The Real Lessons from Medicine’s Long History of Human Experiments in Syphilis
Henry Waxman: Father of the Autism Epidemic as Supreme Court Reviews Vaccine Court

The Supreme Court and Vaccines - Bruesewitz v. Wyeth

Legal update By Kent Heckenlively, Esq.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 states, "No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable (italics mine) even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings."  (42 U.S.C. section 300aa-22(b)(1))

This is the critical section the United States Supreme Court is taking up in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, Inc.  As with many of these vaccine injury cases the particulars are heart-breaking.  The plaintiff, Hannah Bruesewitz, at the age of six months, suffered seizures and subsequent developmental delays after receiving a type of D.T.P. vaccine that is no longer sold.  Her injuries had been compensible under the previous table of vaccine injuries, but not under the one at the time her action was filed.

I've wanted to write more about this case for a while but haven't really known what else to say.  The language seems pretty clear.  If a vaccine is unavoidably unsafe, then you're in vaccine court.  If there's a design defect, you get to sue in regular civil court.  Since pretty much everything in the world can be made more safely (even dynamite), there has to be a pretty well understood flaw in a product to make it unavoidably unsafe.  Since the proponents on the other side are saying vaccines are safe, why should they fear this interpretation?

It's seems to me that not being able to sue in a typical civil court for a vaccine injury is an abomination, not just to the millions I believe have suffered from vaccine damage, but to the entire concept of democracy and the rule of law.

If I sound like a zealot on this issue to those unfamiliar with the vaccine-injury issue, let me explain my reasoning.

Suppose you're out driving tonight and the richest man in America runs into your car and injures you.  You're able to sue him in civil court.  We believe that every person in our country has the right to a fair trial, regardless of their wealth or poverty.  Yes, I know there will be an inevitable back and forth between the parties, but at the end of the day you can stand up in court and ask for justice.

Let's take it one step farther.  Think of the most respected person you know, an undeniable force for good in the world.  Well, if that person runs into your car, he's still responsible for the damage he did, regardless of his other good deeds.  Saint or sinner, prince or pauper, they all go to the same court.

Why should vaccines be treated any different?  Do we have so little faith in the good judgment of the common person that decisions on whether a vaccine harmed a person are to be taken away from us?

For nearly twenty-five years we have been kept from making that decision.  The other side says the common person can't be trusted with these decisions.  They seem to believe we are children, unable to weigh hard evidence.  But difficult decisions are made every day in courts around the country.  Some are good and some are bad, but they balance each other out and the result is a civil and just society.

I'm ready for that debate.  Is the other side?

Kent Heckenlively is a Contributing Editor for Age of Autism



Dow Chemical got its start in the agricultural rich soil of the Bay area in Michigan. Their prime buisness is agricultural and of course that means pesticides.

I am not real sure, but I do not think Dow chemical makes vaccines or at least have not made vaccines in the last 20 plus years??? However, they did have a division in the medical field, were they made the silicone breast implants. That turned out to be a disaster, so they put it as an off branch in the company called Dow Corning, in case the lawsuits took them under.
Personal note: I had an aunt - well indoled-to the point they hurt her back and shoulders. She had her's reduced. To do that they take them off and reconstuct them. She came down with ALS! She started out suddenly becoming paralazed on day while she was making the bed. They operated on her and cleaned out the silicon that had settled around the base of her skull's spinal column. She recovered nicely only to come down with ALS later, and She died 17 years ago. Dow Corning paid the family - how much - I do not know, but what ever it was it was not enough! Dow corning I don't think still makes silicon breast implants.

Dow chemical also makes building supplies like insulation type foams - those blue boards - that is Dow.

Hu another element on the periodical table - Hu the human element!

Monsanto - Got their start (I think) in the Mississippi rich soil of the Delta area and again I don't think they make vaccines???

Again it has it's roots in agriculture and building supplies.

michael framson

Kent, the last thing the other side wants is a debate. You have no leverage to compel them to debate.

Why should vaccines be treated any differently, because its a liability free product that injures and kills with no accountability. It's the kind of corporatism that Wall Street, Monsanto, Dow Chemical and all the rest who want what Vaccine Manufacturers have, a liability free product.

Autism Grandma

The sheer numbers of vaccines that are given is what is behind the immense increase in vaccine injured children. Although there should be no toxins in any vaccines, the human body can handle a small amount, but obviously not a large amount of highly potent toxins. Eventually the accumulation of toxins is going to set off a bomb.

It is such a simple solution to remove the mercury and aluminum and other toxins, reduce the schedule back to where it was at 10 doses, give only one vaccine at a time, and wait until the child is at least 2 years old. There would then be very few vaccine injuries, but NOOOOOOOOO...Big Pharma doesn't give a shit because thier primary motivating factor is to make as much money as possible and why should they ever be concerned about damaging children when there is no liability to them. The devil is in the details and there is no way that they are going to make the necessary changes unless they are forced to. Whether or not this ever actually happens, the parents are responsible to educate themselves and protect their children, and we all need to help others to see the truth about this horrendous criminal tragedy.

Bob Moffitt

At the very heart of this subject is the fact that SCIENCE .. and .. COMMON SENSE are in total agreement .. "the likelihood of creating a "one size fits all vaccine" is all but impossible."

After all, we cannot give EVERY child a peanut, aspirin, egg .. why should we believe we can give EVERY child a "one size fits all vaccine"?

This simple fact lies at the very heart of "herd protection" .. where some WILL be sacrificed for the benefit of others.

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.)