Ed Schultz Calls Out Sharron Angle for "Airquoting" Autism Coverage
Attorney and Autism Expert Mary Holland On Fox & Friends RE: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth



In case anyone -- like me :( -- has a sound system that goes out periodically, a transcript is available here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec10/vaccine_10-12.html

I thought Ms. Coyle's concluding statement was pretty good:

"And there is a real tradeoff here. If the family wins, vaccine makers will be sued in state courts and face potential liability that could tie them up for years. It could be costly. It could be disincentives to research and development.

"But, if Wyeth wins, families like the Bruesewitzes, whose children have suffered significant or catastrophic injuries, will have no remedy."

Of course, I don't fully agree with the first paragraph. Maybe they would have more incentive for better research to make the products safer. As it stands, they just have to do enough research to get the vax approved and on the market, and if there are problems there's no loss to them.

But I like the second paragraph!


CT Teacher - the points you make about the media are VERY well taken. We are in SERIOUS TROUBLE as a society.

Without intending to take us off topic for long, here's the link to a video titled “Shadows of The Future: Codex Alimentarius, The NHF, and the Battle for Health Freedom” by Kevin P. Miller on October 15, 2010. Codex Alimentarius is Latin for “Food Code”.


“But it is not a fantasy, not at all, and the angst is justified”

“The battle for personal sovereignty is being waged right now at Codex Alimentarius”.

“We have to think of the human spirit and the human autonomy when we are making regulations.” Amen to that! Our lawmakers should take note. Lest they forget, they work for us, not the pharma cartel.

CT teacher

The mainstream media are not our friends. They are owned and controlled by corporations. Watch the commercials and you will see which corporations control them. It has always been this way...it is just worse now. We are not a democracy either. Corporations took control of our democratic process and institutions long ago. Thus we have widespread corruption....both Houses of Congress-bought and sold...all govt regulatory agencies-bought and sold...the Supreme Court-bought and sold...,mainstream media-bought and sold. The Supreme Court really screwed we the people with their latest decision on Citizens United. Thanks to them corporations have unfettered access to our democratic institutions. They removed all the safeguards and controls that had been put in place to keep the billions of corporate dollars from subverting our elections. They have granted personhood to corporations, saying that they have the right of free speech. Is such a Court likely to find in favor of the individual to sue these giant corporations? I confess that I am very worried. Just look at Bush v Gore and what they did to stop our democracy from working. Do these people have any shame? No,they are unabashedly partisan and pro corporate. The fact that Roberts sold his stock so he could hear this case does not sound promising. Still, hope grows eternal.....


How anyone could call this "a neutral piece" and "balanced reporting" is beyond me.

The entire report steered the audience to side with Obama - if he says the case should go with Wyeth, then well it's okay for the rest of us to pick that side too. Plus it implied that those who would seek vaccine damages are greedy and litigious. Plus it focused very heavily on a grave concern for the return of infectious diseases and lower vax rates and the departure of vaccine manufacturers from the vaccine making business. It also communicated "God save the vaccine establishment from those 5000 misguided families who claim their child developed autism after their vaccines."

The other side - you know the side that was not reported on at all - making this is lousy one-sided piece of yellow/corporate PR journalism - would have addressed vaccine injuries, how many awards have been paid out since 1986, how long it takes to pay them out (more than 10 years sometimes - appallingly unjust), what types of conditions get compensated and why this one didn't, etc., interviews with other families who won or didn't win in vaccine court - (oops oh yeah, those who get paid for their kid's vax injuries are all paid to shut up about it as a contingency to getting paid, and the list goes on.

All of this would have given folks a more complete picture of what's taking place in this case.

Yes, it's a case of pre-emption and the interpretation of the word "unavoidable" is the crux of the story but giving so much background info on Wyeth's position in the absence of a fair reporting of what's at stake for this family and all Americans - well it's just piss poor journalism.

Fox News is doing a better job of balanced reporting than PBS on this matter - and well, that is saying a lot.

Susan Fritz

It seems to me, if anyone can find out if these vaccines are tested at a University, the head of the department who tested the vaccines as well as the people who tested the vaccine would be the ones to sue. Do some detective work! Find them! They'll sing against big pharma! We all can together, knock down their protective wall, if we make everyone involved accountable for the damage they've done to our children!


