Vaccine law quotes

Vaccine law quotes
Quotes Law VICP

''In the unusual Vaccine Court, the government acts on behalf of pharmaceutical companies rather than the public, defending vaccine makers against alleged victims. Money damages are not paid by vaccine companies, but through fees collected from patients on every dose of vaccine.'' [2015 Dec] Govt Wipes Recent Vaccine Injury Data From Website

"No doubt the biggest Trojan horse in all of this (with global ramifications) was National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, because when the US market was sewn up they could do almost what they liked anywhere, and the system was designed for abuse with global rubber stamp committees endorsing the latest products - discounting all the adverse evidence and insisting always on their philanthropic motives."--- John Stone

"In the end, the government turned Andrew down for compensation. There would be no money to help us care for our son. The Special Master told us that if we had applied for compensation a year earlier, she would have found in our favor but because of the TABLE CHANGE there was nothing she could do but find in favor of the government. "---Michelle Clements

Sarah Frances Corzine----Medical officials ruled it as SIDS but my husband, our family, our friends and our church family believe otherwise http://home.fuse.net/natalie/ http://www.ties.org/sarah/

"Some were deemed to be under 80% disabled as required by the Act, this was always considered by the patents unjust, if the child was 79% it did not qualify but it if was 80% it did."---Wm. H Wain BEM

Time to Eliminate the National Vaccine Injury Act? By Sherri Tenpenny, DO
This year's flu vaccine was found to be contaminated with the bacteria, Serratia marcescens. And there is evidence to suggest that last year's flu vaccine may also have been contaminated and passed on to the general public. Or, is the real reason that vaccine manufacturers appear unconcerned about vaccine injuries due to the protection conferred by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act (NVICA)?

"The case commenced in October 1987 in front of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith at the High Court. I was alarmed to discover that it was the Judge who decided which case he wanted to hear and which witnesses he would allow to be heard and that there would be a moratorium on all other Legal Aid Certificates. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith .....found that the Plaintiff had failed to show on the balance of probabilities that the vaccine could have caused permanent brain damage in young children. ..... His Lordship’s decision did not surprise me and others because he had been deprived of hearing vital evidence from the parents of vaccine damaged children, their medical experts, independent medical experts from the Vaccine Damaged Tribunals and reports from the Yellow Card system. Before the case commenced I wrote to the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls saying that the case had been chosen to fail, they replied saying they could intervene. I also wrote to the Learned Clerk to the Lord Stuart-Smith about the witnesses to be called, he replied saying that this was up to the Counsel in the case.
There is little doubt the Loveday v Renton case left a lot to be desired in the interests of natural justice. When was the Loveday case selected when Miss Loveday had been refused Payment under the Act and had previously been to the court of appeal on two occasions which had refused her applications. There were hundreds of cases which could have been selected which had been awarded the Payment and where evidence could have been called by medical experts."---Wm. H Wain BEM

