Are Vaccines a Shot in The Arm for a Pediatrician's Bottom Line?
Candace "Candy" Waters Artism Child Warrior

Sanofi Pasteur Wants Liability Protection for Vaccinating Pregnant Women

PlottingManaging Editor's Note:  Kelli Ann and many other Age of Autism readers listened into the 2nd National Stakeholders Meeting on vaccines today. Thanks to everyone who has been commenting and to Kelli Ann for this teaser of much more to come.  Dr. Stanley Plotkin has developed a number of vaccines and worked with Dr. Offit on RotaTeq (HERE.)

By Kelli Ann Davis

Today, during the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) 2nd National Stakeholder Meeting on the Review of Priorities in the National Vaccine Plan, Stanley Plotkin, Executive Advisor to the CEO of Sanofi Pasteur and Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania made a startling revelation: Sanofi Pasteur is lobbying members of the Senate for liability protection.

According to Plotkin, Sanofi Pasteur is concerned about the “legal issue of vaccinating while pregnant” and feels it is “important to keep non-negligence issues” out of the tort system; he stated, “it needs to be addressed” and then went on to say, “I don’t know how it should be done but it needs to be addressed considering what’s happening recently.”

He continued with a suggestion that a “commission” could make an “assessment of the benefit and risks” and “determine this” while stressing that we “have to decide.”

Earlier in the morning, before his mention of Sanofi Pasteur's current lobbying efforts, he stated “there are many vaccine targets left” and “we haven’t exhausted the need for new vaccines.”


More on the events leading up to this meeting and details on a future “stakeholder’s meeting” due to convene in January 2009 later.

Kelli Ann Davis is the D.C. Political Liaison for Generation Rescue.


Ian MacLeod

What people don't realize is that a CEO MUST make a profit. I'm not sure but it may be that by law he must INCREASE profits. One way or the other, if he fails he can be let go. Too many of those and he can't find work anymore. So of course he'll tall you (very much in private), "Well I really feel bad about all those infants dying from it, but if I don't do this, the next guy in the office WILL. So sure, I could refuse to do the job. It wouldn't save even one of those kids though. So I may as well get the money."

Something else I've wanted to add is that most doctors no longer take the Hippocratic Oath. It's too old fashioned, they say, and it just no longer applies. For instance, they're not about to teach their colleagues sons the profession,. let the little suckers pay and go to school themselves! For whatever reasons though, chances are strong that your doc never took that oath, and would refuse to now. Also, the AMA is a strictly for-profit organization. They make SURE that doctors are highly paid. They limit the number of MD slots available in each graduating class. Too many doctors equals too little money. They also cooperate with big Pharma and other industries, and see to it that doctors are taught as much propaganda as science. They no longer RY to cure much of anything. Instead the goal is to have each patient on drugs that must be taken for a lifetime. it's also to share the patients around from specialist to specialist until the insurance runs out, then prescribe some drugs that MIGHT, or SHOULD alleviate the symptoms, and kick that patient to the curb to make room for the next bit of fresher meat with fresher insurance. Truly, Big Pharma sets a LOT of the curriculums at medical schools! The advertisers for food products set the classes at nutritionist/dietician schools, too. I had one tell my wife, who was dying of COPD, "Sugar is your FRIEND! You WANT as much sugary stuff as possible to keep your weight up." She and I both knew better, of course, but it's ALL like that in this country! It's all about the money, and screw the science and the patients!



I totally agree with your 4:11 comment, Jack, and your perspective is interesting.



If I had it to do over I would revise that last paragraph. Vaccines do have their place and actually I've dedicated my career to developing and manufacturing them when I could have been doing a lot more lucrative things (Joe the Vaccine Maker doesn't do as well as Joe the Plumber apparently) because I thought they were good things.

I just think what is missing is a true risk-benefit anaylsis. Facing small-pox maybe 1 in 5,000 is acceptable. Facing chicken pox it is not. Personal risk factors (on either side of the equation) change things too. Injection of 3 million infants should be reserved for the most desparate of situations.

