Chief Justice Roberts Sells Pfizer Shares Before Landmark Product Safety Case
Many Americans are unaware that vaccinations, a medical product with known side effects that can include death, are exempt from the standard jury trial system of every other product sold in the country. Drugs that you swallow, rub onto your body, take via IV infustion or even suppository - if they injure you - you can sue the manufacturer. Not so with vaccines. You have to face a special court run by the same government that approves the vaccines, often profits from their patents, mandates their use for your children and perhaps your job and promotes them via the US Public Health System using your tax dollars. You don't get a jury of your peers, you get a judge who works for the government.
A landmark case, challenging the inability to sue a vaccine manufacturer directly, will be heard by the US Supreme Court this week.
Supreme Court Set to Hear Historic Vaccine Injury Compensation Case Chief Justice to Hear Case Sells Pfizer Shares
PRLog (Press Release) – Oct 09, 2010 – North Hollywood, CA — On Tuesday, October 12 the Supreme Court in an unprecedented move will be hearing Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, Inc., now a unit of Pfizer. The hearing will determine whether Section 22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 - which expressly preempts certain design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers. The historic case appeals a lower court decision that upheld a manufacturer’s immunity for a defectively designed vaccine. The outcome of this case will render important implications as to whether persons harmed by vaccines can ever - under any circumstances, sue a pharmaceutical company.
As the law stands now, a victim of vaccine injury must file in the Vaccine Court first, with a legal option to sue the manufacturer in some situations. It is this legal right that is in jeopardy and will be decided by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
In a September 28, 2010, article The Wall Street Journal reported; Chief Justice Roberts Sells Pfizer Shares
In another case, the court is preparing to hear oral arguments next month to decide whether a federal law on vaccine injuries shields vaccine makers from certain types of product-liability lawsuits.
The case centers on a Pennsylvania lawsuit in which parents alleged that their 6-month-old daughter developed residual seizure disorder after receiving a vaccine manufactured by Wyeth, which is now a unit of Pfizer.
When the court announced in March that it would hear the case, it indicated that Justice Roberts was not participating. However, a recent docket entry this month no longer indicates that Justice Roberts is sitting out. The Sept. 3 entry notes only that Justice Kagan is recused.
According to a March 2010 Age of Autism article, The Supreme Court Takes Bruesewitz v. Wyeth: Is There Justice for Vaccine Injury Victims?, “…if the Supreme Court upholds Bruesewitz, it will basically achieve what the pharmaceutical industry and the American Medical Association wanted in 1986 and since - that so-called vaccine court is the “exclusive remedy” for cases of vaccine injury. They seek this “exclusive remedy” although it is anything but - because vaccine court fails those whom vaccines injured.
“The significance of the Bruesewitz case relates to all vaccine injury - it goes to the heart of whether Vaccine Court is fulfilling the role Congress set for it, and whether it is possible to challenge the design safety of a vaccine in any court in the United States. For the autism community, the case could not be more central - it will determine whether the 5,000 petitioners in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding can continue their claims in state and federal courts if Vaccine Court ultimately dismisses their claims.”
According to the New England Journal of Medicine-
Vaccine manufacturers have paid out $2B in damages from MMR & DPT vaccines.
As of 2007, 7000 more claims were going through the pipeline.
2,000 families have received compensation payments averaging $850,000 each.
Approximately 7,000 parents have filed a claim of an adverse reaction with America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). To win an award, the claimant must prove a causal link to a vaccine. As the medical establishment has refused to recognize any link to autism, the VICP has so far rejected 300 claims for this outright. (Source: New England Journal of Medicine)Medicine, 2007; 357: 1275-9)
SANE Vax.org believes that any product marketing as life-saving should be just that. The manufacturers of products mandated for public health and well-being have responsibility to live up to the nature of their claim. Anything less is a crime against humanity.
Either individually or collectively, it is important to write to urge the Supreme Court to uphold a citizen’s right as it currently exists to sue a pharmaceutical company for vaccine adverse reactions and to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible when they produce an unsafe vaccine product.
Letters can be addressed to:
Neal Katyal, Acting Solicitor General
Office of the Solicitor General
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Please visit our site at http://sanevax.org/
# # #
THE SANE VAX MISSION is to promote Safe, Affordable, Necessary & Effective vaccines and vaccination practices through education and information. We believe in science-based medicine.
