Where are the Clowns?
Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children: Some Data are In and They are Disturbing

Court Protects Vaccine Manufacturers, Not Injured Children

Breaking news

Court Protects Vaccine Manufacturers, Not Injured Children

 Read .pdf Supreme Court Bruesewitz

Supreme Court Decides Bruesewitz v. Wyeth 6-2, Foreclosing Civil Lawsuits for Vaccine Design Defect


New York, NY – The Coalition for Vaccine Safety (CVS) condemns the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth to preempt all vaccine design defect lawsuits in state and federal civil court.  Quoting Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, the majority “imposes its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress.”  In the dissent, which Justice Ginsburg joined, Justice Sotomayor argues that the majority misreads the text, misconstrues the Act’s legislative history, and “disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market.”

The actual circumstances in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth illustrate why the Supreme Court’s decision is misguided.  Hannah Bruesewitz, hours after a diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine, developed catastrophic brain injury and a lifelong seizure disorder.  The only plausible explanation for the harm to Hannah was her vaccine.  Indeed, many other children were injured by the same vaccine lot, yet the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the only court where Hannah could bring her claim, denied compensation after years of litigation.  Now the Supreme Court tells Hannah and her family that there is no courtroom in the country in which she can obtain justice and compensation for the years of care ahead that she needs.

The majority’s true intent appears to be to prevent several thousand tort cases claiming a link between vaccines and autism from reaching civil court to assert that a dangerous vaccine design, using mercury as a preservative, was defective.  Sotomayor writes that this concern, to shield manufacturers from litigation, “appears to underlie the majority and concurring opinions in this case.”

According to vaccine safety advocate Louise Kuo Habakus, “The Court is telling parents that they’re on their own.  Parents know that 4 out of 5 cases of vaccine injury do not get compensation in the misnamed Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.  The Supreme Court has slammed the courthouse doors shut.”  Because the federal government recommends 70 doses of 16 “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines, and states compel 30-45 doses for school attendance, this issue affects all children.

CVS calls for Congressional hearings and action to amend the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to reinstate the right to sue for vaccine design defect in civil court.

For more information on Bruesewitz v. Wyeth and vaccine safety, visit www.coalitionforvaccinesafety.org.

Organizations supporting the Coalition for Vaccine Safety:

Age of Autism (www.ageofautism.com)

Autism One (www.autismone.com)

Autism Action Network (www.autismactioncoalition.org)

Center for Personal Rights (www.centerforpersonalrights.org)

The Coalition for Safe Minds (www.safeminds.org)

Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy (www.ebcala.org)

Generation Rescue (www.generationrescue.org)

National Autism Association (www.nationalautismassociation.org)

National Autism Association New York Metro Chapter (www.naanyc.org)

Talk About Curing Autism (www.talkaboutcuringautism.org)

Unlocking Autism (www.unlockingautism.org)  





Its Time we stand and fight for what is right...Just remember when you are voting for the next congress, demand where they stand on vaccine injuries and lets send people to washington that are going to make real changes!!!! The one poster mentioned it, I do think Hannahs civil rights were violated and think this could be and avenue to possibly get some justice


I think the people are getting smarter and this will make them take a closer look again...
Pharma now has the ability to shovel any crap they want at us... I pray America won't stand for it.

Carolyn M

Parents also didn't know they needed "that lunging skill" - along with having a parent present with the child at all times - when their child was born in a hospital, in order to avoid the child being vaccinated with Hep B without the parents' knowledge or consent.

The pressure to vaccinate is likely to get very intense, very quickly.

We defintely need new legislation; the Supreme Court takes too long to correct its mistakes - "separate but equal" comes to mind. Our children cannot wait that long.

michael framson

Sarah said, "In fact I would lunge in front of someone attempting to hurt a child."

Parents didn't know that they needed that "lunging" skill when they brought their kids in for a well baby check up.


Theresa - something else worth mentioning: 'squalene adjuvant MF59, the adjuvant that many blame for Gulf War Syndrome' -

VAERS reports following AVA are confined to a few lot numbers, which are not the same lots that had traces of squalene.

That does not change the thrust of your argument of course, which is entirely valid.


If someone were to beat a child until they took on the characteristics of Autism, they would probably go to prison for life.

The same process is just another happy day with the AAP "well baby vaccine visit."

...29 shots by 18 months.