I'm just feeling pessimistic about our capacity to make catastrophic mistakes despite the best intentions, which we'd be lucky to get, because of knowledge gaps.

Increased hospitalization due to pneumonia because of new more virulent strains taking the place of previous common ones after the introduction of Prevnar in Scotland are a prime example of this.

Tanners Dad

I managed to get in a plug for Age of Autism as the last word. I spoke about this article on the Mancow Show this morning. I tried to create some real word of mouth... When 4 million people go ask their pregnant friend or relative "have you thought about that flu shot and what it could do to the baby." We hopefully have started a mainstream discussion...

Mancow Show Notes Autism Vaccines Recovery and Causecast


Jack -
One of the problems with studies is they tend to look for one cause. And, as Dr. Bernarding Healy said, "vaccine experts tend to look at the population as a whole, not at individual patients. And population studies are not granular enough to detect individual metabolic, genetic, or immunological variation that might make some children under certain circumstances susceptible to neurological complications after vaccination."

From Sharyl Attkisson's interview with Dr. Healy at

"But public health officials have been saying they know, they've been implying to the public there's enough evidence and they know it's not causal," Attkisson said.

"I think you can't say that," Healy said. "You can't say that."

Healy goes on to say public health officials have intentionally avoided researching whether subsets of children are “susceptible” to vaccine side effects - afraid the answer will scare the public.

"You're saying that public health officials have turned their back on a viable area of research largely because they're afraid of what might be found?" Attkisson asked.

Healy said: "There is a completely expressed concern that they don't want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people. "First of all," Healy said, "I think the public’s smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I don’t think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you’re afraid of what it might show."

As an example, Healy points to the existing vaccine court claims.

CBS News has learned the government has paid more than 1,300 brain injury claims in vaccine court since 1988, but is not studying those cases or tracking how many of them resulted in autism.

The branch of the government that handles vaccine court told CBS News: “Some children who have been compensated for vaccine injuries... may ultimately end up with autism or autistic symptoms, but we do not track cases on this basis.”

"What we’re seeing in the bulk of the population: vaccines are safe," said Healy. "But there may be this susceptible group. The fact that there is concern, that you don’t want to know that susceptible group is a real disappointment to me. If you know that susceptible group, you can save those children. If you turn your back on the notion that there is a susceptible group... what can I say?"


Although, as you say, there may be no way to predict in advance a small number of adverse reactions to a new vaccine, those adverse reactions should be studied when they occur. There is so much fear of recognizing problems that problems are not even addressed, or are addressed incredibly slowly (such as changing from DPT to DTaP or from live polio virus or removing thimerosal from some but not all vaccines with no recall of existing supplies).

It is not hard to find the injured children. Thousands of injuries have been reported to VAERS. Thousands of families have filed claims under the Autism Omnibus procedings. Parents such as Lyn Redwood have said they were shocked to find that the government was not interested in their children's stories of injury and (in some cases) recovery.

I'm not quite sure what you mean in your last paragraph, Jack. Are you saying that we should not have any vaccines? I do believe that some vaccines have more benefit than risk. I agree that there is a lot of arrogance involved, and that we do not fully understand the immune system. An infectious disease specialist I happened to speak with a few weeks ago said: "There is so much that we do not understand about the immune system."

Regarding other factors such as overuse of antibiotics and tylenol, I agree that these may be contributing factors. However, those factors also existed back in the 1970's and 1980's when the autism rate was quite low. The things that have really changed during the past two decades are the number of vaccines and the amount of toxins such as mercury in our environment. I believe that, while autism may have many causes, vaccines are a primary factor, and one that can be controlled.

anonymous antivaccinationist


[[[They want to change how adverse reactions are handled when they occur in clinical trials.]]]

