Media Scholar

[[[I'm fairly certain that the NVIC did NOT help Marge's family. In any way, shape, or form. ]]]

Part of what Jeff Schwartz got written into law was that vaccine-injured children could still get compensation even if it could not be proven which vaccine manufacturer's vaccine was responsible for their injury or death.

I understand that Marge Grant contacted Jeff after the law was passed and Jeff helped her negotiate a VICP award for her son. I also understand that she was not able to successfully sue Parke Davis (the manufacturer of the DPT that hurt her son) because her son's medical records had been lost or destroyed. Without medical records that at least document that a specific vaccine was given - you have no case in civil court and no hope of being compensated at all.

[[[Be that as it may, either this legislation, so fervently supported and pushed through Congress by NVIC, has been a triumph for injured children and families, or it hasn't.]]]

It's neither.

For families like the Grant's who, for various reasons, cannot pursue a civil option, the VICP is all they have and in some cases, has been useful. While the compensation that the Grant's and other families get under VICP may not be enough, getting some help is better than getting none at all.

If parents had been able to easily and successfully sue the manufacturers there would have been no need for the VICP. In fact, there were plenty of families who got nothing in civil court because the deep-pocket manufacturers could outspend and easily beat them. Or, cases were quietly settled under intimidating circumstances right before court for paltry amounts by families who were worn down and outspent. Pursuing a remedy in civil court wasn't easy for families of vaccine-injured children.

This is not to say that the VICP is a great program and doesn't need to be improved. Clearly, that statement is far from true. I don't think it's possible to take a complex situation like what families with vaccine-injured children face and boil it down to whether the program has been a complete triumph or not. This is not a simple black and white situation. For some families the VICP has worked well, for far too many others it has not worked at all.

Karen

@media scholar: [[[Stonehenge is closed and the South American tribes no longer crush the skulls of innocent infants slitting their throats on an alter erroneously thinking the sacrifice will lead to a bountiful harvest.]]]

Good point. I wish I weren't such a 'cynic', thank you for giving me some optimism.

@karen: [[[I'm glad the VICP (and NVIC) helped Marge's family to get at least some compensation for their losses. Perhaps it wasn't enough money but it's more than most families have received (including almost everyone on this list). Other people like Jeff Schwartz and Barbara Loe Fisher got absolutely nothing (nor did they file). And Jeff's daughter died. ]]]

I'm fairly certain that the NVIC did NOT help Marge's family. In any way, shape, or form. Be that as it may, either this legislation, so fervently supported and pushed through Congress by NVIC, has been a triumph for injured children and families, or it hasn't. I think we know the answer...it has been an epic failure, and it should be surprising to no one, since its shortcomings were addressed well in advance to the push through Congress.

I'm not sure whether or not Jeff Schwartz or BLF filing a claim for compensation is relevant (given her entire career was founded upon vaccine injury). The tragic death of Jeff's daughter also doesn't have much to do with what I've been discussing... both seem more like an appeal to emotion to distract from the real issues.

But even then, it can never be fully undone...
--------------------------

Well? Stonehenge is closed and the South American tribes no longer crush the skulls of innocent infants slitting their throats on an alter erroneously thinking the sacrifice will lead to a bountiful harvest.

Unfortunately, in this advanced age there are those that still falsely believe the survival of man involves human sacrifices.

Perhaps it's time for the other half of Andrew Wakefield's quote?

"Neither I, nor my colleagues subscribe to the belief that any child is expendable. History has encountered and dealt with such beliefs. You, the parent's and children, are the source of the inspiration and strength for our endeavours; our quest for truth through science - a science that is compassionate, uncompromising and un-compromised. I do not mean to stir you to mutiny, but be assured that armed with this science it is in your power to force this issue, in your pediatricians office, in Congress, in the Law Courts. Keep faith with your instincts - they have served you well." - Andrew Wakefield

Clearly, some of you - Hilary, Ray, Media Scholar - enjoy bashing Barbara, NVIC and the VICP. Characterizing the VICP as being a completely bad and worthless program that only benefits vaccine manufacturers is nonsense. Hilary, you mentioned Marge Grant in an earlier post - I understand her vaccine-injured son was compensated by the VICP. Does she also think that the program is worthless and should never have been created? I know a lot of autism parents with vaccine-injured children who read this blog who wish the program would have compensated them for their losses.

