"AUTISM SALUTES" SALUTES CONGRESSMAN SESTAK
HOLLAND ON THE OMNIBUS AUTISM PROCEEDING: 5/20

THIMEROSAL CASE IN GEORGIA

Thimerosal_bottleATLANTA (AP) - Stefan Ferrari's parents say he was a talkative toddler until he got a round of booster shots with a mercury preservative. Now age 10, he hasn't spoken since those shots.

The Ferrari family asked the Georgia Supreme Court today to rule that vaccine maker American Home Products Corporation can be held liable for damages in a civil case.

Read more HERE.

Comments

Taximom5

I clicked the "Read more HERE." The page has been removed.

Looks like they don't want anyone reading about it...

Benedetta

Hee,hee too funny, Carol!
Yes, indeedie; it is all genetic! It must be since only one child had autism and not the other two.

I do wonder if it was the youngest; or the oldest; did his Mom have a vaccine shot during or a little before becoming pregnant with him to set him up for his vaccine. Waa he vaccinated while sick, was it a hot lot, did he have somekind of 8 in one and Mom made sure the other two did not get 8 in one.

Good conclusion you drew there "Not Telling" - no wonder you are "NOT TELLING" with that kind of thought process!

Carol

You're right. If autism is genetic, you might expect his siblings to also have autism (at least the male ones).

Not telling

why did his two other siblings not get autism after they got their booster shots? Autism is genetic , so the siblings should be predisposed as well. This is desperate parents wanting to hold someone accountable. There is no connection here.

Jim Witte

"IF such a lawsuit wins, then all of us could use the much needed money for the treatment of our kids. Any thoughts?"

What if someone launched a lawsuit against someone - I don't know who - that didn't allege harm for *injuring* the kids, but the harm by not *treating* them effectively, or studying those treatments when the science behind them became "known". Essentially sue the NIH, CDC, etc for *not following their own recommendations* (in various IOM reports) to "do further study", and everyone's refusal (until now *perhaps* with AAP) to recognize that there are effective treatments for autism.

I'm not sure if you could ever find a legal precedent for that anywhere, and it potentially opens up *very* large cans of worm everywhere in medicine (with "cholesterol treatment", heart disease management, artheriosclerosis/arterial-calcification treatment, osteroporosis treatment, hypothyroidism, diabetes, just to name a few)

Jim Witte

"Can the government by sued by each and every one of us for failing to protect its citizens? Not for vaccine injury per se, but for *failure to protect*"

This reminded me of a story I heard the other night on PBS's News Hour about the situation in Burma - a question as to whether there was talk about the US launching a pre-emptive "invasion" based on the concept in international law of Responsibility to Protect" (paraphrase)

Here is an interesting op-ed piece on this concept, and an excerpt explaining R2P:

http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/articles_editorial/1516?theme=alt1

"In 2005, the World Summit adopted the “responsibilty to protect,” known by that acronym. R2P formalized the notion that when a state proves unable or unwilling to protect its people, and crimes against humanity are perpetrated, the international community has an obligation to intervene - if necessary, and as a last resort, with military force [..] when 'national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.' "

Now, the really big hitch in this (aside from world chaos..) is the fact that the US is on the Security Council. Well, every other SC member would be against it too. But it would be an interesting idea to just *bring up* perhaps - the question is, with whom? Anybody at AoA have buddys in the UN who are sympathetic to the "vaccine hypothesis"?

Ramada

""It was the clear intent of Congress to pre-empt precisely the claims that are at issue here," he argued. Congress passed the law after hundreds of lawsuits were filed against vaccine manufacturers."

It seems to be clear that Congress is complicit in wilfully harming the "susceptible to vaccines" population in America. Is it not the duty of the government to protect its citizens like the President of Ukraine did? You, if you are a *good* government out to lookout for the welfare of your people, will halt vaccine production. You will make an attempt to find out why hundreds - not one or two or even ten mind you - why hundreds of lawsuits are being filed by the people.

Instead of holding the vaccine manufacturers liable, the government goes ahead and does just the opposite - tries to "save" the manufacturers from the people who have been harmed. It further continues to let the harm perpetuate, and does NOTHING to save hundreds, thousands, and millions of children that even today, are continuing to be harmed by the insane vaccine program. Where is the justice in all this?

MinorityView

Here is an article on the differences between the VIS and the inserts: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?p=131 "From the VIS, the ACIP experts say the only risks are soreness and fever. Severe allergic reactions occur at one per 1.1 million doses. That seems like a pretty safe vaccine. Now read the “Adverse Events” sections in the package inserts, GlaxoSmithKline’s ENGERIX-B, starts on page 8, and Merck’s Recombivax HB, starts on page 7.

ENGERIX-B reports 40 unique adverse events from clinical studies and Recombivax HB reports 47. As stated in the adverse events sections, these studies only allow healthy individuals to participate and they cannot adequately detect rare adverse events due to the small number of participants. Once a vaccine is put into use in the real world, where the sick and vulnerable populations are not excluded from being given the vaccine, adverse events continue to be monitored. ENGERIX-B reports an additional 37 unique adverse events from postmarketing reports and Recombivax HB reports an additional 54."

Quite a contrast.

Failure to protect

"A year later, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that thimerosal, a preservative used for multi-dose vaccine vials, be removed from childhood vaccines."