Autism Grandma - “...we all know that the vaccine industry is going to use the same deceptive tactics that they always have, so even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Bruesewitz, it is still going to remain an uphill battle for the rest of us.”

Your use of the phrase “deceptive tactics” is an understatement. It’s a carefully-orchestrated cover up. They are acting by agreement and in concert. It’s criminal!

Here’s a link to a video clip of Robert F. Kennedy Jr, titled “The Mercury-Autism Cover Up”, wherein he talks about the Simpsonwood transcript and the “sickest generation of American children in the history of our country” which began in 1989.


Why doesn’t the mainstream media pick up on this? This should be front and center before the American people.


Good question, Sarah - here it is (be prepared to be sick again).

From the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703440004575548470924781864.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"The Obama Administration, which filed an amicus brief in support of Wyeth in the case, has said it is appropriate to recognize pre-emption in cases where the statute makes the pre-emption explicit. That's a shot of good sense."

Theresa O

...and on the timing of the removal of Ms. Bruesewitz's particular injury from the table, it was removed *after* she suffered the injury, and one month *before* her case was filed. Here's the plaintiff's attorney, Mr. Frederick, from the oral arguments: "Had they filed their claim a month earlier when residual seizure disorder was still on the vaccine table, we wouldn't be here."

The idea that injuries come and go from the table is something else that shows how unfair the 1986 act is. You sue today, you win; you sue in one month, you lose? Doesn't sound like justice to me.


This video could be labeled as a cure for insomnia.

I see it only took them about a minute to mention that children will die if the consitution is enforced.

Sounds like the stage is set for yet another scam. However... the premise of exemptions from tort is one that some people will smell a rat on. This is just another opportunity to enlighten a few more folks and chip away at the establishment - regardless of the outcome.

Theresa O

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported that "the Obama administration" wants Wyeth (Pfizer) to win. Here's the cached page (http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=obama+bruesewitz&d=4729519336130786&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=3d3a99fb,c1cb2167) and the quotation: "The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to hear the case and to uphold the 3rd Circuit ruling."


Good question Kristina, maybe we should contact press staff at the White House, HHS and DOJ and find out why it's being reported in the news that his administration supports Wyeth.

Did Obama say this or did some nameless, facelss member of his administration say it..we should track down the actual gov't source since the media as we all know is untrustworthy.


"They conveniently removed her injuries from the Table Injuries list just months before her case came to the court."

Kristina- Did the remove her injuries from the table months before her case? or months before she was injected with the DTP ?


OK, one more thing: why the hell is Obama taking a position on a Supreme Court case?


I also am surprised that the Supreme Court is not considering whether Vaccine Court is unconstitutional. But I do know that if lawyers don't bring that argument to the Court, the justices cannot rule on it.


I thought that was extremely balanced reporting, except where the woman incorrectly said that the Vaccine Court ruled the vaccine did not cause the plaintiff's injuries. The Vaccine Court did not make that ruling. They conveniently removed her injuries from the Table Injuries list just months before her case came to the court. That's a big difference.


"Supposedly the US Constition is the prevailing law of the land so I suppose we could argue that the National Childhood Vaccination Injury Act of 1986 and existance of vaccine court, a separate process to protect and limit liability of drug companies is unconstutional because the Act results in harm to Americans which are leaders took an oath to protect. "

I could not agree with this more. This law passed by congress needs to be abolished because it's unconstutional. Isn't the whole existence of vaccine court a violation of a citizen's rights to due process? I don't see how it can be constituitional to forbid citizens from suing a private corporation.


The Law and intent seems to be stated very clearly here.

Provided by USConstitution.net

Amendment 7

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law.

Not sure how they can be confused on this one... I don't recall anyone amending the constitution in 1986...

michael framson

I remember reading that 75% of the those who bring a case to the vaccine injustice court are denied. Which means, of the remaining 25%, 90% are satisfied. Some of those cases went on for years. The system wore them down and they took whatever was offered. "Satisfied" hardly. Beaten into submission would be more accurate.


I agree with Marie;
I too thought it left the impression that we are just greedy, sue happy, can't be satisfied.

We get our money out of vaccine injury compensation court and although 90 percent are satisfied and accept the money there is still that 10 percent that just wants more!