They are already not required to report it. Title 21 in the CFR:

Subpart D sec. 600.800:

(e) Postmarketing studies. (1) Licensed manufacturers are not required to submit a 15-day Alert report under paragraph (c) of this section for an adverse experience obtained from a postmarketing clinical study (whether or not conducted under a biological investigational new drug application) unless the licensed manufacturer concludes that there is a reasonable possibility that the product caused the adverse experience.

Then protocol for waiver:

§ 600.90 - Waivers

(a) A licensed manufacturer may ask the Food and Drug Administration to waive under this section any requirement that applies to the licensed manufacturer under §§600.80 and 600.81. A waiver request under this section is required to be submitted with supporting documentation. The waiver request is required to contain one of the following:

(1) An explanation why the licensed manufacturer’s compliance with the requirement is unnecessary or cannot be achieved,

(2) A description of an alternative submission that satisfies the purpose of the requirement, or

(3) Other information justifying a waiver.

(b) FDA may grant a waiver if it finds one of the following:

(1) The licensed manufacturer’s compliance with the requirement is unnecessary or cannot be achieved,

(2) The licensed manufacturer’s alternative submission satisfies the requirement, or

(3) The licensed manufacturer’s submission otherwise justifies a waiver.

Feeling warm and fuzzy?


anonymous antivaccinationist


[[[Implicit in their pleas for liability protection is a threat to withdraw from the market, leaving the government with no vaccines at all. I believe this is an empty threat as they would be leaving billions of dollars on the table when they walked away.]]]

Of course. This is with hopes that someone covering the meeting in their camp will pick it up and run with it. This will instill hysteria and fear. Next, an envelope with white powder will be delivered to some medical clinic and we'll all be herded into the community center for
Anthrax vaccines and Cipro. People will flock to the pharmacy to get Cipro just in case, and Bayer's stock will increase 15 fold.



There have been some incredibly stupid things done (Thimerosal, HepB on day one, etc). And a shocking lack of consideration for the patient and oath of first do no harm.

But I think the elephant in the room isn't that our vaccine schedule is causing autism, but that there would be no way to see something similar moving forward.

You're trying to detect maybe 1 in 1,000 (I think there are multiple ways autism can happen) extemely complicated adverse events that often happen (or at least diagnosis of it) after a long course of time and potentially in conjuntion with other issues, such as over-prescription of antibiotics, use of tylenol, etc. How can you possibly design a clinical trial to detect that, especially when you don't know what you'd be looking for?

Some stupid things could be changed. Thimerosal removed. The schedule changed. No combo vaccines.

But when it comes to developing a new vaccine I'm not sure how much safer you can be. Who is to say whether a chosen SARS antigen might be similar to some native protein in 1 in 5,000 people =that sets off an auto-immune attach similar to MS or ALS. There is no way to know that and no amount of money or effort would detect it.

The great folly of our society was to think we were smart enough to take control of the way our immune system works and thereby defeat disease. While greed has been a factor, the primary error was human arrogance. We should have just been washing our hand thoroughly this whole time.


Jack, it sounds like you are saying that the only way that companies can make money off of vaccines is if they are allowed to make totally unsafe vaccines with no repercussions. I find that hard to believe.


Jack said, "I don't think we can reasonably say we are pro-safe vaccine. I don't believe we can ever have that for all people."

I am certainly for safER vaccines. I am for the makers of vaccines producing the very safest vaccines possible. I am for the study of adverse reactions to understand better what causes those reactions, who is most vulnerable, and how to best treat those reactions.

Yes, it is true that vaccines most likely cannot be made safe for absolutely everyone. But if there were 1 in a million serious adverse reactions, or even one in 100,000, that would be so much better than the current situation where at least 1 in 150 children have autism and kids have increasing rates of asthma, diabetes, ADHD, severe allergies...

The fact that vaccines cannot be perfect is no excuse for not making them as safe as possible, no excuse for sweeping problems under the rug. Cars are not perfect either, but we continue to develope technology etc. to make them as safe as possible.