Should anyone have a list of the typical costs of each "well baby vaccine visit, please post it.

michael framson

The Anti-Safe Vaccination Mob who signed the Brief Amici Curiae of the AAP

Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (“PIDS”)
Parents of Kids with Infectious Diseases (“PKIDs”)
National Meningitis Association Inc. (“NMA”)
National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition
National Foundation for Infectious Diseases
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
Meningitis Angels
March of Dimes Foundation
Infectious Diseases Society of America (“IDSA”)
Immunization Action Coalition (“IAC”)
Every Child By Two,(“ECBT”)
Center for Vaccine Awareness and Research at Texas Children’s Hospital
Association of State and Territorial Healthcare Officials
American Public Health Association (“APHA”)
American Medical Association (“AMA”)
American College of Preventive Medicine (“ACPM”)
American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians (“ACOP”)
American Academy of Family Physicians (“AAFP”)
AAP Section on Infectious Diseases
American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”)

Theresa O

I hadn't realized that, Bayareamom. That's good news.

However, it's still possible that a person electing to receive the CDC-recommended HPV vaccine will get one of a pretty questionable design, and have no recourse. (Not that I am saying that the aluminum-adjuvanted Gardasil is safe--just that there is a lot of really worrisome animal evidence about oil adjuvants that make it possible that they're even worse than aluminum.)


there's something so different about our fight than the fight for civil rights...civil rights got support from the courts, various leaders, politicians, the news media...I feel this is part of a well orchestrated campaign against us. The gov't blocks us or actively does nothing. Where's Obama on this? He has children. Why is he so mum? What does he know that we don't?


"(3) HPV vaccination is mandatory (with medical and religious exemptions allowed) for sixth-grade girls in Texas."

Note: This is actually incorrect; the HPV vaccine mandate was pulled in Texas; also, Texas now allows for the philosophical exemption to vaccines, along with the medical and/or the religious exemptions.


@ SaraD - "Time for some new legislation."

Bingo! I completely agree. The high court has let the public down. Politicians must understand that their voting record on medical freedom, vaccine mandates, and vaccine exemptions, will be a "litmus test" for elected office. They will be held to account for their voting record in the court of public opinion. Our numbers are growing!


The other 20 health organizations are listed on the docket. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-152.htm

Alison MacNeil

Forgive me for over participating on this thread (I'm stuck at home with 2 kids, no $$ and a long Feb vaca week) but it seems to me that it's going to take blood in the streets to turn this thing around. I think the images of the state troopers aiming fire hoses at innocent black children during the Civil Rights movement grabbed the nation's attention. I would NEVER advocate putting one of our children in harm's way. In fact I would lunge in front of someone attempting to hurt a child. However, I have to say, until we create enough of a disruption, en masse, messy, loud and visible...I fear we will be sitting here typing to each other about the same old shit three years from now, maybe ten.

Theresa O

Yes, Alison, the AAP's amicus brief was in support of the respondent (Wyeth), not the children. Plenty of other medical unions joined the AAP; I guess nobody wants to be seen as anti-vaccine, even if the vaccine they are anti- is one that was so unsafe it's no longer on the market. You're right: every parent who still takes her child to a pediatrician should see this brief. (And nice call-out, Donna K, of that particular section regarding negligence.)

This whole thing makes me very nervous, as I am currently reading Gary Matsumoto's *Vaccine A.* Here's what I'm thinking:

(1) The autoimmune-disease-inducing properties of squalene are well documented in animals (see all the endnotes in Matsumoto's book). Oil-in-water emulsions like squalene are problematic, in that they can induce autoimmunity if injected, because they are so similar to the lipids that are part of the human body.

(2) Oil-in-water emulsions have not been used as adjuvants in US-licensed vaccines for the bulk of vaccine history. Now, however, Cervarix (the GSK HPV vaccine using oil-in-water emulsion adjuvant AS04) has been licensed in the US (http://therpmreport.com/Free/ca52746c-58ed-482c-9e46-9d7f7d38255d.aspx?utm_source=RPMel).

(3) HPV vaccination is mandatory (with medical and religious exemptions allowed) for sixth-grade girls in Texas.

(4) Doctors have a choice between the aluminum-adjuvanted Merck product, Gardasil, and the the aluminum-and-oil-in-water-emulsion-adjuvanted GSK product, Cervarix. Many factors influence which products doctors choose--including pretty pharma reps who visit the office.