If you all don't like the VICP perhaps you'd be better off spending your time and effort working with legislators and advocacy groups to change/abolish the law.

Karen

Forming a non profit agency, and a job for yourself, on the backs of injured children is NOT noble in my opinion.
--------------------
That's a gutsy statement to make around this place. We are remiss if we do not express our conscience.

This statement speaks louder for our children than any anti-American vaccine shill organization has ever.

BTW, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System also known as VAERS should be more aptly named FUBAR. It's a quite a triumph of toy data which in no way can reflect the totality of government mandated vaccine injury carnage.

From October of 1988:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ispk94iPJfU

Fabulous! Thank you for this. I hope you don't mind that I am sharing it on my blog.

With warm regards,
Leslie
http://www.outrunning-autism.blogspot.com/

@ Karen

****how many vaccine injury lawsuits against vaccine manufactures have been won by parents in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain or any other country in the European Union in the past two decades?****

I can only speak for the country we are in. Since the vaccines used here, are made in USA, it's not possible to sue manufacturers in another country, so there is a scheme here where parents apply to it for "medical misadventure". The standards of "proof" are very high.

In terms of that system, many parents have won compensation. I don't know how many. given that I helped fight some of the cases, I primarily know the ones I was involved in.

Pamela,

The original intend was not to expose Barbara Loe Fisher as a self-promoting turn-coat, but rather to point out that Ronald Reagan reluctantly signed the legislation.

The supporting contemporaneous news articles reveal that the VICP legislation was widely publicized as a mild alternative to civil trial, not a replacement; at best, vaccine injury arbitration.

The point concerning the preservation of Constitutional Rights to sue for vaccine injury is also contemporaneously supported by a person who is actively advocating in support of vaccine-injured people, not vaccine manufacturing drug company product line extensions.

The facts are irreconcilable. DPT said vaccine injury compensation was non-existent before they birthed their VICP baby. On the other hand, vaccine makers claimed damage lawsuits before DPT's bill were killing them.

Together this means the cost of making sure nobody was being compensated for vaccine injury was bad for the vaccine business?

The monumental efforts are now to conceal the cost of mass vaccination policy in human lives, bright futures, and continuing medical care related to vaccine injury.

Why do you suppose Offit and Singer are vehemently attacking forms of Autism treatments?

They are protecting the cost-effectiveness of mass vaccinations. They *think* they have civil liability all sewn up.

Pamela, You say, ****1st, BLF did not write the legislation...far from it.****

To quote Barbara's words: " ... the leaders of Dissatisfied Parents Together (DPT) could either choose to have input into the creation of the bill or we could choose to not participate"

and "to decline to be part of the process and have no hope of having the concerns of vaccine injured children and their families, ... considered in the bill."

NVIC, then DPT, sent copies of the first writing of the bill to various people for comment in November 1983, and a similar variation of the following sentence appears in all letters:

"We would very much appreciate your review and suggestions regarding the bill. Although it has been introduced, it is surely not locked in stone and we would welcome your suggestions for how the bill could be improved.

From out standpoing in negotiating with the AAP, we do not feel the bill is "perfect". In fact, there are numerous things that we would probably change. But some constraints of political feasilibity were operative and we did the best we could at this stage in the process.

Hopefully with your suggestions the bill can be improved."

So the light of these requests from NVIC people ,does it, or does it not look to you, as if Barbara and Jeff were involved in the drafting of, and writing of, the 1986 legislation?

Front page of DPT news, Spring 1987, vol 3 No 1. (which should be compulsory reading for anyone interested in history....)

"S. 2117 was the product of nearly two years of difficult negotiations between DPT and the American Academy of Pediatrics."

Define "product"???

Pamela:

****2nd, she was the only one invited because way back in '86 her organization was the only game in town, as far as I know, and she had just won on getting the DPT changed to the DPaT. ****

1) Your understanding is incorrect. In 1986, NVIC was a newcomer on the block. There were other far better established "organisations" with far better experience than NVIC could hope to muster.
This is where people need to understand the history they don’t know. Assumptions are easily made by people who weren’t around in 1974, 1982, 1986, but think that what they know is all there is to know.

