Do you have a copy of the article you can publish? It isn't accessible.

I have personally suffered through a reaction that had 3 parts,
1 ) I was given a Flu shot, pneumonia shot after receiving one the previous year within 2 to 3 days of each other while under maintenance therapy for hepatitis C which included interferon and ribavirin with the status of the hepatitis being undetectable.
This was the second attempt to eradicate the hepatitis C after waiting a full year and later finding out that I was shorted medicine due to my weight. In less than a week my hepatitis count went from negative to positive with a 2 million count with the day after the pneumonia shot being my last day of work, I have never worked again.
I live in extreme pain and ADD but I’m an adult and the respondent attempting to confuse the situation was able to deny me benefits due to the fact that the HMO did not want to admit that the flu shot triggered my symptoms which is black labeled never to be given along with immune suppressing therapies, in which hepatitis C is one of the most immune suppressing therapies you could go through. I found out about the government site that tracks the symptoms and it read like my medical records that have been tampered with by purging incriminating documentation. I was given time off slips for a year and a half while under the care of the same HMO with the first two weeks of slips showing no reason and the first reason there after was that I was not able to multitask omitting the pain that I was going through and the inability to walk any distance. Full documentation of my symptoms and their progression were written up later by the same HMO but because of the timing being a reviewed years later they would not be considered even though I was finishing arbitration with the HMO as my case with the federal vaccine program began his process. My records were held back, this violated my HIPA rights and most records were obtained immediately after a prestigious law firm decided to drop my case in the middle of the proceedings now seeking to be paid for what they told me they could not obtain, which were the records in which I was blamed for not obtaining when they had the power to force the HMO to hand over my entire medical record.
It was my insurance company they gave me the documents they connected the dots and reporting the incident myself to the CDC and the doctors response yet even though I had proved the connection to or three different ways I received a one sentence denial after seven years of litigation representing myself for the most part and being denied representation by any new attorney because of how famous the firm that drop me was. Built on that reputation alone no other attorney would take my case in the place of those that were lazy and verbally abusive and now are seeking money from the court or myself as it is hard to understand why they would be seeking money at all when the case went on three times further than their participation. All players in the court were changed throughout the process and the concern withered with these changes. I do not recommend this course as I believe it is kangaroo court. To allow my attorneys did just dropped my case in the middle after receiving almost my entire file to my insurance company was not only heartbreaking but I pushed on only to receive a one line denial due to the HMO waiting to disclose what they had done. I had been virtually cured from hepatitis C and started feeling symptoms of the flu shot the next day which grew to being paralyzed every morning for months with the HMO trying to treat every symptom individually when they had me on so many medications that the side effects in the eyes of the court could not be separated yet Rocha supplied me with free medicine eradicating the hepatitis C several years later without complications added, but this was not enough proof for the court. Being disabled immediately after the flu shot was not enough for the court. Being given a pneumonia shot 10 years early was not enough. Being given all this after eradicating hepatitis which was unnecessary and extremely large blunder on their part yet this was not enough. What is?

Several points in response to earlier comments. First, Congress authorized the special masters to “replace” the usual rules of civil discovery. They have the power to order discovery, they just never do, a good example being not allowing access to CDC’s VSD in the OAP. Second, because of all the medical information, Congress required confidentiality. Even if petitioners want transparency HHS can block it, and has always done so to hide the “true” reasons for compensation, for example the Zimmerman report in the Poling case. Third, the evidentiary standard set by Congress is actually quite low. But in off-table causation cases, it is very hard to meet, absent a very short interval of time between the vaccine and the injury, because there is no baseline data [or CDC still hides it in VSD] on unvaccinated children. Normally liability in so-called “toxic tort” cases requires a relative risk greater than 2.0. The original Verstraeten findings of a 7.62x risk based on Hg exposure and the 2.49x relative risk for early MMR found by the DeStefano team [per CDC whistleblower Thompson] were concealed by CDC, yet would have been sufficient for liability. Not only did CDC suppress these key results, it funded a bogus pile of epidemiology, much of which is now discredited, to exonerate vaccines of any causal relation to autism. CDC and Insel have blocked every proposal to do a vax vs. unvax study. Compensation for the autism cases, potentially well exceeding $1 trillion will not happen until there is “beyond reproach” epidemiology confirming this excess risk. But even the “big money” in the community, Autism Speaks, refuses to fund such an essential study, and it an expensive one. Conspiracy theories abound.

