case could allow injured persons to once again sue vaccine makers
are implicated in causing all sorts of health damage, from neurological
disorders like autism and Alzheimer's disease to intestinal problems like
ulcerative colitis and Chron's disease -- and everything in between. And
a vaccine injury case currently before the Supreme Court could be the landmark
decision that once again allows those injured by vaccines to sue vaccine
manufacturers for damages, a course of action that has been barred since
1986 because of special federal protections enacted to immunize vaccine
manufacturers against having to abide by the rule of law.
25 years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act, which exempts vaccine manufacturers from being liable for damages
caused by their vaccines. The Act established an entirely new "legal"
system to deal specifically with vaccine injury cases, handling each one
in a special "vaccine court" that essentially just dismisses most
cases as unwarranted.
Act is entirely unconstitutional as no company or entity can legally be
exempted from due process within the real legal system, but it was enacted
anyway and has served as a shelter for vaccine companies to hide behind
in order to avoid costly litigation. And since the medical industry as a
whole continues to deny a link between vaccines and autism, for instance,
the "vaccine courts" can just automatically go along with the
notion and arbitrarily reject all autism-related vaccine cases as unsubstantiated.
all that could change, depending on how the Supreme Court handles a case
currently before it involving a young lady whose parents say she became
permanently injured by a diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccine
called Tri-Immunol that she received when she was a child. The Bruesewitz's
say that Wyeth, the manufacturer of the DTP vaccine, knew about a safer
version of the vaccine, but continued to sell the dangerous one anyway.
Now their daughter Hannah requires costly, specialized care for the rest
of her life.
case was first rejected in "vaccine court" when just a month before
the case was to be heard, the court removed all the reported severe injuries
from the list of compensatory items. After then taking the case to civil
courts, the Bruesewitz's were told that the case was automatically invalid
because of the federal Vaccine Act. So now the case sits before the Supreme
Court where, if determined in the Bruesewitz's favor, will set a new precedent
whereby vaccine manufacturers will no longer be able to avert the rule of
illegitimacy of 'vaccine court'
like the phony Internal Revenue Service (IRS) "tax courts", "vaccine
courts" have no justifiable basis anywhere in the law. They serve as
nothing more than a way for drug companies to avoid having to bear responsibility
for the harm caused by their vaccines. Any other person or company must
go through the standard legal process, but the federal Vaccine Act literally
grants special legal immunity to vaccine makers that nobody else receives.
are a few cases where "vaccine courts" have ruled in favor of
plaintiffs, but such cases are likely just a ploy to trick the public into
thinking such courts are legitimate and lawful. Most cases are rejected
by "vaccine court" and, even though plaintiffs can then take the
case to civil courts, the process has been made very difficult because of
the federal Vaccine Act.
though $154 million was paid in 2010 for "vaccine court" cases,
that amount is a mere fraction of the overall profits vaccine companies
rake in every year. And truth be told, vaccine manufacturers do not even
pay such settlements.
companies don't even injury settlements, the public does!
the few cases that are actually ruled in favor of injured plaintiffs in
"vaccine courts", not a single one of them is paid for by the
vaccine manufacturers that cause the harm. A special excise tax is collected
when vaccines are sold to the public, which is later used as settlement
compensation. This means that insurance companies and ultimately the public
end up paying for vaccine settlements while the vaccine manufacturers get
only are vaccine manufacturers essentially exempted from the real legal
system, but the mock legal system set up in their favor actually guards
them from having to pay a single cent for damages caused by their products.
time to end the vaccine racket
of special legal protection for vaccine manufacturers say that it is necessary
to protect them from "undue" litigation. But that is precisely
what the real court system is for in the first place: to evaluate cases
and determine whether or not a defendant is liable for damages. Setting
up special "vaccine courts" that bypass due process is tyranny
in the name of medicine, and it is simply unacceptable.
of "vaccine courts", the idea that vaccines are in any way related
to causing autism has been dismissed all across the board, even though numerous
studies and research data continue to suggest a connection http://www.naturalnews.com/027178_autism_vaccines.html.
And in the case of Hannah Bruesewitz, the system permits gross negligence
on the part of vaccine manufacturers to go unpunished, unless of course
the Supreme Court decides to do the right thing.
for this story include: