-21-2010, 02:43 PM
 
NaturalBirthGoddes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 66
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by an_domhan View Post
The transcript has Roberts on record saying, "It doesn't take too many $60 million verdicts to discourage the manufacture of vaccines." I think it's pretty clear where his bias lies, stock ownership aside.
This is what bothers me the most. It doesn't take that many verdicts to discourage the manufacture of vaccines. But, how many will it take to encourage the vax industry to strive for safer vaccines; for tests that will show which vax a child can handle? This doesn't have to be the end of vaccines. But, it should be the end of the green curtain shielding the industry.

If they rule for the vax industry, it'll just cement my views even further that I will never, ever have my kids vaxed. No way. No other industry in the United States is given the free pass that the vax industry is. None. No other industry is protected from monetary loss like the vax industry is. And, no other industry is as unregulated as the vax industry (well, except for banking...but we've seen how that fared). Where there is insane amounts of money to be made, there will be a need for strict, unbiased, regulation.

As I said before...if everyone is so worried about putting the vax manufacturers out of business...then it's time to really look into the safety of the products they are releasing to the market. I would also like to add...the CDC and the FDA should be overhauled and replaced with new people. Want a job at the CDC or the FDA? You are forbidden to hold any stocks in the vaccine industry, you are forbidden to accept anything, at all, from any vaccine company and if you are caught doing either, you will serve time in prison.

Ok, so wishful thinking, but still.
NaturalBirthGoddes is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off