British Medical Journal Fails to Acknowledge its Own Commercial Conflicts
Terrific Temple Grandin Article in Contra Costa Times

The Difference: Bruesewitz v Berkovitz

Teacher Managing Editor's Note: Thank you to our friends at Vaccination News by allowing us to run their article.

By F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP

The Difference
Bruesewitz v Berkovitz
22 years
Different Decisions
Different US Supreme Courts
Different Press and Public Opinions


The United States Supreme Court recent decision in Bruesewitz V. Wyeth did not only affect a family. It affected thousands, who after unsuccessfully pursuing a claim through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, will no longer be able to hold a vaccine manufacturer accountable for injuries believed to be due to an FDA-approved vaccine. By its majority decision, the court indicated that such secondary lawsuits would be countering the intent of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and risking the proliferation of tort-based cases the Act was created to prevent.

On February 22, 2011, the Associated Press announced:

“Parents Lose High Court Appeal in Vaccine Case”

The article started with a harsh paragraph:

“The Supreme Court closed the courthouse door Tuesday to parents who want to sue drug makers over claims that their children developed autism and other serious health problems from vaccines. The ruling was a stinging defeat for families dissatisfied with how they fared before a special no-fault vaccine court.” [ ]http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/02/22/parents-lose-high-court-appeal-in-vaccine-case

On the same day, the New York Times published a Pfizer Inc press release titled “U.S. Supreme Court Decision In Bruesewitz V. Wyeth A Win For Public Health” under “Business Day Markets”:

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 22, 2011-- Today, in a 6-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in favor of Pfizer’s subsidiary Wyeth, in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth. The Third Circuit determined that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act prevents civil suits against manufacturers of FDA-approved childhood vaccines based on a claim that a particular vaccine should have been designed differently.  Please visit Vaccination News to read the full article: HERE

Comments

Bev

In the United States we have laws protecting our health such as mandated seat belt use and mandated (in some states) helmet use. The big difference between these laws and mandated vaccination laws are we can sue the manufacturer for a defective seat belt or helmet but we have no legal recourse when our children receive a defective vaccine.
Talk about playing Russian Roullette with our kids! Say no to all vaccines!

Sarah

I think an angle we need to explore, is if the US vaccine program consitutes an illegal medical experiment since there was no safety testing or data on the actual CDC immunization schedule that the government recommends. If such data exists, then the government would be forced to disclose it. Tis would put them in an very awkward position.

Here's a chronology of illegal medical experiments on humans in the US

http://www.americanussr.com/American%20USSR%20-%20Illegal%20Medical%20Experiments%20-%20Year-By-Year%20Chronicle%20of%20Illegal%20American%20Experiments%20on%20People.htm

Bob Moffitt

@ Theresa O

"The aim of each seatbelt is to protect its wearer. The ability of a seatbelt to protect its wearer during an accident does not depends upon universal use of seatbelts."

In addition .. "seatbelts" must be adjusted properly for each individual according to that indiviual's weight, height or age. Indeed, if "seatbelts" were not adjustable to fit each individual .. they probably .. just like "one size fits all" vaccines .. would actually increase the severity of injuries during a crash.

In other words .. the DOT would never be foolish enough to mandate a non-adjustable .. "one size fits all car seat or seatbelt" .. because .. they know such a product would then be "unavoidably unsafe" .. all but guaranteeing most people would likely resist using them.

Zofie

Rod,
you are absolutely right. We should advocate for a massive boycott of vaccines. We must protect the children and ourselves from vaccine holocaust. Most vaccines are useless any way, they are only effective in killing and injuring. And we should scream loudly in the internet about the conflict of interests of some judges in the supreme court, which became a caricature of itself (except for two women judges, who showed courage and humanity).