Marge Grant, had campaigned about the whole cell vaccine, for at least a decade before Barbara knew there was an issue. Indeed, she was well known. It was a New York man, called Dan Rescinitie who rang NBC and said, "You need to do a story and talk to Marge Grant" Marge was rung on January 16, 1981, and that was the start of the planning for the April 1982 programme. After six months of looking at the medical literature provided by Marge, and furthering her own investigations, Lea was more than horrified at the situation with regard to the whole cell vaccine. (For those wanting to know more about what Marge did and why, please go to www.dptshot.com and order Marge Grant's book about her son Scottie and what happened 49 years and thereafter, called "A Stolen Life")

On April 19, 1982, Barbara didn't even know there was an issue. At about 8.30 that night she watched Lea Thompson interview Marge Grant, Jim Grant, and their vaccine damaged son Scottie, in his special wheelchair. She also watched other mothers part of Marge's network, from Wisconsin and Chicago, like Evelyn Gaugert, Emily Yankovich, Gail and Lorenzo Brown talk about their children. She watched Dr Robert Mendelsohn, a paediatrician and author who had a very long history of speaking out and writing against vaccines.

Right there, a light bulb went off in Barbara’s head which was the first time she even knew there was an issue.

By this time Marge and Jim Grant had, along with a group of other people spent a decade fighting, and achieved philosophical objection in Wisconsin way before the inception of NVIC, so if you live there, you have Mrs Marge Grant to thank for that.

On 8th December 1982, Barbara also watched The Phil Donohue Show, with Mr Jim and Mrs Marge Grant, along with Dr Robert Mendelsohn, as well as Dr Anthony J. Morris, and Dr Bobby Young. Obviously some planning had been going on between April and December, because something happened on this show, which I’m not prepared to discuss at this time, which derailed the vaccine movement in USA. (I spoke a bit about that in my first post). The action alienated Barbara from everyone else who knew what she had done.

But let’s stick to the topic of who was who up until 1986.

The Bell of Atri (now wound up) was co-founded by Dr Morris and another ex FDA doctor, Dr Bobby Young (who gave Lea Thomspon the title for her programme “DPT: vaccine roulette” ). Dr Morris was the Chairman, Dr John O Nestor the vice chairman, and Dr John Chriss Hoffman was the secretary-treasurer. The Bell of Atri was a public interest organization funded by 10 prominent doctors, all outspoken critics of vaccination. worked for decades for the DBS, then the FDA which superceded the DBS. Dr Morris was head of an organisation called Bell of Atri. Dr Anthony J Morris, had previously spoken out about the flu vaccines, and was working in the FDA in 1974 at the time of the Swine Flu vaccine. His job was to test it for safety. Another of his job, was analysing the swine virus involved. He determined two things. The first was that the pig virus was an ordinary virus which held no dangers for most people and secondly, that the vaccine was dangerous and had the potential for serious neurological reactions. His bosses refused to tell the public about that, so he went to Phil Donohue in 1974, and appeared on his programme to tell the public what his bosses would not. He also held public symposia about the situation to alert the public. This action resulted in a 7 year court for wrongful dismissal case, which eventually he won ... but who would want to go back to FDA after being treated worse than a disposable commodity?

The Bell of Atri worked in very close co-operation with Mrs Marge Grant, www.dptshot.com, Dr Robert Mendelsohn, and other doctors within the community.

So the issue of the whole cell vaccine had been in the focus of Americans, long before Lea Thompsons programme, "DPT - vaccine roulette". Given that the acellular vaccine was only licensed for use in the USA in 1992, there is no way NVIC could have been chosen because BLF had “succeeded” in changing the whole cell to acellular. If you want to give the credit for that, where it is really due, you need to study the media articles from 1974 onwards, to see exactly where NVIC actual fits into that issue. For me, I think that Dr Kevin Geraghty is the person who can take the most credit for that.

Between December 1982, and 1984, Barbara focus was primarily gathering material with Harris Coulter for the book “DPT A shot in the dark” which Dr Mendelsohn refused to write the forward to.

In the winter of 1983, NVIC were advised by Senate legislators and congressional staffers in both the House and Senate that Congress was going to act to respond to the public crisis created by Lea Thompson’s “DPT:Vaccine Roulette”. NVIC were given a choice of 1) being part of the process and hope that their work would make the bill better, or 2) decline to be part of the process and have no hope of having the concerns of vaccine injured children and their families considered in the bill. (these are Barbara’s words, not mine) So in other words, they were saying, “If you don’t do this, we will ignore all parents”.