Here's my prediction. The Supreme Court will allow us to directly sue the vaccine manufacturers. The vaccine manufacturers, who are already planning what to do, will then devise a plan to blame the docs for not detecting that the children were predisposed to have a reaction and will also blame the docs for giving the vaccines incorrectly (like when a child is sick and too many at once, etc.) Frankly, the docs have been getting off the hook for too long, anyhow. The docs will then, all of a sudden, go from saying, "get your vaccines or you can't be my patient" to "are you absolutely sure you want to vaccinate and sign this statement that you won't sue me if your child happens to have some pre-existing condition that makes him/her react, that is unknown at this time."
Human nature is human nature. They react to the system's laws, and change as the laws change. They will do what's in the best interest of their career. There are a few who step aside and do what is best for humanity at the cost of their career, and we, of course, have seen some of those names. But, most will do what they feel will better their career, so this is how I feel sure about my prediction. There is no other possible outcome, for the tide has already changed in such a manner that it can not be turned back. More and more people will continue to not vaccinate, unless dramatic changes take place. Selling vaccine gift cards and all that other crazy stuff is just a desperate attempt to bail the water out of sinking ship, but it's just not going to work. Too many people are ill, and in the end, people will fight for their health.
Posted by: Heidi N | October 14, 2010 at 05:23 PM
Roberts' perspective/leaning in this case:
"Chief Justice John Roberts was skeptical. "I would have thought the argument would go the other way," he said. "That because they [Congress] set up a compensation scheme, that was a good sign that they didn't want to allow state law claims.""
Don't count on Roberts to rule in favor of allowing Pharma corporations to face any state liability suits for vaccine defects, because after all, Pharma barely make any money on them at all, and they couldn't possibly afford to defend them (especially if discovery were allowed and those pesky juries got involved).
And surely everyone knows we'd all be sick and dying of communicable diseases within just a year or two if Pharma didn't make vaccines for us all out of the goodness of their hearts. And of course we don't want any crazy lawsuits to mislead anyone into thinking that maybe it isn't a great idea to force all our kids to take every vaccine Pharma invents and the govt mandates. It's all for the good of the herd, don't you know?
Posted by: As expected | October 12, 2010 at 07:42 PM
Sue - "Evidence also exists that heart arrhythmias (which SADS are often linked to) can be caused by both mercury and aluminum toxicity/exposures."
Could the heart "attacks" be microvascular ischemic in etiology? The kinetics seem about right. Are inflammatory macrophages and cytokines also involved? We need immunohistopathologic correlation.
How many heart attacks, strokes, and TIAs in the general population are manifestions of vaccine toxicity, either acute, subacute, or chronic? The hemorheologic-hemodynamic theory of atherogenesis has not been invalidated.
Posted by: patrons99 | October 12, 2010 at 10:09 AM
Thanks for the link.
I learned a new word today.
Amicus - means someone uninvolved in the lawsuit but wants to volunteer information for the case.
Posted by: Benedetta | October 12, 2010 at 09:33 AM
Interesting video. I spent a while over the weekend just watching utube videos folks have posted of their ASD kids' behaviors. The video clip of Jack does look as if it would fit right in amongst those. However, I don't think that necessarily means anything. Even if his child is on the spectrum, I'd guess Roberts is more than likely 100% convinced any issues are genetic. He is a pro-corporation judge and the genetics explanation, no matter how weak or far fetched, certainly far better fits his apparent world view than alternative explanations. Not sure who said it, but there are "none so blind as those who will not see."
Cherry--"sudden adult death syndrome" is already a remarkably common event. Check out this info:
Maybe someone needs to do an investigation and find out what portion of SAD victims had received 1 or more vaccines (and or taken drugs like Ritalin, Risperdal, etc.) within 10 days prior to their collapse and compare those proportions to similar statistics from a random sample of same-aged living people from the same geographic areas.
Boyd Haley's remarks about extremely high mercury levels being found in the hearts of young athletes that died suddenly indicates a need for more research into the possible toxicological causes of SADS. Evidence also exists that heart arrhythmias (which SADS are often linked to) can be caused by both mercury and aluminum toxicity/exposures.