Sandy Gottstein

Theresa O, Thank you so much. And thank you for making such an important point about the difference between seat belt use and vaccines. It's a critical distinction, as you so rightly noted.

josie muller

i was reading "The Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" 2003. i am interested on how CFS is treated since one doctor in 1998 (no, it wasn't dr wakefield but he answered to the question if healthy adults could become autistic, he said yes is called CFS) this other doctor wrote that the lab profiles of the autistic and those with CFS were identical pointing to an immune problem...in this article is also discussed the Persian Gulf War patients...but more important to me was to read that vaccines were implicated as one causative factor.
quote, page 148
"...to those found in Gulf War illness patients, suggesting that at least some of the chronic illnesses suffered by veterans of the Persian Gulf War were caused by vaccines (60). Undetectable microorganism contaminants in vaccines could have resulted in illness, and may have been more likely to do so in those with compromised immune systems. This could include individual with depleted uranium or chemical exposure, or personnel who received multiple vaccines in a short time. Since contamination with mycoplasma has been found in commercial vaccines (61), the vaccines used in the Persian Gulf War should be considered as a possible source of the chronic infections in Gulf War illness (60)." end of quote.

"Undetectable microorganism contaminants in vaccines"...and, "or personnel who received multiple vaccines in a short time."
"Since contamination with mycoplasma has been found in commercial vaccines (61)"

let's hope that sometime somebody soon will connect the dots.

Paxman

@ AussieMum ..

The handwritting was on the wall for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of big Pharma when the chief justice sold his pfizer stock. He sold it so he could vote and this assured big Pharma would get a favorable ruling?
====================================================

I think that to be a very astute bite into a greedy and calloused old rump.

Bleak as the outlook appears to be, I have this feeling that Pharmageddon may have reached the end of the road as far as the vaccine scam is concerned.

That ruling is a very potent weapon in the right hands. When I read some of the stories of vaccine damaged children and the courageous love of their parents. The grit and determination of those that advocate for the children and in the courageous exposure of the fallacies and nefarious dealings of Pharmageddon.

Yes .. keep fighting, victory is assured. They are already knee deep in a swamp of their own making.

Kia Kaha!

jane

It is hard to read this of course. I am a lucky parent of kids who got sick and now are well. But that is not always the case.
Jane

AussieMum

Australia

I am struggling with two of the largest law companies to represent my son. This message is constantly conveyed to me - "there is no scientific link between vaccines and autism"

aaaaargh! this comment drives me insane.

However, I will persist.

Mum to 9 yr old Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Global Development Delay, Autistic, Non-verbal and Vaccine injured son

Rod

The handwritting was on the wall for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of big Pharma when the chief justice sold his pfizer stock. He sold it so he could vote and this assured big Pharma would get a favorable ruling? did anyone catch this? Unfortunately the only way I see us getting justice is by people boycotting vaccines even more than they are doing now. This will really wake them up and maybe they will make some concessions in vaccine court to restore the confidence back in vaccines. Vaccine injury is just going to have to get worse before they do anything about it, unfortunately. The government has alot of things backwards and this is just another thing. This is the same thing as big tobacco where they lied, and lied then finally they were forced in to admitting that it caused cancer. We just need to keep fighting!!!!!!!

Heidi N

To say that we can not allow lawsuits because it would cause an organization to go broke, is obviously immoral. I think we would all like to go around not being able to be sued. Wow, talk about the chaos that would cause.

Birgit Calhoun

The issue is not the money that one should be paid after the damage has been done. The issue is the court's implied prediction that there will be too much litigation meaning there will be lots of complaints on behalf of vaccine-injured children. This type of thinking does not go unnoticed. It implies you cannot feel safe when it comes to vaccines. It implies there will be defects. It implies that the manufacturers are entitled to risk-free vaccine making, and who cares who gets hurt in the process. The Berkovitz case had Thurgood Marshall. Whom do we have now as Chief Justice?

Carolyn M

The majority on the Supreme Court has, in effect, "bailed out" the vaccine manufacturers with the Bruesewitz decision. The currency they use in order to guarantee the companies' revenue stream is the civil rights, health, and lives of the vaccine injured. By viewing the "need" for a plentiful vaccine supply as more important, the Court has shown that they view the vaccine manufacturers as "too big to fail".