It seems that at no point did NVIC suggest that other people and organizations already in existence, were more knowledgeable and better placed to represent the community as a whole

In terms of the public, issues intensified in December 1984, when the Fresno Bee ran a series of articles which brought to the fore, all the opponents of the whole cell vaccine, of whom Barbara had less prominence than those who had been campaigning for years.

At the same time (1984) Gannet News Service did a series called "The Vaccine Machine. John Hanchette was a reporter with the Gannet News Service, who over the next few years, had published many many articles on the topic (which I have bound in a book...)

As I go through all the newsmedia articles I have from 1974 onwards, I would say that the biggest advocates for parents up until 1982, were Dr Robert Mendelsohn, Dr Morris from Bell of Atri, Mrs Marge Grant, Dr Kevin Geraghty from California, and a group of lawyers, who in the previous decades, had fought many cases on behalf of parents, which, as each one was won, hit the media with big headlines.

THESE high pay outs to damaged children, in the tort system, prior to 1982, were the very cases which provoked the vaccine manufacturers to decide that they needed to expand the indemnity legislation accorded them in 1974, for the dangerous swine flu vaccine, to include all the other vaccines. That is why they insisted that part of the Government team be the team which worked with them and wrote the 1974 legislation.

What the manufacturers wanted to do was neutralise the publicity of cases; neutralise the groups of lawyers also speaking out in the media; neutralise the complaints of Dr Kevin Geraghty, Dr Morris and Dr Mendelsohn. And yes, neutralize NVIC.

But to suggest that NVIC was chosen because Barbara was the only light on the horizon, and had succeeded in doing something in 1984, which wasn’t “done” until 1992, is again, to ignore history.

A question needs to be asked, which is, “Why are people most vocal in the defence of NVIC, ignorant of the real history of vaccine critics in USA”?

Patron99

Thank you for correcting me. I did misunderstood and that you were supporting the criticisms.

Whether I support every move she's made over the past three decades or not, I certainly respect her work and the many years she has spent fighting this battle. For anyone who attented her international conference on vaccination or has spent much time on her website. It's obvious that she does not believe vaccines are safe, does not support pharma and because the CDC has acknowledge that no vaccine will ever be 100% safe all citizens should have the right to choice.

I guess the big rub here is that people are actually suggesting that giving pharma liability was her idea. It amazes me that some don't seem to understand that that deal was between Congress and Pharma; was made before the legislation was hammered out and long before BLF was invited to the table. Barbara had no real power to do anything more than broker some limited aspects of the compensation program. For example, the legislation mandated further research which has never happened. What pieces she was able to win on she had no power to make sure they were carried out. Thus the failures we see today in the program. I.E the promises they did make to BLF were broken which explains why she's as angry about the joke the court is as anyone.

This was a great article. But I'm perplexed and troubled by some of the comments.

I hope that everyone knows that before the 1986, the government and doctors insisted that the DPT vaccine and MMR vaccine did NOT brain injure or kill. The drug companies, with their billions of dollars in the bank and friends on Capitol Hill, were able to settle most vaccine injury lawsuits for low sums out of court before going to trial. IF they got anything at all, parents with severely injured children who would never be able to feed themselves let alone walk or toilet themselves were typically getting under $200,000.

The 1986 law isn't perfect but it admitted in our law that vaccines injure and kill. Furthermore, the 1991 and 1994 IOM reports, which were part of the law, were historic admissions by a scientific body that vaccines can injure and kill. The $2 billion paid out since 1988 is concrete evidence that vaccines injure and kill. Without that law I'm sure that the government, manufacturers and medicine would still be denying that vaccine can and do kill and injure.

Plus, if you read the law you will see that there were legal requirements - even though doctors don't obey them and no one makes them obey the law - that doctors are supposed to give parents vaccine information and write down reaction information and report to VAERS. Before that law - there was no VAERS. Now, the public can view VAERS reports and that wasn't possible before the law. Is VAERS perfect - no - but it's better than having nothing at all.