Posted by: Sue | October 12, 2010 at 12:38 AM
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." ~ John F. Kennedy, 35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 - 1963)
Promotion by pharma and the orthodox medical establishment of the myths of vaccine-induced "herd immunity" and "vaccine-preventable" diseases allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
Posted by: patrons99 | October 11, 2010 at 10:25 PM
Benedetta, there is a good example here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/10331808/Sample-Amicus
You just have to follow that format.
As far as how hopeful to be... judges have clerks, and every person who hears more information about real people's vaccine injuries is a person who might make a better decision in the future. Anything that you send to the Court will be read by several people, and can help in ways that we may not imagine today.
Posted by: Theresa O | October 11, 2010 at 08:46 PM
Check out Jack at :25
Posted by: Matt | October 11, 2010 at 06:35 PM
Cherry Sperlin Misra - "Sudden Adolescent Death Syndrome".
Good point! We are all susceptible to vaccine-induced diseases, which includes sudden death. Infants, adolescents, and adults. No one is spared. The common susceptibility factor that we all share is the vaccine schedules and vaccine mandates.
The evidence is growing that even the completely unvaccinated are susceptible to vaccine-induced diseases, by exposure to vaccinated human vectors. Here are just a couple of examples. There are others.
I’ve started a collection of reports of "outbreaks" or resurgences of disease in heavily-vaccinated populations. This suggests that the precise opposite of vaccine-induced "herd-immunity" may be occuring, that is, vaccine-induced susceptibility to diseases, in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated population.
Posted by: patrons99 | October 11, 2010 at 06:23 PM
cmo - The vaccine industrialists are VERY vulnerable as to whether mass inoculation of the public with "flu" shots potentiates, predisposes, triggers, or causes heart attacks. Of course, uncertain risks of any vaccine have never stopped them in the past. Uncertain risks certainly won't stop them from promoting mass inoculation of the public in the future. There's too much money to be made. The liability waivers, advanced market commitments, and pharma-favorable re-definition of "pandemic" from the WHO, are already in place. Sadly, nothing short of legislative reform or a court ruling will ever stop them.
Posted by: patrons99 | October 11, 2010 at 05:03 PM
I don't know if this means anything, but I remember when Roberts was sworn in, one of his sons was acting a little "hyper" or "sensory seeking"...enough for there to be chatter about it. I would love to know about his kids and their medical history...
Posted by: kim | October 11, 2010 at 04:30 PM
Dr. Bozo: Flu Shot Prevents Heart Attacks...
The "picture of health" doctor in this clip states that the flu shot prevents heart attacks by causing "inflamation of the heart arteries."
Could the flu shot cause other inflamation elsewhere ??? (such as the brain of infants and toddlers - who the hell has been saying that for several decades now...)
Posted by: cmo | October 11, 2010 at 03:17 PM
Titers are often used as a surrogate or proxy for protection or “immunity”. The term vaccination has become synonymous with immunization. Vaccination does not provide immunity, protection, or prevention, yet that is how it is marketed to public. This is scientific fraud.
Posted by: patrons99 | October 11, 2010 at 02:40 PM
The flu vaccine prevents heart attacks? Let me guess who did that research- Could it be the same group that suddenly discovered that Prevnar vaccine was preventing ear infections (to distract doctors from noticing that ear infections plummeted after removal of mercury from many vaccines)? My God, those vaccines are just amazing. Now I hope they can make more to prevent the tsunami of autism, dyslexia, ADD, asthma, allergies, childhood diabetes and increased childhood cancers. Oh, yes, and doctors, please make one for SIDS and Sudden Adolescent Death Syndrome too .
Posted by: Cherry Sperlin Misra | October 11, 2010 at 02:04 PM
Every medical student should be required to read Age of Autsim & Evidence of Harm. Would someone who has the money gift these 2 books to students going into the medical field?
My prayers to all of you who have children that these greedy bastards have damaged. They've damaged my only two grandsons, and I want to live long enough to see some of the people responsible brought to justice!
Posted by: Susan Fritz | October 11, 2010 at 01:56 PM
head the paper with the name of the Court; I am really stupid on this - I head the paper the Supreme court of the United States????
then list the parties: Parties is this the judges? or who is the party? -- And I am not sure what judges are going to look at this case except Chief Justice Roberts???