(5) This Supreme Court decision sets up a scenario in which at least some eleven-year-old girls in Texas are likely to receive a mandatory vaccine containing an adjuvant with a documented unsafe profile, and these girls will have no remedy when they come down with lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, etc., even though GSK is clearly taking a risk in its choice of design. (GSK is taking this risk to differentiate itself from the Merck product, *not* out of some sense of altruism. Here's the RPM report: "GSK pursued the adjuvant as a way to differentiate its bivalent HPV product from Merck’s Gardasil, which reached the market two years ahead of the GSK product and with a quadrivalent composition.")

(6) There is now nothing in the law to induce GSK to remove or reformulate Cervarix until so many people are killed or paralyzed that the government removes the license for the vaccine.

(7) The same situation exists with Fluad, the Novartis flu vaccine containing squalene adjuvant MF59, the adjuvant that many blame for Gulf War Syndrome. Fluad is not yet licensed in the US, but it's likely only a matter of time until a future year's flu scare lets it into this country, and there will no reason for Novartis to change its design, even if it is demonstrably less safe than the (live virus or aluminum-adjuvanted) flu vaccines from other manufacturers.

I wonder how much (if any) of this the Justices had in their minds.

Cam Pearson

We have been screaming, begging, pleading for more safety studies. If Pharma has absolutely no liability, no accountability and stands to lose NOTHING - Why would they spend a dime on safety studies? The answer - they won't. They have absolutely no reason to care, and our government just told them that they don't have to.

Donna K

Thank you Theresa O for providing a link to the brief amici curiae in support of Wyeth by the AAP. From the third paragraph under the "Summary of Argument" the AAP makes very clear that they don't care that some vaccines may harm children even in the event of negligence on the part of the manufacturers. They argue, "As the Third Circuit below correctly recognized, the Act furthers that latter objective in part by expressly preempting 'all design defect claims, including those based in negligence.'" This demonstrates just how immoral this professional organization is. Parents need to know that pediatricians have made a purposeful decision to use a defective and dangerous vaccine on children because safety is a lower priority than liability. In their opinion a defective and dangerous vaccine is preferable to no vaccine. Your child's health is not their major concern. Their overriding concern is controlling infectious disease and it can and will come at the expense of your child's health and well-being. They would rather be responsible (but not accountable) for hurting innocent children than a random infectious agent. They are despicable.


AAP MISSION STATEMENT (from the AAP web site)

"The mission of the AAP is to attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. To accomplish this mission, the AAP shall support the professional needs of its members."

Liars! if you go to the AAP web site, you'll also notice the drugs ads in the margins of the site.. very telling who they really work for!

AAP: http://www.aap.org/about.html

(AAP=American Academy of Phonies)

Alison MacNeil

I want to make sure I have this straight before I tell every mother I know...the AAP wrote a 'friend of the court letter' in support of the pharmaceutical company over the children? It's not that I'm surprised, I'm not. But this is the professional organization of the doctors handing you the Vaccine info. sheet which you stuff in your purse and read when you get home, which plainly states "if your child should have a reaction, Vaers, blah, blah, you will be compensated..lie, blah, more lies". So, at the level of the Supreme Court pediatricians, the very people who should be putting children first, are siding with the vaccines over the children? If this truly is the case I think every parent in the country needs to know that their pediatrician's governing body made the choice to protect the vaccines not the children.



Quote from above clip...

"We have cheap vaccines and occasionally some people may be harmed..."

Theresa O

Denise Ferraro, you are exactly right. It is an excise tax, but since the vaccines are mandatory and covered by insurance, either vaccine consumers or insurance premium payers are paying the tax. The vaccine manufacturers just adjust the price upwards to cover the tax.

It's sort of like putting a tax on cigarettes, in that the cigarette manufacturers can just adjust the price upwards in order to pay the tax, but it's different, in that (1) vaccine consumption is virtually mandatory, so individuals can't choose not to buy vaccines (the way they might choose not to buy ten-dollar-per-pack cigarettes); and (2) vaccines are covered by insurance, so most vaccine consumers aren't even aware of the price and any price increases, and therefore wouldn't opt out based on price.

It's borderline astounding to me that the Supreme Court justices would be this unaware of fairly basic economics, but I guess if you're on the Supreme Court, you don't do a lot of shopping or paying taxes. You have an assistant to do that for you. It's only us regular folks who understand who really pays for things.