And decisions such as giving hepatitis B vaccines containing thimerosal to all newborns on the day of birth are just insane. There has to be better weighing of risks and benefits.



Yes, organized inhumanity comes to mind when searching for answers. Just how do we explain the lack of vaccine safety for children in our current society? Profits versus First Do No Harm!?



Thank you. This is important regarding pharmaceutical concerns on possible causes of Autism.

On David Kirby’s HuffingtonPost at , Spectrum Dad referred to fetus exposure data for the flu vaccine Thimerosal mercury. See

This is really troubling. Looking at the ten year period from 1997 to 2006, this data extrapolates to an average of 11.47 percent of pregnant women receiving a flu shot. Using a figure of 4 million children born each year gives an estimated 458,800 fetuses exposed to Thimerosal. Then using the CDC Autism rate from 2002 of 1/150 gives an estimated 26,667 children diagnosed with Autism annually. And this number of children with Autism calculates out to 5.81 % of the pregnant women exposed annually to “standard Thimerosal content” of 25 micrograms of mercury levels from the shot. This amount is with the use of the multi-dose vial. See ).

And the CDC message to pregnant women right now is “Is it safe for pregnant women to receive an influenza vaccine that contains thimerosal? Yes... the benefits of influenza vaccine with reduced or standard thimerosal content outweighs the theoretical risk, if any, of thimerosal.” See , September 23, 2008.

Again, just what part of neurotoxin doesn’t the CDC get?

This CDC vaccine trend data seems to only reinforce the hypothesis that the flu shot with Thimerosal, given to pregnant women, results in a significant contribution to Autism in children.

Julie Swenson

Chris, yep, that's me over on Baby Center...I don't even read those boards anymore--too depressing.


Well, I'm certainly not trying to defend them. There has certainly been too much abuse, criminal cover-up and out-right stupidity for that.

But I don't think it is a case of them threatening to quit developing vaccines in the "we're taking our ball and going home" type of way. I think it is just an inevitable outcome. If one of the big pharma's annouces that they are going to invest millions into developing a product with no assured market and in the face of tremendous potential liability the stock would crash. Shareholders would revolt, CEOs would be ousted. The decision wouldn't belong to the pharma executives, it would belong to Wall Street.

IF (all caps intentional) these guys care about developing new drugs because they think they are good for the world, they would still say the things they said in the meeting yesterday.

What's the answer, I don't know. Lots of zinc and vitamin C. Less processed foods and pesticides maybe...and freedom of choice when it comes to your own family's medical care.


Jack-- well, here's one thing I can think of which Hillary Clinton contributed. She suggested this year that a law be passed forcing vaccine manufacturers to give one year's notice before abandoning production of any product on the market. That would be about enough time for some pharma start-up to take over production. Smaller companies might not whine as much if ordered to do R&D on safer products and won't have the clout to make threats if made liable to ensure product safety.

Considering that Clinton sent people to Rep. Maloney's briefing on the hill, maybe she's rethinking her past enthusiasm for hypervaccination. Who knows but it would be a clever strategy to hold the "targets" (in this case, pharma) down while legislatively reinstating liability on the industry.

Not that people who no longer vaccinate even care whether vaccine makers cut and run, but it's a potent threat to the rest of the populace. The threat also hinders research on safer products. I'd like to see industry divested of weilding this threat for good.


Jack, the executives who feel that way should be forcibly removed and replaced, and the remaining staff should be able to continue - manufacturing only truly necessary vaccines that are free of toxins.

What they have done and continued to do is criminal and no one should ever cave in to a hissy fit on such a crucial scale as this.

If they are going to threaten withholding medicines because they can't continue to damage human beings for profit then they are not the type of people we need in key positions in the pharmaceutical industry. The people and organizations who pander to them have made themselves just as complicit.


