Attorney and Autism Expert Mary Holland On Fox & Friends RE: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth
Watch Fox & Friends on Saturday, October 16 at 9:20am EDT to see Mary Holland, Age of Autism Contributor discuss the landmark Supreme Court case of Bruesewitz v. Wyeth. (Check your local listings for airtime.)
Mary Holland is Director of the Graduate Legal Skills Program at New York University School of Law. Educated at Harvard and Columbia Universities, Holland has worked in international public and private law. Prior to joining NYU, Holland worked for six years at major U.S. law firms, with three years based in Moscow, Russia. She also worked at a major U.S. human rights advocacy organization as Director of its European Program. After graduating law school, she clerked for a federal district court judge. She has taught international law courses at Columbia Law School and has served as a consultant to the Aspen Institute Justice and Society Program.
This past Sat. Oct 23 Alisyn Camerota had another part of her series on Fox and Friends. THis time it was about restraining those with autism.
The point was made that yes, some times kids with autism gets out of control and needs restraints, but this is being abused and autism kids are being restainted when they are not cooperating - just like a normal kid. But the normal kid does not get touched wereas the austims gets thrown to the floor, tied up and drugged.
Let's have something on this this coming week of OCt the 25-29. I would like to see this again!
Let's also thank them so they won't think we are ungratful or uncaring.
Posted by: Benedetta | October 25, 2010 at 05:01 PM
“A Dragon By The Tail” by Lisa Reagan on March 7, 2005.
“On the eve of an historic, billion-dollar world vaccination campaign, a leaked transcript ignites questions of vaccine safety and research corruption. Meanwhile, US senators fast-track a bill to protect vaccine manufacturers from litigation. With millions of lives at stake, and billions of dollars to lose, will a merger of philanthropy, big business and compromised science win an epic race between corporate agendas and medical ethics? In this world exclusive report, byronchild exposes how the most powerful medical research bodies in the United States compromise their vaccine safety research for vested interests, as they assist in a global vaccine policy, while a bill looms in the background to protect it all.”
The last 3 paragraphs on page 11 and first 4 paragraphs on page 12 of the PDF are well worth reading. It’s totally disgusting! The “perfect” pharma shill is too kind a description. Frist is a prototypical PharmaWhore. He is well deserving of a permanent membership in the Hall of Shame. He deserves our contempt! He is certainly one of the "Dark Lords" of the vaccine industry. This article definitely puts “health” care reform in entirely different light.
Posted by: patrons99 | October 23, 2010 at 11:21 AM
kerbob1 - fantastic comment. Thanks for spotlighting Frist. Sure sounds like a whore for pharma! Sure does sound like he has blood on his hands...lots of it!
“Pharmaceutical company ethics Protected by the White House, the FDA and Congress”
“Brasscheck is paying a lot of attention to vaccines lately. Why? Because the US Supreme Court is currently hearing a major vaccination case. Meanwhile, the US news media is providing no relevant context about the issue for people who want to follow the story in an informed way. The scant info the media does provide is heavily biased and outright distorted in order to put the pharmaceutical industry in a good light. Here's the real story about ethics of these companies and the people who control them. And this applies to ALL their products...not just vaccinations.”
Agency CAN be dangerous? The Agency IS dangerous! They're literally killing us!
Posted by: patrons99 | October 18, 2010 at 03:06 PM
To Sail Under False Colors
By Erik Tierney
"Pretending to be something you aren’t, to be a hypocrite. We all know the origins of this one from movie swashbucklers, where the pirate ship at the moment of attack lowers its friendly or neutral flag and hoists the deadly skull and crossbones. The unwritten law of the sea, of course, required that all ships display their true flags or colors so that they could be recognized as friend or foe, but the Jolly Roger was by its nature exempt."
Look what happened to Mississippi Senator Trent Lott after he agreed to "re-visit" the Eli Lilly rider that was slapped unto the tail-end of the 2003 Homeland Security Act.
FOX NEWS led the stampede to oust Lott and insert Bill Frist, of Columbia Healthcare, as senator majority leader.
Frist repetitively attempted to protect vaccine manufacturing drug companies. He even walked 47 pages of liability protection over to the House and told them to stick it in a defense report. Dennis Hastert agreed.