The courts decision certainly does not mean the CDC vaccines are safe, only that pharma and the AAP do not have to be responsible for the damage they cause. The decision clearly shows they fear what will happen if Autistic children are ever given a fair chance in a real court.

Perhaps a day and time could be set where everyone could visit their favorite AAP doctor and fill the waiting rooms with Autistic children & seek treatment for vaccine injuries. This might be helpful for the parents of other toddlers in the room...

The mercury flu shots are now on sale for about half their orignal price from last September...

Denise Ferraro

There's something I don't understand about the Court's ruling on this. In the decision they state "The vaccine manufacturers fund an informal, efficient compensation program...Taxing their product to fund the compensation program while leaving their liability for design defect virtually unaltered would hardly coax them back to market." I don't get it, they are making it seem as though pharma is putting the money into this fund. If its a tax isn't it being paid by us the "taxpayers" or maybe the insurance companies. How is a tax put on a product they sell equate to them funding the VICP? They are not funding this through the profits they make from the vaccines right? http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/VIC_Trust_Fund.htm Am I not understanding this correctly?

Theresa O

DownWitDaSickness, the other amicus groups are listed in the early pages of this document:



Aside from the AAP...The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) -- which was one of 21 health organizations that filed friend of the court briefs siding with Pfizer. Does anyone know who the other 20 health organizations were?



I have NEVER held out not even 1 iota of hope that the court would rule in favor of the people in this case. Not going to happen.

The people on the court have been swayed by the Pharmaceutical vaccine propaganda and this is not the first nor will it be the last time the court was taken in as they have no real clue about vaccines and autism.

We are seen as a group of fringe zealots who are anti science and this is how they portray us and the image that they have paid to have for us using pseudo science, fake studies and criminal scientist.

So what is the answer? Real Science that will stand on it's own merit and a resolution to the symptoms using this same real science.

This ruling is a debasement of the Supreme court much like the Nobel peace prize for Obama.

Real science will iluminate this decision for what it is a FAKE ruling without much thought by a group of justices who really are not that interested in the health of our children and families and the United States as a whole.

Take heed though because the Bigger they are the Harder they fall and this decision and the peiople who made it will, without a doubt, fall hard.



I was beginning to think CNN felt coverage of this would be too "anti-vaccine." Couldn't find it under headlines, health, or justice, but with a search on "Bruesewitz v. Wyeth" I found it, rather buried, in the CRIME section:



They were aiming toward the end of the previous administration for liability protection on any "FDA approved" product. Now I can't help wondering if industry is seeing the court system as part of a "fast-track" to getting such "tort reform." Get congress to pass favorable laws, and get the courts to not just uphold such legislation, but actually expand "the intent."

michael framson

What do you bet that pharma is going to figure out a way to call all their new products, vaccines. Preparation H, a vaccine for Hemorrhoids. Lipitor a vaccine for cholesterol. Vioxx II a vaccine for whatever.


Here's what Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent : "... the majority (the 6 Justices) itself concedes that the FDA has never even spelled out in regulations the criteria it uses to decide whether a vaccine is safe and effective for its intended use."

So I take it the Justices are all aware that the FDA trust pharma to do what's right.


Well said Bob. One thing that most folks miss is that children are watched over by God and it is no small thing to harm a child or protect those that do.
Whether or not anyone is smart enough to know it, the Supreme Court just stamped "APPROVED" on some 200 completely untested and unproven vaccines that have been waiting in the wings for a day like this to come along. They are neither GRAS nor GRAE, but thanks to corporatistic justice du jour they'll be on their way now into the bodies of innocent infants.



This is a sad day for the Bruesewitz Family and every child all over the world that has suffered severe adverse reactions from vaccines.

I will now wait for all the pro-vaxxers over here in Australia to gloat over the decision that protects BIG PHARMA first.

This is all I needed to hear today, my son's carer at school restrained him so tight that it left a distinct bruise on his wrist. In Australia this is considered serious misconduct. I am now seriously thinking about home schooling.

The education department has let me down, the paediatricians, the doctors, the psychologists and now the lawyers. What next?

Mum to 9 yr old, Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Global Development Delay, Autistic, Non-Verbal and Vaccine Injured son.

Slowly recovering on the Biomedical Treatment.


Isn't the 1986 Vaccine Injury Compensation Act unconstitutional? What ever happened to the right to a trial by a jury of your peers? Why can't our child have his day in a real court?