Theresa O

I liked your article, Sandy. You're right on in comparing the bar slogan to most people's beliefs about vaccination. Frequently, I read comments from pro-pharma types who compare vaccines to seatbelts. Now, besides the fact that you can sue defective seatbelt makers, there is another big difference that very few people seem to grasp: The aim of each seatbelt is to protect its wearer. The ability of a seatbelt to protect its wearer during an accident does not depends upon universal use of seatbelts. Indeed, even if every other individual involved in the accident is seatbelt-less, the person wearing the seatbelt is likely to derive some protection from the seatbelt.

Not so with vaccines! To quote Pfizer General Counsel Amy Schulman, "Their nearly universal administration to children is responsible for the elimination of polio and smallpox in the United States." *Nearly universal administration.* That's it. The theory upon which the CDC's current vaccination policy rests is this: each vaccinated person is less likely to become infected with the disease against which the person is vaccinated, so universal vaccination will reduce the spread of the diseases in question; if we can reduce the diseases' ability to spread for a long enough time, they will go away.

The whole thing depends upon universal vaccination--it only has a prayer of working if everybody gets vaccinated. And given that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe," such a policy of universal vaccination is (to my mind) unconscionable. (Could we imagine a world in which everyone needed to wear a seatbelt in order for seatbelts to offer protection? Would we really think they were such an amazing, life-saving invention?)

(On a related note, I've looked and looked but been unable to find the answer to this one: Can a person who contracts a disease after receiving the full series of vaccinations against it, sue the manufacturer? I'm not talking about someone who gets injured by the vaccine; I'm wondering about someone whose vaccine didn't work, and the person caught the disease anyway.)

Sandy Gottstein

It's also amazing how people think it's okay to ask others to protect their children:

On cheating 'the other guy' http://bit.ly/f76ulF

Forced Vaccinations: Musings on what the road to Hell is paved with by Sandy Gottstein http://bit.ly/gte66e

candace

its like a decision out of a science fiction..it blantantly tells us our place as defective collateral damage, i seriously dont know how they sleep at night they must buy good drugs. to knowingly hawk and harm innocent babies..and then deny behind all their blood money..it is simply sickening...all i can say is they will never have the chance to harm one of my families babies again..watch out greater good your children are next......

Sarah


In 2010, "20% of children in school are registered as special needs"...this is stunning!

What will the percentage be in 2020? 2030? the broader implications of this decision for our countries future are astounding. If this trend continues what then? Will this be the undoing of America by creating a nation of government dependents?

It's a pity that these Supreme Court justices can't see the long term ramifications of their decision or the children who are in the path of this runaway train called Pharma.


GH

As I read this article there was a discussion on the radio on how 20% of children in school are registered as special needs. The discussion was not very deep, aiming to suggest many of the children were not genuine cases without ever looking at the changing numbers of the different diagnoses, and unsurprisingly the word 'vaccine' never came up, but it was an indicator of the scale of the problem that exists.

Berkovitz was a statement on government accountability in an era of occasional perceived failures, Bruesewitz was a decision that justice for a generation of injured childrenis a principle the government can not afford.

4Bobby

It's hard to believe this is going on in AMERICA. Unconstitutional, to say the least.

John Stone

Sarah

Yes, of course, the ultimate point is that they don't have liability so why should you take the risk. Being able to sue as a last resort is not in itself the greatest option: it is just the fact that they could be sued which puts some kind sanction on the vaccine manufacturers to produce a decent product. There is no such sanction now. In the UK the theoretical sanction still exists but our Legal Services Commission will strain every sinew to obstruct any attempt to prosecute it. The companies know they are safe, and can foist any product they like on you.

Sarah

They are kidding themselves... they may have won the battle but they lost the war because noone in the right mind will get vaccinated knowing there's a risk of an adverse reaction for which the cannot sue.

You lo$e Pharma.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
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.

Working...

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.)