Should I send pictures? Is that allowed??
AHhh it probably don't matter what ever I send will end up in the bottomles unread pit where the other tons of letters I have written are too.
Posted by: Benedetta | October 11, 2010 at 12:56 PM
JenB - "Does any other governmental institution come nearer to this “All would be lost” state than the "immunization" program?"
Nope. Hands down, bar none, vaccine madness, a.k.a. the vaccine schedules and vaccine mandates, represents the single greatest threat to public health today. It puts us all well-along the road to tyranny that Jonathan Emord writes about. It violates us and deprives us of God-given natural rights. It is immoral and sacrilegious. It also violates several enumerated and unenumerated Constitutional rights found in the Bill of Rights.
An article titled “Vaccination: The UnGodly Practice” by Leonard G. Horowitz, DMD, MA, MPH, Pastor Norm Franz, and Errol Owen, is well-written and VERY timely.
Posted by: patrons99 | October 11, 2010 at 11:37 AM
There is no question how the Supreme Court will rule on this. I find some of these optimistic posts alarming. Get real, and get ready to homeschool - things are going to get much worse here before they get better, even if this is the beginning of the end.
Posted by: sarah | October 11, 2010 at 08:04 AM
I've been reading "The Rise of Tyranny" by Jonathan W. Emord. The fundamental premise of the book is that through the creation of multiple regulatory bodies, congress has effectively handed over its legislative responsibility to un-elected agencies that, therefore, avoid accountability to the people. These agencies also enforce their own regulations thus exercising both legislative and executive functions. Emord, quoting Montesquieu (p. 15):
"When a legislative power is united with executive power in a single person or in a single body of the magistracy, there is no liberty, because one can fear that the same monarch or senate that makes tyrannical laws will execute them tyrannically. ...
All would be lost if the same man or the same body of principal men, either of nobles, or of the people, exercised these three powers: that of making the laws, that of executing public resolutions, and that of judging the crimes or the disputes of individuals.”
Does any other governmental institution come nearer to this “All would be lost” state than the "immunization" program?
Posted by: JenB | October 11, 2010 at 04:02 AM
You don't have to be a lawyer to file an amicus "friend of the court" brief. Anyone can do this, so head the paper with the name of the Court; then list the parties; then tell your story. Google it. Then we should get busy.
Posted by: dso | October 10, 2010 at 11:06 PM
When I first read the headline to this article, I thought, oh good, someone is trying to get rid of the vaccine court. I thought...that will put a few vaccine manufacturers out of business quick. Then I woke up and read that they just want to make it harder for parents and easier for Pharma. Business as usual I guess.
As the vaccine push-back (vaccine skeptics) gets louder and more credible, the vaccine perpetuators get more nasty. It's predictable. Potential cases to be heard by the supreme court are numerous and deciding which to hear, when, is subjective. Not a coincidence I fear, that the new book, Age of Autism is ruffling a few feathers and Pharma is putting on the pressure to DO SOMETHING!
Posted by: Cynthia Cournoyer | October 10, 2010 at 11:03 PM
Sure, at strip clubs. Haven't you ever heard of a dTaP dance?
Posted by: Stagmom | October 10, 2010 at 08:23 PM
Perhaps the Supreme Court could decide who has damaged America the most...
the 9/11 group, the Mexican drug lords, or the American Vaccine drug lords.
Posted by: cmo | October 10, 2010 at 07:39 PM
Flu shots at strip clubs?? Just when I think pharma can't surprise me any more they come out with this. Truth really is stranger than fiction!
My heart wants to believe that the Judge will do the right thing, but sadly my head tells me to be realistic.
Posted by: owntruth | October 10, 2010 at 07:11 PM
Polliwog..there's a lot of bizaroment out there, LOL, love that word.
I was at a Halloween supply store today and they were selling pens that looked just like syringes...yes, truly scary stuff.
Walmart gift cards, free flu shots at strip clubs, what's the next gimmick?
Posted by: Sarah | October 10, 2010 at 06:31 PM
OMG... How gross is that. I would never have possibly thought that think in a million years. I thought the vaccine gift card was the bizaroment of the week.