Can the government by sued by each and every one of us for failing to protect its citizens? Not for vaccine injury per se, but for *failure to protect*. And it continued to fail to protect us by not mandating the recall of thimerosal laden vaccines, and by sitting quietly and being complicit while the CDC went and recommended that pregnant women and children be injected with thimerosal laden flu shots, and then again by sitting quietly when the CDC went and put the thimerosal laden flu shots fair and square back on the childhood immunization schedule.

It seems to me that the government is all about protecting the vaccine manufacturers and itself, not really the citizens. It also seems to me that it *knows* all about protection when it needs to protect itself and other agencies it is complicit with. In fact I think the government is pure evil.

Improper directions

From the AJC story -

"The exceptions are if the vaccine was improperly prepared or contained improper directions or warnings. Neither of these were involved in Stefan's case, Daniel Thomasch, a lawyer for the manufacturers, told the court."

Given that thimerosal is a lethal toxin, wouldn't it stand to reason that the "directions" on it were "improper." Meaning this - by failing to adhere to the concept that a lethal and poisonous substance should not be administered to human beings, especially vulnerable infants, the government has failed to do its duty to protect the health of the people and should therefore be held liable. And since it was the manufacturers that produced the vaccine, by default they should be forced to cough up the money for the kids.

IF such a lawsuit wins, then all of us could use the much needed money for the treatment of our kids. Any thoughts?

Kelli Ann Davis

"Attorneys for American Home Products argued that a 1986 federal law bans vaccine manufacturers from being held liable in civil courts for vaccine-related injuries or deaths if they were spurred by "unavoidable" side effects, properly prepared and accompanied with directions and warnings."

Now, how interesting is this considering that the VIS (Vaccine Information Sheets) are prepared by CDC and usually omit a lot of pertinent information that is contained in the official "inserts" contained with the vaccine vials?

So in essence, manufactures can claim that they provided the correct, complete *side effects* (which most parents will NEVER read unless they ask for the insert) with the vaccine and "golly gee, it isn't our fault that the CDC didn't include this information in the VIS sheets that parents sign when their children are inoculated."

Talk about a sweeetttt deal.

Steve E. Farmer Jr.

It seems that each day more poison legally enters our foods and medications. Just read the MSDS sheet for Thimerosal. http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/TH/thimerosal.html Under Toxicology, it clearly states POISON.

Its a monkey story!

"It has been a remarkably successful program," he said of the 1986 law. "This wasn't a rescue of the industry. It was an important step to make sure vaccines remained available in the United States."

You bet it was a "successful" program. It caused several million kids to get autism, it has caused 1 in 6 kids to be neurological disasters. We shall see more successes as the kids grow up and become adults, impacting society in a big way. Especially those kids that are not being treated bio-medically either thanks in large part to the 3 deaf (AAP), blind (CDC), and dumb (Autism Speaks) monkeys.

Fed Up

If any of these lawsuits ever find a chink in the pharma-armor, they will get hammered in the market. The interesting thing to note are the exceptions to the liability protection in the vaccine law, an interesting angle being exploited by this family's attorney, which may prove to be valid in thousands of cases of vaccine injuries which occured between 1999-2003 time frame.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/05/20/vaccinechallenge_0521.html

UPDATED: 5:02 p.m. May 20, 2008
Georgia family challenges federal vaccine law

By BILL RANKIN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 05/20/08
Stefan Ferrari got his required vaccines before he was 18 months old. At the time, his parents said, he was a healthy, verbal boy.

But after his last round of booster shots, Stefan stopped speaking and, now 10 years old, he has not spoken since.

Stefan's parents, Marcelo and Carolyn Ferrari of Atlanta, filed suit, alleging the vaccines caused neurological damage to their young son. On Tuesday, the family's lawyer asked the Georgia Supreme Court to let the case against two vaccine manufacturers, Wyeth and GlaxoSmithKline, go forward.

Lawyer Lanny Bridgers told the court it was bad timing when Stefan received his last shots. A year later, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that thimerosal, a preservative used for multi-dose vaccine vials, be removed from childhood vaccines. The Ferraris contend that manufacturers should have made vaccines without thimerosal before Stefan was vaccinated.

But a lawyer arguing on behalf of the manufacturers told the state high court that the suit is barred by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act.
The law says no vaccine maker shall be held liable in a civil action for damages arising from an injury or death caused by vaccines given after Oct. 1, 1988.

The exceptions are if the vaccine was improperly prepared or contained improper directions or warnings. Neither of these were involved in Stefan's case, Daniel Thomasch, a lawyer for the manufacturers, told the court.

"It was the clear intent of Congress to pre-empt precisely the claims that are at issue here," he argued.
Congress passed the law after hundreds of lawsuits were filed against vaccine manufacturers. The litigation increased insurance costs, drove out some manufacturers and threatened the continued production of some vaccines, even though the lawsuits were largely unsuccessful, Thomasch said.

"It has been a remarkably successful program," he said of the 1986 law. "This wasn't a rescue of the industry. It was an important step to make sure vaccines remained available in the United States."

Seven of eight courts to consider challenges to the 1986 act have ruled in favor of the manufacturers. Last year, the Georgia Court of Appeals became the first court in the nation to rule the act did not pre-empt state law allowing such lawsuits. The manufacturers are appealing that decision to the state Supreme Court.

Bridgers, the Ferraris' lawyer, told the justices that courts should review vaccine challenges on a case-by-case basis, not bar them completely. Otherwise, complaints must be brought in Washington before the U.S. Court of Claims where there are restrictions on the amount of awards, he said.

"Did Congress really intend to create an opt-out provision that allows the child to be thrown out of court?" Bridgers asked the justices. "I think not."

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)