Theresa O

Here's a question for Kent: What do you think the Bruesewitz family's chances would be in a lawsuit claiming that Hannah's civil rights were violated by the 1986 Act? If 6 of 8 Supreme Court justices think that the 1986 Act bars a person with Hannah's circumstances from being compensated, then the 1986 Act deprived her of her health and pursuit of happiness without due process of law, right? Or am I dreaming?


Everyone should burn in your memory (and repeat to all those that still don't get the severity of what today's ruling means) the quote from Becky Estepp's husband (I apologize, I cannot remember his name) about the federal vaccine court:

“This is a court where government attorneys, defend a government program using government funded science decided by judges who work for the government, kids like Eric NEVER had a chance.”


All Americans are losing their democratic rights that they take for granted, not just the vaccine injured, but what will it take to wake them up? By supporting our cause they are supporting their own causes and their own rights in other arenas, but they are so indoctrinated by the propaganda that most people can't see the forest for the trees.

Just like with our "Vaccine Court", it doesn't matter if there are laws to protect people because those laws will not be honored, and they will simply be changed or removed. In Wisconsin Governor Walker's agenda is to remove all union rights for public workers. Although all of the unions agreed to all of the states demands for labor cuts etc, the state still plans on removing union rights that have existed for 60 years. Meanwhile they just gave Wisconsin corporations $140 Million in tax cuts: "the tax cuts Walker passed will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue.... Meanwhile, the share of corporate tax revenue funding the state government has fallen by half since 1981 and, according to Wisconsin Department of Revenue, two-thirds of corporations pay no taxes."
Huffington Post article HERE:

Two thirds of corporations pay no taxes, but it's OK to cut the salaries and remove union rights of teachers and other public servants?

Children are being vaccine injured left and right, but that's OK because the Supreme Court says "We have to protect the vaccine industry"??!!!

Corporations can buy governors and congressmen in this country and get everything they WANT, while the every day person who is struggling and suffering cannot get what they NEED.

People in New Jersey are moving out of that state because of the mandatory vaccines and laws are not protecting their rights to protect their own children. I would really like to leave this country, especially to protect my grandson, but there is no money. This is not the America that I grew up in and it is only getting worse by the day. FRIGHTENING.


Makes me want to secede from the union, which is no longer of the people for the people by the people. It's all for business. I knew this was the case in the Executive and Legistative branches and now too it's apparent the Judicial branch serves corporations versus citizens.

A sad day in American history.

Phoenix Mom

What now? Do we just have to wait for more damaged kids to accumulate so that the number is large enough. I keep thinking that these court decisions are going to back us up and they keep throwing gasoline on us so the pharmaceutical companies can throw the match.

They will never give my children another vaccine ever. But I may not be able to find a pediatrician. in my area, they are all starting to mandate all the shots or you can take your business elsewhere. There's so much money in it for them that I guess it doesn't matter.

Remember when cigarettes didn't cause cancer, this fight is similar but they still sell cigarettes and most people know they cause cancer and often worse.


What a sad and completely unfair decision for children like Hannah and their families. I hope word about this gets out far and wide.


So will it take another act of Congress to undo this giveaway to pharmaceutical companies?


Time for some new legislation.

Maurine meleck

Schwartz, your comment understood and accepted. Probably
rememberances of long ago. Also wanted to add that some people think that this ruling will make people more likely not to vaccinate. I hope they are right, but I can only think that people will again use this to say that vaccines don't cause autism and will continue to vaccinate and more cause for others to push the mandates.


Whether or not anyone is smart enough to know it, the Supreme Court just stamped "APPROVED" on some 200 completely untested and unproven vaccines that have been waiting in the wings for a day like this to come along. They are neither GRAS nor GRAE, but thanks to corporatistic justice du jour they'll be on their way now into the bodies of innocent infants.

Parents file a so called "leisurely" claim on behalf of their fallen child and they face ram sack of their personal lives by twits like Brian Deer; they become socially unacceptable; they are called unpatriotic, inhuman parasites; they are called frauds, liars, and worse. Just for filing a "softball" federal claim against a business object directly injected into the bodies of their children which industry admits is not 100% safe.

This is why drug companies fund both sides. They control the dispute entirely.

Old "Dutch" Reagan used to say, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!" (which might be why he really didn't want to sign VICA into existence, and why Barbara Loe Fisher stampeded his office)

The justices ruled in practical terms of business. The vaccine manufacturing drug companies have the feds by the balls. They said, "either rule for us or we quit the vaccine business."

