Point #2
The following are NOT opinions, but actual verifiable facts. Research any of it if you have doubts or just want to expand your knowledge.
2) Vaccine manufacturers have been granted legal immunity from being sued when their products inflict damage.
This is a little more subtle, because it has just the hint of OBJECTIVE FACT.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system. It provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines. Even in cases in which such a finding is not made, petitioners may receive compensation through a settlement.
The VICP was established after lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce vaccination rates. The Program began accepting petitions (also called claims) in 1988. The Program's objectives are to:
- ensure an adequate supply of vaccines,
- stabilize vaccine costs, and
- establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines.
The VICP isn't a perfect system, but it does provide an avenue for compensation, for those very rare cases of vaccine injury or injury from the process of immunization (shoulder needle stick injuries).
It is true that under US law, a US resident who feels she has been harmed by receipt of a vaccine cannot start by suing the vaccine manufacturer she perceives has caused the harm. However, vaccinations are given in virtually every country, including all the developed nations. As far as I am aware, none of those countries have prohibitions against such litigation, so there's a point for the THE AUTHOR'S OPINION pile right there.
In National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Facts, legal scholar Dorit Rubenstein Reiss explains the reasoning behind the 1986 law.
- The Rules and Limits of NVICP
- The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and its Requirements
- Civil court standards
- National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program legal standards
- Constitutionality of the NVICP court
- Preemption: the heart of Holmes v. Merck
- Summary or TL;DR version
The idea that "vaccine manufacturers have been granted legal immunity" is also a mistaken reference to a 2010 Supreme Court Ruling, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, which is widely misunderstood by people who make claims such as the above. In a 2013 post, Harpocrates Speaks disambiguates this common misunderstanding. Do read the whole post.
This particular gem stems from a misrepresentation of a Supreme Court case, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (PDF). That link, which she doesn't include in her post, goes to the final ruling in the case. Take a moment to read it, or at least the first few pages, which summarize the decision.
By way of a little background, Hannah Bruesewitz, born in 1991, received, according to the approved vaccination schedule, a DTP immunization in April 1992, after which she suffered seizures and developmental delay. Her parents filed a claim in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in 1995. Though the judgment went against them, the Special Master still awarded them attorney's fees and costs. The Bruesewitzes, rather than appealing the decision, decided to reject the ruling and sue the vaccine manufacturer, Wyeth, in state court on a design defect claim. Their claim in state court was dismissed on the grounds that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) preempts claims of design defects. The case then wound its way up to the Supreme Court, where the question was "whether a preemption provision enacted in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA) bars state-law design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers."
In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that NCVIA does preempt state design defect claims. What this means is that if a vaccine causes an injury despite the maker following all proper good manufacturing practices and including appropriate directions for its use, as well as reasonable warnings about the risks, then the claimant has to go through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program first; they cannot just sue in state court from the get-go.
Also note that there are at least two implied assertions here
- that (US) vaccines are unsafe, or are less safe, because manufacturers have some protection from litigation, and
- that vaccines are not subject to any regulation that ensures safety
Both those assertions are completely false. We will address some of the proof of falsity in later posts.
I vacillated between MIXED, A combination of OBJECTIVE FACT and THE AUTHOR'S OPINION, and declaring this point THE AUTHOR'S OPINION
Here is the list of claims, with links to the discussion of each claim:
- Bonus: Claim that "I'm doing the research that your pediatrician NEVER had to do."
- #1 Combined doses of Vaccines have NEVER been tested for safety.
- #2 Vaccine manufacturers have been granted legal immunity from being sued when their products inflict damage.
- #3 DNA from aborted fetuses is in vaccines.
- #4 the CDC has been caught destroying and hiding evidence
- #5 outbreaks occur in populations that are up to 90-99% vaccinated -- herd immunity a myth
- #6 More people die from the MMR vaccine itself than die of the measles.
- #7 Peanut allergies were almost unheard of prior to the use of peanut oil in vaccines.
- #8 Multiple independent studies have shown vaccinated children are more likely to have asthma.
- #9 Information on vaccines is hidden from parents.
- #10 Vaccine package inserts prove the dangers of vaccines.
- #11 Doctors are bribed to vaccinate
- #12 Vaccine manufacturers and the CDC are only self-regulated
- #13 Doctors are ill-informed about vaccines
- #14 Vaccines cause SIDS&
- #15 Diseases have been renamed after the introduction of a vaccine.
- #16 The anti-vaccine movement isn't new
- #17 All live virus vaccines shed and cause diseases
- #18 Combining acetaminophen and vaccines is dangerous.
- Bonus: MTHFR gene variants and vaccination
Comments