Remember Frist, Hastert Said To Rig Bill?
WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert engineered a backroom legislative maneuver to protect pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits, say witnesses to the pre-Christmas power play.
The language was tucked into a Defense Department appropriations bill at the last minute without the approval of members of a House-Senate conference committee, say several witnesses, including a top Republican staff member.
In an interview, Frist, a doctor and Tennessee Republican, denied that the wording was added that way.
Trial lawyers and other groups condemn the law, saying it could make it nearly impossible for people harmed by a vaccine to force the drug maker to pay for their injuries.
Many in health care counter that the protection is needed to help build up the vaccine industry in the United States, especially in light of a possible avian flu pandemic.
The legislation, called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, allows the secretary of Health and Human Services to declare a public health emergency, which then provides immunity for companies that develop vaccines and other "countermeasures."
Beyond the issue of vaccine liability protection, some say going around the longstanding practice of bipartisan House-Senate conference committees' working out compromises on legislation is a dangerous power grab by Republican congressional leaders that subverts democracy.
"It is a travesty of the legislative process," said Thomas Mann, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
"It vests enormous power in the hands of congressional leaders and private interests, minimizes transparency and denies legitimate opportunities for all interested parties, in Congress and outside, to weigh in on important policy questions."
At issue is what happened Dec. 18 as Congress scrambled to finish its business and head home for the Christmas holiday.
That day, a conference committee made up of 38 senators and House members met several times to work out differences on the 2006 Defense Department appropriations bill.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the ranking minority House member on the conference committee, said he asked Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the conference chairman, whether the vaccine liability language was in the massive bill or would be placed in it.
Obey and four others at the meeting said Stevens told him no. Committee members signed off on the bill and the conference broke up.
A spokeswoman for Stevens, Courtney Boone, said last week that the vaccine liability language was in the bill when conferees approved it. Stevens was not made available for comment.
During a January interview, Frist agreed. Asked about the claim that the vaccine language was inserted after the conference members signed off on the bill, he replied: "To my knowledge, that is incorrect. It was my understanding, you'd have to sort of confirm, that the vaccine liability which had been signed off by leaders of the conference, signed off by the leadership in the United States Senate, signed off by the leadership of the House, it was my understanding throughout that that was part of that conference report."
But Keith Kennedy, who works for Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., as staff director for the Senate Appropriations Committee, said at a seminar for reporters last month that the language was inserted by Frist and Hastert, R-Ill., after the conference committee ended its work.
"There should be no dispute. That was an absolute travesty," Kennedy said at a videotaped Washington, D.C., forum sponsored by the Center on Congress at Indiana University.
"It was added after the conference had concluded. It was added at the specific direction of the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate. The conferees did not vote on it. It's a true travesty of the process."
After the conference committee broke up, a meeting was called in Hastert's office, Kennedy said. Also at the meeting, according to a congressional staffer, were Frist, Stevens and House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
"They (committee staff members) were given the language and then it was put in the document," Kennedy said.
About 10 or 10:30 p.m., Democratic staff members were handed the language and told it was now in the bill, Obey said.
He took to the House floor in a rage. He called Frist and Hastert "a couple of musclemen in Congress who think they have a right to tell everybody else that they have to do their bidding."
Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., also was critical of inserting the vaccine language after the conference committee had adjourned.
"It sucks," he told Congress Daily that night.
Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., another member of the conference committee, was upset, too, a staff member said, because he didn't have enough time to read the language. The final bill was filed in the House at 11:54 p.m. and passed 308-102 at 5:02 the next morning.
The Senate unanimously approved the legislation Dec. 21, but not before Senate Democrats, including several members of the conference committee, bashed the way the vaccine language was inserted.
"What an insult to the legislative process," said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., a member of the conference committee. Byrd is considered the authority on legislative rules and tradition.
President Bush signed the legislation into law Dec. 30.
When asked about Frist's earlier denial, spokeswoman Amy Call said: "Bill Frist has fought hard to protect the people of Tennessee and the people of the United States from a bioterror emergency and that's what he did throughout this process."
Hastert's office did not provide a response.