Nobody wants to bail the justices out for blindly falling victim to blackmail. They were easy prey for the industry hoaxes like Bird Flu and Swine Flu which magically appeared before their eyes and fizzled out to black like fireworks.

Look at the bright side. The Supreme Court never looked at our children. They never examined one scrap of paper with medical scribbling on it pertaining to the loss of our children.

They can plead ignorance before the Almighty if they like, but they can never look upon the faces of our beautiful children and not feel the guilt of their betrayal this day for the rest of their natural lives.

Their dignity is lost. Their righteousness is gone. The federal government is in too deep for their own good. They ruled on the premise of fear, not law.

The laws require the feds to hold us down kicking and screaming our heads off with the pistol barrel at our temple if they desire to squirt mercury-laced vaccines into us, but our babies have no voice except us.

This anti-litigation racket lives to feast on the souls of our babies. The combination is hiding in plain sight of the law.

Sherman Anti-Trust.

CT teacher

Once again the Supreme CT has failed to protect the citizens of this country. First, Bush v Gore, then Citizens United and now this. It is no surprise that Scalia was the spokesperson. The right wing men on this CT are FASCISTS. Their allegiance is not to the people of this country but to the corporations who control them and thus control us. God have pity on the poor children and their families who will suffer and are suffering as a result of this decision!


Before the whole vaccine- induced catastophe happened to my child, I had only the vaguest notion that some people blamed vaccines for their child's autism. I remember thinking, "Surely if the adverse effects were that serious, there would be so many lawsuits the manufacturers would have to fix the problem!" Had I known that vaccines are protected from liability, would that have made me stop and think? Maybe.

By the time my own child was born, I was in such a state of brainwashed compliance that I wasn't even worried about the lethargy and fevers my son experienced after every bout of vaccines. Eighteen months later my kid was flapping and toe- walking and I never went back to the pediatrician again.


From the CBS story here.


The vaccine protocol Hannah (Bruesewitz) received injured 65 other children. In 1998, it was removed from the market.

65 injury reports from the same batch of vaccine ?

....The Vaccine Court system was created by the 1986 Congress, no one seems to see a "separation of powers" problem with this ???

Sandy Gottstein

JenB - tweeted this! How do people reconcile the two: "the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks," but we can't afford to compensate those who appear to have shouldered the risks?




Although I agree with your sentiment regarding the ruling, I think you should separate that from Thomas and his habit of not asking questions. There is nothing wrong with not asking questions. Justice Thomas was quite articulate in protecting the public good against pharmaceuticals in Levine vs Wyeth (also about preemption) where he not only ruled in favour of Levine but where he wrote his own judgment in support of the majority but separate because he thought the majority ruling was not strong enough.

I think you should read his rulings before passing judgment on him purely based on the fact he doesn't jump into the scrum in court.


"Parents know that 4 out of 5 cases of vaccine injury do not get compensation in the misnamed Vaccine Injury Compensation Program."

I have never heard this statistic before. It's very surprising -- where did you find it?


CBS news has a report on this ruling:


The story of Hannah's injury, the rejection of her case by the "special court, and the juxtaposition of the AAP hailing this decision as safeguarding children--I just don't have any words...

The Supreme Court, perfectly happy to let Congress turn over jurisprudence to a construct of their (or industry's) own invention...do they have any self-respect?

Many of the comments do not run along this line, but at least one suggests that a "special court" with little inclination to make compensation is appropriate.

How do people reconcile the two: "the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks," but we can't afford to compensate those who appear to have shouldered the risks?


A situation that is so difficult that no progress can be made; a deadlock or a stalemate: reached an impasse in the negotiations.

Unless Medicine Docs find another way, I know of three families, on my street alone, who will opt out or their vaccine business forever. And with infant mortality rising and lifespan shrunken, what else could it be? Defects in the water?
Sad setback for human history.


Maurine meleck

And Justice Thomas hasn't uttered a sentence in 5 years in Court. What does this say about our Supreme Court system?
This decision is outrageous, immoral, and criminal in MHO.