Posted by: polliwog | October 10, 2010 at 06:04 PM
Just when you think it couldn't possibly get more bizarre....a strip club in Florida is offering free flu shots to seniors..gee, how sanitary.. somehow catching the flu would be the least of my worries from this place ... classiness reigns in Pharmaland.
Strip Club Provides Free Flu Shots - New Study Suggest Seasonal Shot Lowers Heart Attack Risk
Posted by: Sarah | October 10, 2010 at 03:38 PM
I hope it comes to light that vaccine manufacturers have a policy of distributing individual batches of vaccines very broadly instead of shipping an entire batch to a limited geographic location.
They used to do this (ship a full batch to a single state or region) and then when a cluster of vax injuries was so apparent in TN, then the new policy was to spread individual batches far and wide so that if there was a problem it would be diluted and not contribute to causing a stir among the public and risk lowering vaccine uptake rates.
What we have here is rotten corporate policy and rotten public health policy. It's protective of the vaccine system and manufacturers versus the public.
My child had a very bad neurological reaction to a round of shots, and I researched the VAERs database and found her polio vaccine batch was dangerously reactive. This batch produced a wide range of reported reactions including death within hours, hospitalizations, and several permanent disabilities. The 198 reported reactions came in from many states from CA to the midwest to the south and the east coast.
It would be much easier to identify and recall a hot lot or bad batch of vaccine if individual batches were distributed in limited geographic areas - instead of what we see which is just the opposite.
Please fix it Justice Roberts.
Posted by: Beth | October 10, 2010 at 02:56 PM
So what are we suppose to convey in this letter?
What would help the most?
Just a general letter of a concerned citizen?
Posted by: Benedetta | October 10, 2010 at 01:50 PM
This can be taken one of two ways.
1) He's selling his shares so that he can claim that he's making a "fair and unbiased" decision in the upcoming hearing.
2)He's selling his shares and getting out while the getting's good.
Sadly, I think the former will be the case.
Posted by: MySocratesNote | October 10, 2010 at 01:43 PM
Frankly, I have no hope that Justice Roberts and the others will do the right thing. They are bought and paid for, just like the President.
The best that can happen is that this case gets some media coverage and people learn that you cannot sue for vaccine injury. When I tell people this they are shocked and half the time don't believe me. Literally nobody knows this and that includes lawyers, doctors and nurses. If I had known vaccines were under this special protection maybe I would have questioned the vaccine schedule instead of accepting it blindly.
In fact, I remember thinking to myself when my son was a baby, "if vaccines were causing autism, surely there would be so many lawsuits they would have to fix the problem!"
Posted by: julie | October 10, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Roberts was chosen for this bench because of his pro-corporate stances. This is not good.
While no one was paying attention the SCOTUS has been stacked with former pro-corporate attorneys.
Posted by: KDM | October 10, 2010 at 12:49 PM
I was at Walgreens yesterday.. A sign read. "Now available, VAccine Gift Cards"
No lie.... I sat there in the parking lot staring at it in wonderment. This after having a conversation that the man behind the counter was forced to wear a red shirt telling the public to "arm themselves and protect their loved ones.. Get your flu shot today."
Posted by: polliwog | October 10, 2010 at 11:59 AM
These Justices are all at least middle aged or older. They don't have to look far, to see who might be the next victim of a government-mandated jab. They need just look in a mirror.
Why shouldn't the drug companies have an iron-clad waiver of liability for their toxic cocktails? The only prerequisite for expedited, jet-propelled, market approvals by FDA, is political expediency. Safety and efficacy of the vaccine schedules, and mandated vaccinations, have become superfluous, thanks to pharma's "influence" ($$$) on FDA, CDC, and WHO.
"The manufacturers of products mandated for public health and well-being have responsibility to live up to the nature of their claim. Anything less is a crime against humanity." -- Amen to that! Let's pray for wisdom in our Supreme Court Justices.
Posted by: patrons99 | October 10, 2010 at 11:21 AM
Excellent Press Release!!!
