Dachel Media Review: Mother Jones
Weekly Wrap: The Universe Dents Bill Gates

Pharma & Medicine's Salad Days of Liability Free Vaccination

Salad 2

By Kim Stagliano

On Wednesday night, I was making a salad for my family, using my Pampered Chef salad spinner. I carefully washed the organic romaine lettuce, and then put it into the spinner. According to my Pampered Chef consultant - who happens to be the number one ranked consultant in the nation in sales - that spinner can go as fast as 14 mph. Weeeeeeeeee! As I was pressing the lever that generates the spin, I became distracted by my husband or one of my girls. I leaned forward with my arm on the spinner to stabilize it and OUCH it bit the tender skin on my forearm! "That's gonna leave a mark," I thought to myself. And sure enough, it did. And darn if it didn't hurt like the Salad 3 dickens!

I looked at my husband and said, "That's a design defect and I could sue Pampered Chef for some serious bread." Of course, I am NOT suing The Pampered Chef for my idiocy. My arm will heal and I learned a lesson in how to use (or not use) my salad spinner.

But I began to think about vaccination - virtually forced, most certainly coerced circa 2013 and how manufacturers and delivery systems (doctors, nurses, retail stores, schools) have ZERO liability for any injury they might cause.  If you would like to understand the how and why of this special treatment for pharmaceutical companies, I encourage you to watch this Canary Party video below. It explains our Vaccine Injury system in America - and how it does anything but pamper YOU (or your loved ones) the consumer.



"Hard to know what they had in mind after the Bruesewitz vs Wyeth decision SCOTUS (2011) which ruled that vaccines were "unavoidably unsafe"."

IMO they should have just finished this sentence with "but as society must use them." So it is back to the individual vs. the herd. Of course this premise is wrong. Society must no more use "vaccines" than it must smoke dope. We have been sold a bill of goods on "vaccination".

"Vaccination" is DESTROYING herd immunity which can only be acquired when members of the herd contract the native pathogen NATURALLY and NATURALLY defeat it conferring individual usually lifetime immunity. When enough individuals acquire natural immunity the herd is protected.

"Vaccination" is an artificial process and confers neither individual nor herd immunity.



Sarah; The first real battle is finding a lawyer that will file for you.

The second is the vaccine comp court accepting your case.

Those are two main hurtles that are hard to get by.

The rules is- and I don't know what they are playing at - but you have to file and be accepted and you case as to be heard and decided on before you can either turn it down and then sue the vaccine manufacturer, or accept thier offer.

Shell Tzorfas

Imagine that you get into a car accident because of an automobile known defect such as breaks not working...In particular let's say you were driving a Honda. When you go to file for damages you are told," Oh, you cannot take this to regular court. You must file in a special court with a specially appointed Master in HONDA Court..." Shell of "Recovering Autism, ADHD, & Special Needs."


I think the vaccine industry is a perfect example of Groupthink. Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences (Wikipedia's definition).
Basically, doctors think that if there was any problem, the CDC/FDA would be on top of it. CDC/FDA think that pharmaceutical companies and/or doctors would be on top of it. And I think pharmaceutical companies care only about money... so, they all keep saying "if nobody else is saying something is wrong, that means nothing is wrong". Until 1 group (or large part of the group) doesn't start questioning the safety of vaccines, none of them will...

John Stone


Hard to know what they had in mind after the Bruesewitz vs Wyeth decision SCOTUS (2011) which ruled that vaccines were "unavoidably unsafe". Latterly I have been pursued across the web by a faux-angry troll who insists that Age of Autism - and I - been trying to mislead people over this, quoting as he/she does out of context a phrase from early in Judge Scalia's review of the case, though it is clear that Scalia intended to shut the door on further recourse to the civil courts. Moreover, I doubt whether you can find on the web any opinion otherwise (it is not just Age of Autism). I don't know whether in principle it is still possible to sue a manufacturer for a manufacturing fault as opposed to a design fault (which has been ruled out), but how do you prove that when the vaccine has already been dispensed? I suppose this would be the territory of "hot lots" etc., but the magnificent principle that individual children are worth sacrificing to the common good has been firmly established.



According to the brochure "What You Need to Know about the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program"

It says

"Can I file a lawsuit outside the VICP?
Most of the time, you must first file and have your claim processed with the VICP before a civil lawsuit can be filed against the vaccine company or the person who gave the vaccine. If you would like to file a civil lawsuit outside of the VICP, contact a lawyer for advice"


So, it seems to me that if you fail in the vaccine court, you are free to go on and sue in a civil lawsuit. Has anyone done this successfully?

Jeannette Bishop

Is there any better "poster-child" for the need of Constitutional checks than the vaccine injury epidemics? I really wonder what the industry intentions were in 1986 and prior when claiming they would not make vaccines without such protection, but even if 100% well-meaning, the results have been profoundly disastrous.

I also think of the FDA employees who argued against giving the same kind of protection to any FDA approved product when pharma lobbyists were trying to move things that far. They honestly said that the FDA would not be adequate protection. I wonder the same honesty is not voiced widely with vaccination. Does infectious disease drive away honest perspective and principles? Or does that fact that most have participated already in providing such an out-of-control vaccine schedule make powerful emotional investment in not seeing the results?

I wonder further, without corporate capture, if mandated oversight such as through the FDA and any subsequent approval creates moral hazard, if the better regulatory system might be a market where doctors/patients both do not assume someone is looking out for them, and possibly private consumer supported groups, ideally in a competition setting to provide advice valued by consumers, could provide adverse events monitoring and maybe even independent safety research. Corporations could still try to buy influence and results, but I think the actual effects on/satisfaction of consumers would weigh in more in what is practiced and available.

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.)