This one bothered me:

They want to change how adverse reactions are handled when they occur in clinical trials.

If they start handleing adverse reactions the way pediatricians handle them we are in trouble (not reporting).

The woman that brought this up stressed the point at least twice during the meeting.



Well, I agree with that my hope for actual informed choice and individualized medicine is hopelessly idealistic.

But I disagree with the second half of this:

"Implicit in their pleas for liability protection is a threat to withdraw from the market, leaving the government with no vaccines at all. I believe this is an empty threat as they would be leaving billions of dollars on the table when they walked away."

I think the threat is real. Without the liability protection and mandates they won't be walking away from billions in profit, just a headache and I think they will. Why spend 100 million dollars and 8 years taking a shot at a SARS vaccine, for instance, in that environment?

I think that is why it is the organizations like the CDC, AAP, etc. that fight us so hard and maintain/orchestrate the cover up. If vaccine development stops because the truth about risks comes out, and we do have some truly serious outbreak the public will see the failure as their's.


"We should stand on pro-informed choice. Pro-freedom of choice. Pro-doctors that investigate the individual and make the recommendation right for them."

I agree that this would be great in an ideal world, but if you listen to what they were talking about in that meeting yesterday, it was basically about marketing and how important it is for the government panels (IOM, CDC, etc.) to make recommendations that encourage people to use these vaccines. Actual informed choice, with actual transparency, without government putting its weighty finger on the scales to tip the balance toward vaccination, would devastate their business model. Implicit in their pleas for liability protection is a threat to withdraw from the market, leaving the government with no vaccines at all. I believe this is an empty threat as they would be leaving billions of dollars on the table when they walked away. But the FDA/CDC/HHS don't seem willing to play that hand of poker. It is far easier for them to portray us as hysterics on the lunatic fringe than it is for them to explain to people that vaccines have certain benefits and certain risks.


Sorry I meant to say an "awful notion".
I am so mad.
This article sums up my feeling about the free pass vaccine makers are given.
As if our babies and toddlers don't matter.
What an inhumane gesture.
How Hitler perverted the course of science
The Nazis' gruesome experiments became an accepted part of German medical research,


I love the war imagery in this: "there are many vaccine targets left". Hmm. Guess who's the enemy?

It's all a kind of video war game with cash prizes to these people, isn't it? They even have their little bug-warrior hero avatar identities. If they can go on silencing the victims through clever tort hacking and suppressing independent science, then they can continue playing and imagining that this is all taking place in virtual reality.


Oh is this pre-VICP verdict posturing?
This just infuriates me, industry headquartered in France no less, is asking for indemnity when injecting OUR young.
Shall we indemnify China when they ship toxic toys, tainted milk?
Vaccines should be black boxed with warnings for pregnant women not made exempt from liability!
That is an awful!


To Maggie: It is a wonder to me that our child is even alive at this point. First mercury caused seizures and autism and for a brief period of time was given this epilepsy drug. This has all wreaked so much havoc on that little body. The results have plunged us into poverty. Physician ordered therapies were denied in 2006. Because of the statute of limitations, we are not eligible to make a claim in vaccine court.

To all: These pharmaceutical companies and the agencies that "govern" them have been told and have admitted as much. We have that in writing thanks to RFK, Jr. We know what we have all sent them to read. Same thing with our govt. representatives. Yet instead of removing the damn toxins, they want protection. All the while STILL NOT REMOVING THE TOXINS?

When is an effective someone going to call them on all of their crap? When will it stop? When will ALL OF THEM be held accountable? When will our families finally get the assistance, the specific assistance we all so DESPERATELY need?

It is outrageous to me that the majority of the media and the government just sits on their hands about this. They know. And they know we know they know.


You have to wonder if Sanofi Pasteur, thinks there's a hole in VICP and they're trying to plug it.


The audacity and arrogance of these people continues to astound me so much.