Without the 1986 law, doctors like Offit would be able to say without any proof at all that vaccines DO NOT injure and kill; there would have been no decent compensation for vaccine injuries given to any of the more than 2000 vaccine victims that did manage to get a VICP award and most of them would never have seen a civil lawsuit because many didn't have the money to pay for lawyers to represent them. No, that isn't enough and yes more people should get awards but NOBODY would have gotten anything if it weren't for the law.

As far as lawsuits being a deterrent to new vaccine development - how many vaccine injury lawsuits against vaccine manufactures have been won by parents in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain or any other country in the European Union in the past two decades? These countries, which are home to major pharmaceutical companies enjoying a global vaccine business, did NOT pass legislation like the US did in 1986. I'd like to know how many big vaccine injury lawsuit wins against pharmaceutical companies and doctors have occurred in these countries and whether the lack of a law like VICP has served as a deterrent for those governments to not recommend new vaccines. Tell us how NOT having a law like the one the US passed in 1986 has helped to hold back a host of new vaccines from being introduced in THOSE countries.

I don't get it. How does scapegoating and dishonoring Barbara Loe Fisher, the mother of son who was hurt by DPT vaccine, and other parents of children who DIED from DPT vaccine, like Jeff Schwartz, make sense? These parents tried to do the best they could to help other parents of vaccine injured children 25 years ago - and they've made very important contributions - is, IMO, ignorant and cruel. Any mistakes they made were not made because they were trying to hurt children and protect drug companies. That's really a horrendous and outrageous claim.

The responsibility for what has happened to our children should be placed squarely at the foot of those responsible for creating, operating and promoting mandatory vaccination policies: the pharmaceutical industry, public health officials, pediatric organizations and politicians. Not parents like Barbara and Jeff.

Karen

"We are in the midst of an international epidemic. Those responsible for investigating and dealing with this epidemic have failed. Among the reasons for this failure is the fact that they are faced with the prospect that they themselves may be responsible for the epidemic. Therefore, in their efforts to exonerate themselves they are an impediment to progress." - Andrew Wakefield, 2002

Pamela, Let me try to illustrate it this way.

IF in 2010, the Senate wanted to make a move, and asked ONLY .. oh… Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carey to write legislation involving the safety of vaccines and the lives of millions in the future, wouldn’t you all be saying, “Why isn’t Kent, NVIC and, Dan, and all the many others who have been around for YEARS, and understand the politics of this, doing this collectively?”

So if all those experienced people went to Jenny and Jim and said, “Don’t do this. You don’t have the experience and the knowledge. And if you partner with them you will be shafted and betrayed, and not only will it all turn to custard, it will turn out worse for parents and children than before…,” wouldn’t that be appropriate?

And how would you all feel if Jenny and Jim ignored that, and said, “No we think we can best represent all the people of America. We have the media's attention, and we have the smarts to do this well.”

And if everything panned out as you all predicted, and perhaps worse, how would all you here, commenting on this thread, feel about the wasted expertise and knowledge put to one side, all because Jenny and Jim felt they knew enough to do it better than everyone else?

Who would you want acting on your behalf?

Wouldn’t you want someone experienced, (if they were silly enough) to be co-writing such legislation?

Might not you consider other options?

Perhaps a bottom line demand?

Why do you think that ... instead of all the many very very experienced people in existence available in 1984, ... the senate deliberately asked the least experienced, and most medically and politically malleable of the available co-writers.

They knew the more experienced advocates would drive a very very hard bargain, if indeed they would agreed to be part..., but they also knew the others well enough to know that they might drive a bargain they really wouldn’t like.

Barbara was advised. She could have said no.

So let’s ask the next logical question.

What are the Americans in 2010 going to do about this dog of a legislation?

In my opinion, if it’s not possible to have the vaccine legislation removed from the books, STOP ‘negotiating’ on …. “safe vaccines”. There can never be a “safe” vaccine. Negotiating on the point of safe vaccines does not progress the real issues for parents. It didn’t in 1986, and it’s not going to in 2010.

If parents want to have any “power” whatsoever, they must be able to walk into the doctor and say, “We are delaying for now; we will take out time making our choices, and we might not vaccinate for philosophical reasons”, and your doctor should not be allowed to fire you for that choice.

Along with medical exemptions, have a single nationwide philosophical exemption covering all of USA, as THE fundamental legal right, without all the red tape and character assassination that goes along with state philosophical, religious exemptions. Go one better, and have a new law written where parents have to actively OPT ON to vaccination programmes, rather than opt off.