Gee whiz three years from first sign of injury not dignosis, even epilepsy - No one explained that familys are not being compensated but screwed.


No company should be protected against lawsuits from a defective product - PERIOD. If vaccine makers are worried about lawsuits for defective design then I have a simple solution for them. Design a fricken product that is not defective!!! No other pharma product enjoys this protection and it hasn't seemed to stem the flow of new drugs to the market.

Autism Grandma

I am relieved that Marsha clarified the number of families in the vaccine court claiming vaccine induced autism as being over 5,000 since this news reporter initially stated only "hundreds".

ALL vaccines are "defectively designed", but they will make the legal requirements so intense that it will probably be next to impossible to prove the legal standard. They will continually rely on the previous vaccine court ruling precedents that mercury and MMR do not cause autism. I want to hope but we all know that the vaccine industry is going to use the same deceptive tactics that they always have, so even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Bruesewitz, it is still going to remain an uphill battle for the rest of us.

As Marsha said: "If Wyeth wins families like the Bruesewitz's whose children have suffered significant or catestrophic injuries will have no remedy."

Heidi N

I thought this was a pretty neutral peice, much more neutral than usual. I am actually impressed. Two things that are a bit conflicting and unrealistic are: (1) When he says that the CDC says vaccine rates remain at their target level, then he immediately states that whooping cough is on the rise due to lower vaccine rates. Thus, sorry, you can't claim vaccine rates are the same and less at the same time. It just makes you look desparate to save the vaccine reputation, which is already in the toilet. (2) Secondly, she states that in the 1980s there were so many vaccine lawsuits being filed that Congress inacted the vaccine protection law that stands today. Gee, that really stinks. Since when is the way to stop lawsuits, forbidding them from being filed? That just reeks of dictatorship. Accountabilty makes people make quality products, which includes lawsuits. If you take away accountability, you take away quality, and that is an absolute reality. Notice how the autism rates skyrocketed at the same time the vaccine manufacturers became protected from the public, which is to be expected. Can you imagine what would happen if we didn't have accountability for paying taxes, child support, etc? I think my point in obvious.


There must be people who work at the networks, like PBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, newspapers whose lives are affected by autism.. I wonder what they think about this slanted news reporting?


I wish they would have explained vaccine court. This report sounds like "hey, they have their own court, if they don't like the outcome then they can go elsewhere and sue." They need to explain the 3 special masters you need to prove your case to (who by the way are hired NOT elected). They need to explain the 3 year statute of limitations on injury date NOT diagnosis date. They need to explain how it is capped at $250K. And how we get no discovery or jury of our peers. The worst part of the autism vax court is that we can only sue for MMR or thimerosal because that is what the decided.


I found this coverage, while it included statements not supported by facts and did not include important relevant information, was better than the usual PBS reporting on the topic of vaccines and autism.

Overall, however, I have given up on PBS--Pharma Broadcasting System would be a more apt name for what it has become. Their refusal to interview David Kirby or Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill regarding their books, while on the other hand repeatedly giving time to Paul Offit, is corporate and/or govt censorship, nothing more, nothing less. So much for explaining both sides of every story and indepth reporting. I still listen, but the hypocrisy of this compared to the stated values of PBS repeated ad nauseum during their pledge drives makes me ill. And I used to be a loyal PBS supporter.


The whole thing is screwed up. The Vax court has a 3 year statute of limitations. Most people don't even KNOW their child has autism for sure until then. Then comes the verbiage about 3 years from the date you discover the injury.

Well, if no one in government will admit that vaccines cause autism, how the hell can those three years ever truly start? There is no standardized test. All you can theoretically do is SUSPECT injury, because according to the people in charge, vaccines still don't cause autism. You can't be expected to file suit on a "hunch".

So does that mean the statute of limitations is a non-sequitor? It should.
That should mean every child with autism, right now, has a case. No?

I know that we don't, according to counsel. So I DO hope the vax court is abolished. We'll file suit the next day.


hey, PBS, it's not hundreds in vaccine court. I'm pretty sure it's thousands and you should know this. Nice try to mislead people.


So disappointed in PBS! They do a shoddy job every time they report on vaccine issues. What a bunch of yellow journalists in that newsroom - this is so pro-Wyeth they may as well be reading off the corporate PR playbook instead of reporting.