I wonder, does the Senate actually take their BS seriously? After all the things we have sent to them, and after all the ways we have all lobbied for vaccines to be cleaned up? After all the coverage about exemptions and mandates in NJ? After all the outrage we have expressed because of our children being damaged before and after birth?


I think that more than the profit hungry evil greedy SOBs we paint them as, these guys are true believers. AND THAT IS WORSE.

They believe their products save lives and they are proud of them. And because it does take nearly a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop them they believe they need these protections to get investors (i.e. your 401k) to support them. And they are right probably.

I don't think we can reasonably say we are pro-safe vaccine. I don't believe we can ever have that for all people. We should stand on pro-informed choice. Pro-freedom of choice. Pro-doctors that investigate the individual and make the recommendation right for them.


Epidemiology already tells us that in years of particularly virulent flu pandemics, the children born to those mothers are more likely to have schizophrenia than children born in other years. This has been established for many years.

It is recently been discovered that it is the mothers immune response, as opposed to the bacterial or viral agents, that frequently result in behavioral abnormalities in animal studies. There are several studies on this from 2007 onwards.

Of course, the immune response generated by getting a vaccine is very similar to that from getting the bug itself (albeit, in most instances, reduced intensity). It looks like someone has done enough reading to figure out that there may be a correlation. Oops!

The lucky thing is that I'm sure this is the only time they've gotten something wrong.

- pD

Ben's Dad

Since nobody seems to acknowledge any risks, I can see how this risk benefit assessment would go. What problem are they trying to solve(sell) that warrants consideration of liability protection up front? I guess if your job is to solve public health problems, and someone walks in suggesting they can solve those wish list problems, but they need to be assured protection before they invest, then bad things can happen. How about requiring that anyone seeking immunity has to operate under complete transparency, even during the consideration phase – every email, every document, every study result must be published in real time without barrier. Complete immunity should never extend to manufacturing defects or failure to take advantage of advances in safety improving technology. Never.

Thanks to everyone bringing back reports from these sessions.


I guess they are now purposely trying to cause autism now. Anybody look at the research concerning valproate (epilepsy drug) given during pregnancy causing autism? From what I read, it appears to be the same mechanism that thimersal causes autism (excess glutamte killing brain cells.) No matter how you look at it - pharma causes autism.


Why? Does GM get liability protection if their seatbelts strangle a fetus? Does TastyKake get liability protection if a Jelly Krimpet poisons a fetus? Does a trauma surgeon get liability protection if he has to operate on an injured pregnant woman and injured the fetus?

The vaccine companies want their mulligan before they even enter the tee box.


Julie Swenson, do you post over at Babycenter? I think I remember you saying that you do. I post over there also and I literally cannot stand to look at the due date clubs when I am pregnant and someone posts the inevitable "Should I get a flu shot while I am pregnant?" question. And of course all the other mommies post back "OMG YES! Your doc went to school for eight years, he knows what he is talking about, yada, yada," I have seen moms respond with "The flu is ten thousand times more dangerous than the mercury in the shot" and "You know that science has proven that autism is genetic and it doesn't have anything to do with vaccines" and "Why wouldn't you get it? You don't want to kill your baby, do you?" And on and on.

I seriously cannot stand to read mainstream due date club boards because of this stuff any more. And I don't even think vaccines were the main trigger for my daughter's autism. But the fact that she is responding to biomedical tells me that it is not simply "genetic".

And I swear if I hear "There is no autism epidemic, we just diagnose it more now" ONE MORE TIME out of someone's mouth I am going to scream. Umm, DUH, yeah, we're diagnosing it more, because THERE ARE MORE KIDS WITH IT! ARRRGH!


This is such a pet peeve of mine, also. Now that I've actually HAD THE FLU WHILE PREGNANT and my baby and I didn't even come anywhere NEAR dying. The hardest part was my kids got it also and I had to take care of miserable kids for a week while I felt like utter crap myself and I was 15 weeks pregnant and still not totally over the morning sickness (so whenever I had a coughing fit, I would also puke, NOT fun).