That’s your baseline.

If Government and vaccine manufacturers want to increase consumer demand they will then have to provide a product which people have confidence in, and want to use, if they chose.

But until parents have the control-switch of the decision making process, neither government, nor vaccine manufacturers will listen to parents.

You will not get that, by continuing to talk about "safe vaccines". The government and manufacturers with indemnity, just sit there, laughing and ride out the hot air, because they have the upper hand.

The advantage the people had in 1984, which had been created by others, and building up well before Barbara even knew there was an issue, was wrested away by the decoy of legislation promising justice and safe vaccines, and delivering neither.

Just as was predicted.

The point of this is not to "point fingers" but to understand history, because he who is ignorant of history is destined to repeat it.

@ Pamela - I think that you may have misunderstood my comment. I'm not blaming or criticizing BLF. She is a hero...from where I stand.

Not too long ago, in my naivete, I was a victim of vaccine madness. Then came the pandemic flu fraud and hysteria of 2009. That more than any single event, and the very real spectre of forced detentions, quarantines, martial law, and mandated jabs, motivated me to seriously look into the underlying basis for vaccine policy. The more I read, the more shocked I became. The scientific underpinnings are simply appalling.

Early-on, for a brief time, I thought that we could and perhaps should take a nuanced approach to vaccines and consider the safety of each one individually, on the merits.

Once I started looking into the proposed mechanisms (most notably those of Dr Frank Hartman and Dr Andrew Moulden) of vaccine toxicity, it became VERY difficult to deny the scientific and clinical basis, e.g. physical chemistry, biochemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, neurology, and logic behind the assertions that: (a) vaccines are all toxic by one or more mechanisms, (b) their toxicity is likely to be cummulative, and (c) their toxicity is likely to be synergistic.

Finally, I've reached the conclusion that the technology exists to prove these mechanisms of toxicity, i.e., prove that the strong association between vaccines and disease is actually causally-based.

So, with that long-winded disclosure, how could I possibly criticize one of the true pioneers in our movement. Quite the contrary, I applaud her. She has always been our advocate.

@ minority view - "This is actually an object lesson in the dangers of supporting "safer" vaccines."

Very true! This is an object lesson in why we cannot afford to take a nuanced approach to vaccine safety. Personally, I don't believe that any of them are safe.

Even if you eliminate the organomercurial preservatives, detergents, stabilizers, antibiotics, and aluminum adjuvants, we are still left with what could easily prove to be the far greater risk - the unknown risk of horizontal transfection of live viruses, retroviruses, oncogenes (e.g., SV-40), reverse transcriptase, and non-human DNA from species to species.

I didn't arrive at this opinion overnight. It took quite a bit of reading on the subject. The conclusion is inescapable. The proposed mechanisms of vaccine toxicity are robust enough to implicate them all.

While the goal of disease prevention with vaccines is admirable, they fall far short of this goal. Placing our faith in them is seriously misguided. Our collective resources would be better spent promoting healthier diets, lifestyles, nutrition, sanitation, purifying public water, eliminating GMOs and "adventitious presence" of biotech-enhanced events from our food supply.

Breast feeding and vaginal deliveries strengthen our natural immunity. Experiencing some of the classic diseases of childhood may be beneficial to our immune health later in life.

It has become abundantly clear that we cannot just keep adding one new jab after another to the pediatric and adult vaccine schedules, hoping that their cummulative safety risk is simply additive, when in fact the risks are synergistic. Eventually, there is added the straw that finally breaks the camel's back. Up until that time, the signs of toxicity can be acute, subacute, and waxing-and-waning.

There are doubtless some lessens to be learned from the vaccine schedules employed in veterinary medicine. For example, it would be instructive to learn everything we can as to why Prevenile, the first chimeric vaccine of its kind, for West Nile virus in horses, had to be recalled shortly after introduction to the marketplace. Were inflammatory cytokines, e.g. "cytokine storm", involved in the deaths?

This may sound heretical, but I believe that the technology already exists to prove that the strong epidemiologic association between vaccines and disease are causally-related.

*** When the VICP was passed, no one ever dreamed that pharma would increase the toddler vaccine program from 10 to 36 shots,
...with 50x to 100x doses of mercury becomming the norm.***

Yes they did. It’s written clearly in submissions to the senate in 1985. The whole intend of the medical professionals involved was precisely that – because the tort system as it was was impeding the introduction of new vaccines. The writing was clearly on the wall, and it was openly discussed both with BLF, and everyone else concerned.