Morality Check

No doubt, Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield will be blamed once again when vaccine compliance rates drop following this ruling. Alert Garry Trudeau.

kathy blanco

this may work in our favor, once people know they have no recourse, none whatsoever, the balance of parents won't be vaccinating! I really feel that. The more the vaccine companies squak, the more the government follows their behinds, the more, people will realize that the real education on causes of autism will begin out of the mouths of personal stories and lives, in which they live next door to, not their paid and bought and sold pediatric office.

Donna L.

And yet we're supposed to continue vaccinating like crazy. Kinda gives new meaning to the "How stupid do they think we are?" question.


Ok this is proof that Elections have consequences! The two dissenting voices were appointed by Democrats and were women. Kagan did not vote and the only Democratic appointee to side with the four Republican appointed justices was Breyer. This is corporate America's Court and their second decision slapping the face of democracy.
The first allowed corporations unlimited spending in elections.
Here we go, if you think things were bad already well get ready for really bad!

victor pavlovic

So why the delay in announcing their decision, the supreme court knew what the outcome was before they ever heard the case, quite sad.


what a sad and tragic day for America, the worst part of it all is that most Americans wont notice or care....

Lisa @ TACA

Thank you to the Coalition for Vaccine Safety for responding to this important issue.

To add some minor points: this ruling does not even address the issue of whether vaccines did or did not cause harm to Hannah Bruesewitz, the child in question. This ruling addresses only whether or not the Vaccine manufacturer (Wyeth) can be sued under the design defect clause, since this particular language was not originally included in The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA or Act).

Indeed design defects do not merit a single mention in the Act or in Food and Drug Administration regulations that pervasively regulate the drug manufacturing process. Yet, the court’s majority claims that design defects are “Implied or intended” and thus are not a basis for liability.

In Sotomayer and Ginsberg dissenting argument, they claim that there is no basis for assuming any intention by Congress to exclude design defect from liability. In Sotomayer’s words “Congress intended to leave the courthouse doors open for children who have suffered severe injuries from defectively designed vaccines. The majority’s policy-driven decision to the contrary usurps Congress’ role and deprives such vaccine-injured children of a key remedy that Congress intended them to have.”

She goes on to say “Manufacturers, given the lack of robust competition in the vaccine market, will often have little or no incentive to improve the designs of vaccines that are already generating significant profit margins. Nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history remotely suggests that Congress intended that result. I respectfully dissent.”

Undoubtedly, you will hear people state that this Supreme Court decision supports the claim that vaccines have no relation to a wave of childhood disorders, such as autism.
Be very clear that the issue of whether vaccine’s caused injury to Hannah Bruesewitz, was never even on the table. Today the court gave an answer to the question “What can vaccine manufacturers be held accountable for?”

Sadly, as Justice Sotomayer points out, the answer is “Nothing.”

Former faithful vaccine consumer

The U.S. is no longer a democracy, it's a "doctatorship."
Fortunately, I can still avoid "a vaccine's unavoidable, adverse side effects." I'll just avoid vaccines. An unintended consequence of SCOTUS' decision? How ironic.

Harry H.

This should have been expected given the make up and the track record of this court.

The only question is, what happens now?

Birgit Calhoun

Apparently only Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg understand the issues involved here. When only old men with no science background make decisions about subjects they don't understand, you get limboland. I predict that many more parents will forego vaccinations for their children from now on. How much sadder can it get?


Do you the think the gov't and Wyeth felt pretty darn secure with this case from the get go? I do. They set the fire, locked the doors and will now watch us incinerate.


Who in their right mind would choose to vaccinate their children now?

John Stone


Of course, that's only half the problem. I don't think anyone accepts a medicinal product on the pessimistic basis that if it goes wrong they can sue. The real problem is that manufacturers know they can't be sued - there is no sanction against them - so they can do exactly as they like.

Well, this is what has been happening for the last 25 years and now it is enshrined in a Supreme Court ruling. Or to put it another way, it is a state endorsed racket.


But the government and vaccine manufacturer were trying to get the case heard, so where is the fire?


If federal government could be held liable for recommending the vaccines, or the state governments that have mandated them for school entry, the potential would exist for a $10 trillion action, which would cause the entire system of government to break down.

The courts must be aware of that.


And in their actions the Supreme Court is undermining the US vaccine program. If parents can't get damages, why should they take the risk.

Goran Nystrom

A sad day for American children and justice. Corporate greed unleashed, watch out world.

John Stone

A tragic day. How can it be that behemoth corporations need even more protection from ordinary citizens. Is it not perhaps because they make lousy products?

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.)