But even after all that, I still wouldn't get the shot. I'm glad my newest munchkin didn't get the mercury, that's for sure.

Julie Swenson

In other words: "We are concerned with damaging unborn babies with our toxic crap that is unproven to actually truly do any good, therefore please remove us from all liability from future lawsuits while still allowing us to turn a hefty profit...thanks, US Government."

Pregnant ladies, don't forget your flu vaccine! Don't mind the mercury- it will not harm your fragile, developing fetus- trust us.


seems like one could replace "world" with "vaccine program"

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain


liability protection for vaccinating pregnant women? How about let's just not do that. This makes me f'g sick. More vaccine targets? Today I was watching Obabma talk about keeping the military strong what with the recent troubles in India. Someone should tell him that over-vaccinating his citizens is definately not doing any favors for them, not to mention all the costs in helping all the vaccine-injured to be productive citizens after all the illnesses they've had to go through... I bet a lot of people actually don't enlist because of all the vaccine crap they hear about serving.


In today's L.A. Times there is an article "U.S. gets low marks for rise in premature birth rate" at,0,5179666.story

The article states that "Births between 34 and 36 weeks of gestation, or the late-preterm period, have increased most dramatically".

Many possible causes of premature births are mentioned, including: having babies at an older age, assisted reproductive technology e.g. in vitro fertilization, increased rates of cesarean delivery, genetics, infections, poor prenatal care, stress from financial strains and abusive relationships.

But how about the increase in the number of women receiving flu shots while pregnant? Is that even being looked at?

It's just like the articles about increased rates of immune system disorders in children today (asthma, allergies, diabetes etc.) where vaccines are the elephant in the room and are not even mentioned as a possible cause worth studying.

But maybe Sanofi Pasteur knows that there are potential problems here, hence the lobbying for protection.

Thanks so much, Kelly, for covering this.


This whole thing was really eye-opening for me. It's a small glimpse into how entrenched, profit-driven and blinkered the entire vaccine establishment is. They are like a big old Brinks truck with only one gear -- forward. It doesn't matter how many people they run over, or even if they are driving themselves over a cliff. To them progress is maximizing how many vaccines they can sell with the least amount of regulation possible. This whole thing was nothing more than a forum for manufacturers to lay the groundwork for lobbying the federal government. A bunch of time was spent rhapsodising about how great it would be if every country just accepted one country's approval, instead of going through their own process to evaluate new vaccines. Another chunk spent talking about all the vaccines they want to give pregnant women if only they can evade liability. Amusing anecdote about how Flumist almost didn't get approved because of retroviruses in it. Luckily lots of money was spent (lobbying, no doubt) and the "right" decision was reached. Nowhere did safety even enter their picture. The one questioner who brought it up was met with stony silence and a change of topic. It made me realize exactly how far apart we are from any sort of reasonable discussion with these people. They mentioned that a separate meeting on safety would be taking place in February (or April?) of next year. It's not like they have a fire lit under them in the least. Maybe by then the Omnibus decisions and the Rand study will have come out and make a saner discussion possible. And the new administration may have some cojones. A girl can dream, right?


If vaccines are so safe for pregnant women, why duck out on product liability? Where does "non-negligent" apply to a company that refuses to accept responsibility for the damage it causes?

Why is so much attention given to fear of paying for vaccine injury, rather than working out product quality and fair consumer protections beforehand?

Why do these stakeholders meetings seem overpopulated by vaccine profiteers rather than consumers and injury victims?

Angela Warner

Thanks for reporting today Kelli Ann. We all appreciate your hard work!

All I can say is &^%(%&@ par for the course. This has GOT TO STOP! This madness has got to end!

And it WILL! We will MAKE it HAPPEN!!!!


Plotkin's two presentation slides are available on the original website with the webcast info. No transcripts yet.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


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.)