JABS has received reports from the parents of these 30 children. Four of these children have been assessed by the Government's Vaccine Damage Payment Unit and tribunals have awarded payments. Some of these children died from vaccine induced SSPE after being given a number of measles containing vaccines. Twelve of the children died under the age of two years and were therefore ineligible for assessment by the VDPU. There is an absurd clause which does not allow claims to be investigated until the child passes its second birthday. Just remind me Dr Flegg, when are most baby vaccines given?
    The same families could not pursue investigation through the courts because parents cannot access legal aid if the child has died. The Legal Aid Board has its own strict criteria in that there is a cost/benefit rule. As the child has died and obviously does not have any dependents and does not need a long-term care package the value of the child's life if a claim was successful would be rated at about £7,000, it would cost more than this to take the case to court therefore the family would not be allowed to pursue a claim. What price justice?
    Why should any parent put their trust in a system that is so one sided? No policy-maker or medical professional (including you, Dr Flegg) takes any risk whatsoever, that burden is solely carried by the child and the family. What makes the situation worse is that the family are not aware that they are taking any risk and if the worst does happen they are on their own.
    Quite clearly the Government and the medical profession are closed to any open discussion about vaccine side effects and tactically are of one mind when looking for someone to blame for the fall in uptake of MMR. Remove choice, blame the parents, blame Dr Wakefield, blame the media, blame anyone rather than be held accountable for vaccine damaged children. Please tell me who else is going to raise this issue if not the parents of vaccine damaged children?
    he information JABS and its legal team had collected with regard to some 1200 suspected serious adverse reactions and deaths following MMR and MR vaccines was presented to the Health Minister and her most senior DoH officials at the meeting in 1997. I suggest Dr Flegg contacts Prof David Salisbury, one of the officials present at that meeting, and ask how the data was handled and why. From where we stand the issue was raised at the top level with the Health Minister and DoH officials - they simply chose to dismiss the evidence out of hand without any credible clinical follow up to determine either causation or 'wild' claims. One has to wonder why? --Jackie Fletcher [Letters BMJ Becoming Ben Oct 2008]

The NVICA, a "no-fault" compensation system, was passed in 1986 to shield the pharmaceutical industry from civil litigation due to problems associated with vaccines. Under the law, families of vaccine-injured persons are required to file a petition which may be heard by a Special Master in the vaccine court. Successful claims are paid from a Trust Fund that is managed by the Department of Health and Human Services, with Justice Department attorneys acting as the legal representatives of the Fund. Sadly, it is estimated that less than 25% of those who qualify for a hearing actually receive compensation.
Processing a claim through the vaccine court can take up to 10 years. In the end, no blame or culpability is assigned and most families are denied of much needed financial relief. In the mean time, medical bills pile up, the daily potential for more children to be harmed goes on and the heartbreak continues, all due to government legislated protection of products that are believed by many to be the "sterling backbones" of our country's public health policy.
Who can parents and vaccine-injured adults hold accountable for injuries caused by vaccines? The system is designed so that no one-neither a person nor an entity-can be tagged with accountability: Not the vaccine manufacturer; not the doctor who recommended the vaccines nor the person who administered them; not the members of the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices (ACIP) who added the vaccine to the pediatric schedule; not the IOM members (Institute of Medicine) who perpetuate the mantra "vaccines are safe and effective" and stonewall opportunities for change and improvement. No one is to blame, that is, except the "defective child" who could not tolerate the immunological onslaught caused by the vaccines. Time to Eliminate the National Vaccine Injury Act? By Sherri Tenpenny, DO

"The secretary made the changes in response to an Institute of Medicine report. [FN49] But the Secretary did not follow the recommendation that the onset of chronic arthritis occur within six months of vaccination, but rather limited the onset to 42 days, simply for the stated purpose of limiting the number of claims that would qualify for the table, under the theory that to accept the recommendation would be too costly to the program. She acted for this reason even though the program has a $1.2 billion dollar surplus which is rapidly rising since only about half of the excise tax is currently being awarded................Although she is the adverse party to the claimant, a Federal Court of Appeals has found she is free to do unconditionally as she pleases in changing the vaccine table, thereby making her case against the claimant much easier in many cases. ......although the plaintiff had three experts opining that her fibromyalgia (FMS) was caused by an MMR vaccine, it was deemed by the Special Master that a causal connection between the rubella vaccine and chronic arthropathy is tenuous and has not been medically established.......this author personally knows as he sits here typing this paper that, with absolute certainty, the MMR vaccine does cause FMS."----Stan Lippmann 1998