Justice Roberts is the father of two children ages 9 and 10, approximately. I pray to God that he is not of the mindset, “Vaccines have saved humans from extinction, they are all good, so jack up the US protocol with even more vaccines …Good luck America.” I pray that his contemporaries in the beltway (parents of other school aged children) have spoken to him and his lawyer wife about vaccine dangers and the connection to many childhood illnesses, including, but not limited to, ADD, ADHD, learning issues, diabetes , arthritis, asthma, allergies, food allergies, PDD-NOS, autism, SIDS etc……… We are hard pressed to find a totally healthy American child these days, especially our boys.
Did the Roberts children make it through the protocol unscathed?
If either of the children have issues, do Justice Roberts and his wife even consider the possibility of a vaccine link?
I wonder if Justice Roberts and his wife realize that the US government continues to refuse to study unvaccinated children….the majority of these children appearing to be way healthier than vaccinated children in the US.
I wonder if Justice Roberts and his wife realize that parents with their doctors in most foreign countries decide how to vaccinate their children without school /day care attendance mandates hanging over their heads.
I wonder if Justice Robert and his wife realize that there exists essentially NO incentive for vaccine manufacturers to ever make a safer product.
I wonder if Justice Roberts and his wife know that thousands and thousands of parents, and many scientists, medical doctors and researchers around the world believe that vaccine manufacturers and governments have traded diseases for ADD, ADHD, learning issues, autoimmune problems, autism etc….
…..this list can go on and on and on……………………..
Some of the greatest legal minds have weighed in on the Bruesewitz case.
My suggestion for this Tuesday:
PRAY for the Bruesewitz family and the lawyers behind them.
PRAY that our Supreme Court realizes that something has gone very very wrong with the health of US children. Our children are sick in record numbers.
PRAY that our Supreme Court has not fallen for the orchestrated media/drug company fear campaign.
Posted by: Claudine Liss | October 10, 2010 at 10:30 AM
If this changes, what would this mean about the three year time limit of must sue at the very first sign of injury?
Posted by: Benedetta | October 10, 2010 at 09:50 AM
I'd definitely like the justices to hear from the thousands of parents with vaccine injured children, but I'm unclear how writing to the Solicitor General will accomplish this. Would someone with knowledge about the inner workings of the Supreme Court explain the procedure? I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that the justices hear only from attorneys of the parties directly involved and the organizations that have filed amicus briefs.
Posted by: Cindy Keenan | October 10, 2010 at 09:43 AM
so true jim..it has been a nightmare when a generation of our damaged children counted for nothing in our goverments eyes.
Posted by: candace | October 10, 2010 at 09:21 AM
... or fifth amendment.
Posted by: Jim Thompson | October 10, 2010 at 08:43 AM
When are the pediatricians going to wake up and realize that the union bosses, like Paul PrOffit, are driving them off the cliff???? Denialism of vaccine injury only furthers Offit's elitist agenda of public/socialized health running the whole show. You get some hints of it now with 'over-the-counter' flu shots. These things are so safe that you don't even need a doctor/nurse team to administer them anymore (insert sarcasm here). Just go to Walgreen's pharmacy or the local school to get your super doper safe shot. Wake up doc, your making yourself obsolete!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Dadtoautism | October 10, 2010 at 08:32 AM
1) The vaccine manufacturers can have a trade association. See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Biotechnology_Industry_Organization
2) The vaccine manufacturers can claim a constitutional right to due process. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
3) The vaccine manufacturers can contribute 873 thousand dollars to Bill Frist. See http://books.google.com/books?id=XVm35w7gi6QC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=vaccine+manufacturer+contributions+to+Bill+Frist&source=bl&ots=pFHrPfmShv&sig=hH1tP7R8wT-i71pDokQBeQf8vVw&hl=en&ei=BKmxTJ-kJ8OBnQekrMGEBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=vaccine%20manufacturer%20contributions%20to%20Bill%20Frist&f=false
4) Merck, a vaccine manufacturer with 23 billion dollars in sales in 2004, can hire Julie Gerberding (the former head of the CDC with a budget of 9 billion dollars in 2005) as President of Merck’s Vaccine Division. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Gerberding and http://projects.publicintegrity.org/rx//report.aspx?aid=723
5) A family in this United States of America, with a child damaged with from vaccines, CANNOT exercise their due process under the fourteenth amendment.
Posted by: Jim Thompson | October 10, 2010 at 08:17 AM