*** First, Barbara did not have the power to get "everything" that parents deserved on this issue and second she could have never predicted the abysmal failure it has become.***

Incorrect. BLF and Jeff Schwartz knew it would be an abysmal failure, because they were warned that that would be the case by just about every person who could warn them. The truth is, that they didn’t **believe** what everyone told them what the outcome could be, because they had been swayed by the medical team assigned to them. Both falsely believed they had the smarts to better a slick PR team which had also been at the heart of the 1974 Swine Flu vaccine indemnity legislation.

Had either BLF of JS believed the words spoken to them, and written to them, then a better understanding of political medicine would have lead them to predict it’s failure and withdraw from co-authoring or supporting its implementation.

That they chose neither to hear the message, or heed the advice from all quarters to back up all the others who disagreed with the legislation, isn't the fault of those who warned her, who were all far more seasoned campaigners than either BLF of JS, who were Jonny-come-latelys when it came to vaccine issues.

Ronald Reagan was totally against the legislation, and as BLF's organisation's newsletter Volume 3 Number 1, Spring 1987, discusses in minute detail, the legislation was only passed because BLF and JS orchestrated mass rolling media pressure and protests.

What this newsletter doesn't state, is that senate roll-over was primarily achieved by a divide and rule mechanism, whereby all those against the legislation were, conveniently for BLF et al, portrayed by the media as zealots and idiots, while BLF and JS were portrayed as only voices of reason, “provaccine people who wanted to save children from sickness”.

That said, if BLF and JS had heeded reason, and backed out and supported everyone else, instead of dividing and ruling, then it's also true to say that the USA might still have that legislation today.

However, I don't happen to believe that would have been the case. But we can’t if and but about that. What is true to say is that had they listened, then everyone would have been on the same page, and no-one would be able to point a finger at anyone.

However, that was very unlikely to happen ever, because the movement had essentially been torn apart by BLF on December 8th 1982; that single action resulting in any sane approach to the future "problem" being scuttled. The very fact that as a result of that action by BLF, Dr Mendelsohn refused to write the forward to “DPT a shot in the dark” and her later support for the legislation made her an implacable enemy of Dr Robert Mendelsohn, speaks as loudly as anything can. For those who actually remember that is. For some this history is a mystery.

To those to whom history isn’t a mysery, they would all know that it took a pretty serious act of perceived betrayal, for ANYONE to be publicly berated by mild mannered Dr Mendelsohn!

BLF and JS may have forgotten about all that, but those of us there at the time have not. And those of us who were there at the time have kept all the written evidence which supports the chain of events stated above. Perhaps BLF has as well. Question is, would she show it to you, if you asked her for it?

Pamela,

Naivety is poor excuse for such long-lasting billage.

Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one."

A wise man once said, "politics is the business of exchanging favors, justice isn't."

When the VICP was passed, no one ever dreamed that pharma would increase the toddler vaccine program from 10 to 36 shots,

...with 50x to 100x doses of mercury becomming the norm.

Read the intent of VICP here:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9z4dAAAAIBAJ&sjid=oKYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5669,8058259&dq=national+childhood+vaccine&hl=en

"...while preserving a parent's Constitutional right to sue for vaccine injuries."

It also clearly states that authorities already knew that vaccines kill babies and cause brain damage (Autism).

Wonder why California is pushing the Whooping Cough? Read this editorial.

Thank you for this explanation of the Starr and Chemerinsky brief.

Will this Supreme Court hearing possibly address in some way the problematic reality of governmental agencies or departments, essentially financed by the use of a product or by the makers of such a product, deciding not only what is "unavoidably unsafe" in their own special court, but also "recommending" (with arm twisting that sometimes goes so far as mandating) the administration of such a product to its citizens/customers/victims in the first place?

Kent stated, "...regardless of whether you're conservative or liberal you believe that not only are doctors not God, they're not angels, either."

How timely. Today's Minneapolis Star Tribune reported on a University of Minnesota expert on pediatric infectious diseases who violated privacy laws and viewed the medical records of his ex-wife and estranged children. The family claims they were harrassed. The doctor's punishment? A lecture.