Not against the rules
The practice of adding to a compromise bill worked out by bipartisan House-Senate conference committees, while highly unusual, is not thought to violate congressional rules.
Some Senate and House Democrats have proposed banning the practice as part of broader attempts at ethics reform in Congress.
They, consumer groups and others with concerns about possible harm caused by vaccines charge that the move was a gift by Frist to the pharmaceutical industry, which they point out has given a lot of campaign cash to the Nashville doctor through the years.
"The senator should be working to ensure there are safe vaccines to protect American families rather than protecting the drug industry's pocketbooks," Pamela Gilbert, president of Protect American Families, said in a statement. The group is an alliance of consumer, labor and advocacy organizations.
Frist has received $271,523 in campaign donations from the pharmaceutical and health products industry since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group.
He is also a possible candidate for president in 2008.
In the interview, Frist reiterated how important he thinks the vaccine protections are.
"The United States of America, if a pandemic occurs, is totally unprepared," he said. "And the only way we are going to be prepared is rebuilding our manufacturing base to build a vaccine infrastructure that can be timely and responsive. We don't have it today."
Frist has long advocated liability protection for vaccine makers, and it was widely reported that he would attempt to attach the legislation to the Defense Appropriations bill because it is considered must-pass legislation.
Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said that, while the group favors liability protection, it did not take a position nor did it lobby on behalf of the law that passed. •
Posted by: kerbob1 | October 17, 2010 at 09:45 AM
Once again it sounded like all people that have vaccine injuries are compensated though!
So they are fussing about the autism deal on top of the vaccine injury and they are just being greedy.
There was just a brief thing were it was mentioned that there was short time period in which to sue. But is was fleeting and not many would catch it.
Posted by: Benedetta | October 16, 2010 at 07:13 PM
When it comes to paying taxes - we all pay our fair share and if we have health problems we do more than our fair share. So the bus thing is on part of the the big picture.
How about this for taxes:
My son has epilespsy thanks to his DPT shot.
Every year the transportation department sends him a packet that he has to inform them how far and how often he drives, then go to his neurologist - pay 20 dollars for the doctor's processing fee (that does not include the doctors fee for a regular office visit) and then send it off.
See, we are helping pay his office worker and the office worker is paying taxes
If my son has a myclonic jerk and if the neurologist does not fill it out the form in time then when everything gets back to normal and the doctor then fills it out and sends it in and it is LATE - we have to pay a 40.00 reinstatment fee. Which we have occasionally have to do.
I imagine we are helping pay for a state worker.
Not to mention the drugs we buy from the pharmacy like seizure medicines, and we are pay taxes on drugs so there you go - we are helping support the government once again. Vitamins; on geeze we take tons of those, so not only are we supporting that business we once again are paying sales tax and supporting the government.
These people that complain about the short bus picking up a kid less than two miles away - are they do their fair share in supporting their medical community and transportation department like we do?????
I bet not! SOOOO we deserve the short bus, we have paid for it.
Posted by: Benedetta | October 16, 2010 at 07:08 PM
Unfortunately, I missed the Fox News piece, but I did listen to the Q&A audio of Mary and Teri Arranga. Very helpful insights! Thank you Mary Holland!
With regard to the topic of vaccine mandates, here’s a link to a video clip titled “Vaccinated by FORCE - NOW AUTISTIC”. Does this family’s story sound familiar?
"The science proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that vaccines cause autism and the government aids vaccine makers in keeping these facts from the public. Congress then granted vaccine makers near-blanket immunity from responsibility for the consequences."
Bad enough that the vaccine injured may be denied a right to sue by the Supreme Court. That will violate our Constitutional rights. Vaccine mandates do not only violate our Constitutional rights. They violate us physically and spiritually. They are immoral and sacrilegious.
Here's a question for Mary: does this family have legal standing to raise the issue of the Constitutionality of vaccine mandates, perhaps as a supplemental claim under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act? This fact pattern seems VERY STRIKING, in terms of the temporal relationship to the MANDATED jab and the injury.
Posted by: patrons99 | October 16, 2010 at 06:47 PM
Yes, Mary. Terrific as always. Bet you could have done at least another hour of discourse.
Posted by: Maurine Meleck | October 16, 2010 at 04:52 PM