"Assume the following scenario: A child was given the oral polio vaccine; the father (wage earner), changes the child’s diaper and he becomes paralyzed from the neck down because the vaccine administered causes contact polio, a fact known both to the regulator, the vaccine manufacturer and physicians since the early 1960s.
    The parent remains completely paralyzed with his motor functions completely destroyed, while his sensory functions are not affected one iota. Basically, he can only move his eyes. The medical expenses for the first 18 months are nearly $1 million, but he has no insurance. During the 18 months he is aware of everything, but he cannot move any of his limbs or any part of his body, other than his eyes. Eventually, the polio causes respiratory failure and he dies.
    It is now time to bury this innocent victim. His widow has no money, since no income was coming in for the last 18 months. The government/respondent not only will not pay for the funeral, it won’t even pay for the burial plot. The government/respondent’s position is very simple — if you die the only thing the estate is entitled to is $250,000; the $1 million in medical expenses are the obligation of the widow. The costs of the burial and the burial plot are the obligation of the widow.
    The fact that during those 18 months the widow, the children and the husband suffered unbelievably, and the widow and the children will continue to suffer for all the years to come, is unimportant. It is not compensable. A victim who dies as a result of the vaccine receives no money for the pain and suffering no matter how long they lived or how severe the suffering was for that victim. This is not a hypothetical case, but rather a recent decision handed down in the case of Clifford v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, July 30, 2002, No. 01-424V. "----Stanley P. Kops, Esq.

"Once a vaccine is mandated for children, the manufacturer and the physician administering the vaccine are substantially relieved of liability for adverse effects.........Should a physician advise against a mandated vaccine, he faces increased legal liability should the patient acquire the disease. Moreover, he may risk his very livelihood if he is dependent upon income from "health plans" that use vaccine compliance as a measure of "quality." "--Jane Orient MD

"If a pediatrician fails to administer an officially recommended vaccine, and the child gets a preventable disease, the pediatrician could be sued for malpractice. If the child is injured as a side effect from such a vaccine, no pediatrician will be sued. HMOs cannot be sued. "--Roger Schlafly

"Vaccine manufacturers and others are sheltered from product liability lawsuits by a special 1986 act of Congress. (See the US Code 42 USC 300aa for details.) This act set up a fund to compensate those who can prove serious injury from vaccines."--Roger Schlafly

[USA July 2002] If Senate Bill 2053 passes, it will prevent parents from suing the drug companies for the harm--INCLUDING AUTISM--caused by poorly manufactured and poorly tested vaccines.

"This recent proposal by OMB would effectively remove all federally-funded vaccine research from public access."--Eagle Foundation http://eagleforum.org/alert/vaccine/shelby.html

NVIC charges that the Departments of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and Justice have violated the "spirit and intent of the law" and turned what Congress promised parents would be a "non-adversarial, expeditious and informal process" into a "highly adversarial, lengthy, traumatic and unfair imitation of a lawsuit." Pointing out that three out of four children are turned away for federal compensation for permanent immune system and brain damage following receipt of mandated vaccines.--NVIC Press release sept 1999

"Under the 1986 law, DHHS was supposed to produce information brochures describing each vaccine's benefits and risks so doctors could educate parents before vaccination of their children took place. We worked for several years with DHHS on these brochures but DHHS eventually got an amendment to the law to reduce the brochures to a one page information sheet that does not contain enough information to adequately inform parents about vaccine risks or how to monitor their child following vaccination for signs that a reaction is occurring.........Today, the bitter truth is that, although more than one billion dollars has been paid out to some 1,000 families whose loved ones have been harmed by vaccines, three out of four vaccine victims are turned away..........And to make it easier for compensation to be denied to vaccine injured children, under rule making authority these federal agencies gutted the Table of Compensable Events in 1995 and arbitrarily rewrote the definition of encephalopathy (brain dysfunction) that had been used by medicine decades...... We tried to stop the destruction of the Table of Compensable Events by bringing suit in federal court, but we lost. So, today, almost no cases of brain damage following DPT vaccination are presumed to be caused by the vaccine. The vaccine injury compensation program has been turned into the trial we were promised it would not be, where causation in fact must be proven in almost every case and vaccine victims and their lawyers are left begging for compensation from federal health agencies holding all the cards. The federal compensation system that we were told would be "simple justice for children," has become a cruel joke, a sad commentary on a national health policy that forces children to take the risk and then leaves many families to cope with the catastrophic consequences on their own when the risk turns out to be 100 percent."--Barbara Loe Fisher