As long as vaccine science remains an ongoing experiment, no one belongs on a pedestal -- and no one should be above the law.

Yes, Barbara Loe Fisher.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=m3YsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=eM4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=3251,1783386&dq=national+childhood+vaccine&hl=en

Avandia.... another wonder drug to stay away from....

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/13/fda-avandia-hearings-panel-decides-fate-of-diabetes-drug/?iref=allsearch

Here! Here! Jeff C. - Well-stated. Vaccine policy transcends party affiliation, and yes, we need all the help we can get. It's "time to circle the wagons".

There are several very pro-pharma statutes which should be reached by the high courts, e.g., IMHO (a non-attorney), the PDUFA is unconstitutional in violation of 5th Amendment Equal Protection and 9th Amendment Equal Treatment under Law.

We need every legally-trained mind enlisted to help stem the tidal wave of parenteral biologics that is bearing down on us, e.g. one-size fit all jabs, immuno-drugs, cancer and STD inoculations, and nanotech vaccines.

This is not a right / left issue and commenters that insist on portraying it as such, are not only annoying, but also commit a tremendous disservice to the cause. The right wing / left ring rants make those that might be sympathetic to our issue tune us out. Tirades about neocons or “rightist, corporate majorities” do nothing to advance the argument, but do cause the 41% of Americans that call themselves conservative to dismiss our cause as partisan hack nonsense.

Kent went to great lengths to point out this is not a liberal/conservative issue as Starr and Chemerinsky are ideological polar opposites. Two of our community’s best friends were stalwart conservatives, Rep. Burton, and Rep Weldon. On the liberal side, we have great friends in Sen. Harkin and Rep. Maloney.

The issue here is crony capitalism, i.e. Big Business enabled and protected by Big Government. It is the worst of both worlds, we have government forcing us to purchase and consume a product we don’t want, while also indemnifying the business from liability. We have business exploiting their unique status afforded by government to increase revenues without repercussions. Say what you will about the situation, but it is neither conservative nor liberal in an ideological sense.

We need as many friends as we can get in this fight. The partisan cheap shots don’t help.

Dr. King, thx for the link, I haven't had any luck with the link on CoMed. And I have wanted to read this...

Starr will have the neocons squirming, because he's right. All of them are hard core federalists, and no one knows that space better than Starr. There is a chance they will find in his favor, but then I would predict that if the case is remanded and the issue of design defect adjudicated, the vaccine will be found to be "safe" (i.e. no design defect will be found). Pharma has their "14 studies" lined up to show just that. The only consolation in that case is that Pharma will be kept on its back heels for awhile longer, pissed off and continuing to have to spend boatloads on lawyers. But still no justice for the kids.

Vaccine court is unconstitutional. Toyota court? Firestone tire court? Vioxx court? Tainted Tylenol court? BP oil spill court? McDonald's hot coffee court?

Very good points above, Kerbob.

Is Dr. Verstraten in DC to help out with the Glaxo /sk Avadia hearings ???

As a matter of fact I think that having to purchase now available epilepesy medicine NOW for BOTH of my kids from these very same drug companies that produced these vaccines "is like the man is down on the ground - let us kick him again!"

How do we know these already bought and proven to be loyal to the establishment lawyers are angels? To me,,, I wonder if the permanent fix is in. What will happen if this doesn't go our way... will the vaccine companies then have more rights to invade our bodies with neurotoxins? I'm to the point where I don't trust anyone

Kent--you left out five essential facts in your otherwise excellent analysis: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy.

Whatever the decision of this rightist, corporatist majority, it will do little to push the law toward more accountability for Big Pharma.

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

Have ANY State Attorney Generals filed "amci curiae" or "friend of the court" briefs in support of Starr and Chermerinsky? If not .. why not?

After all, who represents the people if not their own State Attorney Generals?

Meanwhile, in the UK we only have a pathetic discretionary vaccine compensation scheme, and the redress of the courts is entirely notional against any pharmaceutical injury. Not only was it impossible to mount a prosecution against MMR because there was no public funding (and that ultimately was the only reason) we couldn't even mount a prosecution against Vioxx:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/340/feb02_4/c672#234098

Of course, we have theoretical rights but all pharmaceuticals in the UK are administered to all intents and purposes at the risk of the patient.