They give this 9 minutes of airtime and don't include the fact that the conditions this lady suffered from her vaccines were compensated via the Vaccine Court previously and then, gosh, too bad for her, they stopped compensating for her side effect just before her case was heard in the Unjust Vaccine Court.

Really pathetic reporting. Might as well rename PBS CBS for Corporate Broadcasting Service. A Public Broadcasting Service would give more airtime and consideration to the non-corporate viewpoint.

All these reporters need to go back to J-school and relearn the value of and service that they provide when they do true BALANCED reporting.


It's clear that "We the People" is a misnomer. It should be changed to "We the Corporations."

Government is put in place to protect its people. Apparently, though, our government thinks it is more important to protect Business.

Harry H.

I can't believe this is about design defect or chasing manufacturers out of the business.

Vaccines are BIG, BIG business and the True Believers in Public Health adhere to the dogma that vaccines are the one true enlightened path to obliterate every pathogen on the planet. This false religion allows them to mandate and manipulate vaccines for their own profit.

This case is all about the money. Just ask the chief justice.

"Follow the money."


the US market is big business for Pharma.. they'll survive just fine.. they're just blowing smoke. Since when has making a product safe driven a company out of business.

Read the vaccine market reports...

Vaccine market worth $52bn in 2016


Bob Moffitt

I was not surprised to hear one Supreme Court Justice .. and .. the lawyer for Weyth .. raise the possibility that vaccine manufacturers will be "driven out of business" if the Bruesewitz family prevails.

After all .. it has become routine in this country .. to squander scarce federal resources .. bailing out failed industries .. under the pretense those industries are just "too big to fail".

Banks make bad investments .. bail them out.

Auto industry management fails .. bail them out.

Vaccine manufacturers make suspect vaccines .. bail them out.

Makes perfect sense to me.


Supposedly the US Constition is the prevailing law of the land so I suppose we could argue that the National Childhood Vaccination Injury Act of 1986 and existance of vaccine court, a separate process to protect and limit liability of drug companies is unconstutional because the Act results in harm to Americans which are leaders took an oath to protect.

The Act took effect in 1988. The Autism increase began in 1989 and the numbers have been climbing ever since.

I would love to see the court repealed and vaccine court abolished.

A very misleading name for an act that does nothing to protect our kids.

National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act



I think that this case is going to badly injure the pro-vaccine push. Millions of people are being exposed to this family's story. It is pretty obvious that the damage was from the vaccines. It is equally obvious that the government used a loophole to escape responsibility, that the drug company is continuing to escape responsibility by hairsplitting legal arguments and that the government and the medical establishment are firmly behind the drug company. If the Supremes decide for Wyeth, sensible people will be shown, very clearly, that if anything goes wrong following a vaccination there is a good chance that all of the burden and challenge of dealing with it will be on the family.

This is going to move a lot of people who had doubts about the safety of vaccines over to the "I just don't trust them" side of the debate.

Mandates aren't a solution in the U.S. Look at what became of Merck's attempt to mandate the HPV vaccine. And so far, the attempts to do an end-run and remove the legislature from having the power to say yes or no to vaccine mandates (moving it to the state health department) have been defeated by vaccine critics. More concerned parents will make it easier to defeat mandates and automatic approval.

This whole system has depended on darkness, confusion and hidden activities. It cannot stand the bright light of day.


sarah - "this case is only about design defect"

Well, that may be true, but you are VERY correct when you say that it's hard to think of "right to sue" and "vaccine mandates" separately, because it's the two of them, both issues, a one-two punch that imperils us most. First, strip ALL liability from the vaccine manufacturers for their toxic "cocktails", then mandate "inoculations". btw - they can be mandated from cradle to grave - lifelong! Both issues are incredible violations of fundamental guarantees found in our Constitution. Does the State now own our bodies? Do parents no longer have the right to direct the upbringing of their children? I thought that this was still a free country.



it is sick and very scary... and, because we've been portrayed as the lunatic fringe, if you try to warn people about the shots some will look at you like you're Chicken Little saying the sky is falling.

If this family loses, the consquences to the public are dire.


Sarah, I stand corrected, this case is only about design defect...which frankly makes the matter even more insidious. Congress telling vaccine makers its OKAY to make a defective product that harms. there is no incentive for safety at all. sick!

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.)