"Encephalopathy was redefined so that the diagnosis requires as a sine qua non in excess of 24 hours of a diminished level of consciousness, a criterion which is far more restrictive than that of the leading epidemiological study of pertussis vaccine injury, the British National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES). Moreover, seizures have been removed from the Table, although that the pertussis vaccine can cause seizures is uncontested (and warned in the manufacturer’s package insert)."--Marcel Kingsbourne

"Under the Act, the onset of anaphylaxis must occur within four hours of vaccination for petitioner to prevail on a Table injury theory. Isaiah did not suffer an on-Table anaphylaxis, as Dr. McLaughlin suggests, because he did not have a systemic allergic response within four hours of vaccination.............Since the promulgation of the Act, the Table has been altered through a change in the regulations, making it more difficult to prove a Table encephalopathy.(19) The requirements for proving anaphylaxis have similarly become more difficult."--Court transcript.

As the rules stand at the moment people who are severely disabled as a result of vaccination may be able to get a one-off payment of £30,000 tax-free under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. Severe disablement means at least 80% disabled.---UK http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/jabs/vacdam.html

"She concluded; "You take your healthy child along to be jabbed - and you are out on your own if your child is vaccine damaged. Even if you get £30,000 , the maximum payment, this is minimal for a permanently severely handicapped child." Despite these restrictions, some 600 have won state compensation since 1979 as severely damaged. Yet these severe cases are not mentioned in the official advice to parents on known risks. The difficulties parents face in getting compensation contrasts with the treatment of doctors. They get £1,800 if 90% of the children under two are vaccinated. If only 70%, they get £600. Below this they get no bonus."--Jani Allen http://www.gn.apc.org/inquirer/jabs.html

"As a mother of a son of 30, left brain damaged by a measles injection, I agree with those who warn of the dangers. My son lives in a home. He comes home once a month and it breaks my heart when I take him back, but I can't cope with him. We got £10,000 compensation as a one off payment 20 years ago but his life is ruined, along with mine. What a price to pay for a government-backed vaccine policy."--Mrs J Williams, Tilgate, Crawley. (Daily Mail 2 sept, 1996)

"There is nothing 'prompt' or 'fair' about the present system we have in New Zealand. Distraught parents have to fight tooth and nail to prove to the ACC, a faceless bureaucracy, that their children were damaged by vaccines. It appears that many parents do not have the resources or the emotional stamina to fight year in, year out to do this...... and they give up. Even if a reaction to a vaccine is clearly recorded on their children's medical files, they STILL have to prove that the vaccine was the cause of their children's disorders and there was not some 'underlying cause'...
The Immunisation Choices booklet clearly states at the bottom of every page under Comparing Risks, "There are reports of various health events that happen to a child after immunisation. However, there is not enough evidence to show whether this is associated with the vaccine or there is some other cause." And, "the risk of brain damage [from pertussus] has NOT BEEN PROVEN"...
How can a system be just when the medical establishment believes in the safety of vaccines and refuses to acknowledge the harm that they do? The burden of proof lies with parents who are now caring for a handicapped child; and armed only with a little knowledge of medicine, they face an uncaring, bigotted bunch of bureaucrats!"
Regards,
Alex (AVN email board)

"Since the 1920s, virtually all continuing medical and public health education is funded by pharmaceutical companies. In fact, today, the FDA can't even tell health scientists the truth about vaccine contaminants and their likely effects. The agency is bound and gagged by proprietary laws and non-disclosure agreements forced upon them by the pharmaceutical industry. Let us not forget that the pharmaceutical industry, as a special interest group, is the number one contributor to politicians on Capital Hill."--Leonard Horowitz