Congress wanted to resolve doubts in favor of petitioners and directed that the Secretary conduct research, i.e. the vax/unvax study to fill in gaps in the science. The legislative history explained: “The Committee recognizes that there is public debate over the incidence of illnesses that coincidentally occur within a short time of vaccination. The Committee further recognizes that the deeming of vaccine-relatedness adopted here may provide compensation to some children whose illness is not, in fact, vaccine-related. The Committee anticipates that the research on vaccine injury and vaccine safety now ongoing and mandated by this legislation will soon provide more definitive information about the incidence of vaccine injury and that, when such information is available, the Secretary or the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (discussed below in Section 2119) may propose to revise the Table, as provided below in Section 2114. Until such time, however, the Committee has chosen to provide compensation to all persons whose injuries meet the requirements of the petition and the Table and whose injuries cannot be demonstrated to be caused by other factors.” HHS continues to ignore both the required research and insists on an impossibly high standard of proof, arguing that “children will die” if compensation is awarded that undermines public confidence in vaccine safety.

Finally, Congress intended Vaccine Court as an quick family-friendly addition to civil litigation, not as a substitute, and that normal civil litigation remained completely available [but for the three-year statute of limitations trap] to those who were unsatisfied with their win or loss in vaccine court. Obama joined Wyeth in seeking much broader immunity than originally granted by Congress. You’d expect the political left to side with a child injured, even unintentionally by Big Pharma, letting the costs of “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines to be “socialized” through insurance [civil litigation] or the taxpayers [NVICP]. Did Obama need Pharma support for Obamacare? Or, was it the leftist meme that the “greater good” trumps individual rights? The arrogance of Obama’s argument to the Court was stunning: “Guaranteeing that a vaccine is potent enough to ensure that a disease is contained or eradicated in this way entails trade-offs between safety and potency. . . . The tort system—in which juries may pay little heed to this calculus, see ibid.—is poorly equipped to encourage such optimally safe and potent vaccines. That is why Congress recognized through the Act that expert regulators, in conjunction with the medical community, should control the availability and withdrawal of a given vaccine. . . . Studies on new versions of existing vaccines are all the more difficult because medical ethics and study design considerations generally preclude testing the new vaccine on a population that has enjoyed access to the proven old vaccine.”

Congress mandated quite a different policy in the Vaccine Act, saying in the legislative history: “The Federal government has the responsibility to ensure that all children in need of immunization have access to them and to ensure that all children who are injured by vaccines have access to sufficient compensation for their injuries.” Above all else, Congress was crystal clear in preserving the traditional access to tort litigation if Vaccine Court was not fulfilling its intended purpose of adequately compensating the vaccine-injured: “The bill establishes a compensation system for those persons injured by routine pediatric vaccines. The system is intended to be expeditious and fair. It is also intended to compensate persons with recognized vaccine injuries without requiring the difficult individual determinations of causation of injury and without a demonstration that a manufacturer was negligent or that a vaccine was defective. While the bill does not prohibit a vaccine-incurred person who has completed compensation proceedings from going on to court, the system is intended to lessen the number of lawsuits against manufacturers. Toward this end, the bill requires that a person with an injury resulting from a vaccine that was administered after the enactment of this legislation file a compensation petition and go through the compensation program before proceeding with any litigation against a manufacturer. If, however, after compensation proceedings are complete, a vaccine-injured person elects to reject the system's findings and award and go on to court, he or she is free to do so. The Committee anticipates that the speed of the compensation program, the low transaction costs of the system, the no-fault nature of the required findings, and the relative certainty and generosity of the system's awards will divert a significant number of potential plaintiffs from litigation. . . . Persons in the third group must complete the compensation proceeding and reject its judgment and its award before pursuing a civil action against a manufacturer for vaccine injury.” Since the Bruesewitz decision was simply a [wrong] construction of the statute, it can easily [and such cases routinely are] reversed by Congressional action to restore its original intent. This would go a long way to restoring some honesty to the program and would induce Pharma to add more injuries to the Table to socialize the risks and avoid litigation, precisely furthering the goal that all who are injured by justly compensated.

It is very significant that the HHS official admits, again, that vaccines do cause autism, albeit with the intervening sophistry of “brain illness:” “[the court] has not compensated any cases based upon autism alone in the absence of sudden serious brain illness after vaccination," In a May 5, 2008 email to investigative reporter rockstar Sharyl Attkisson, HHS admitted “The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines. We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease.” Although it is one of the least well kept “secrets” among the cognocenti, CDC still lies to the public “vaccines not associated with risk of autism.”

A big question is why are the special masters so reticent in awarding more money? My opinion is that either the special masters are incompetent (which I suspect they are) or there is a very heavy hand in the background that threatens to remove a master from his job. $3.5 billion currently in the pot is a lot of money that hasn't been spent. Do we call this pot the Hedge Fund Against Vaccine Injured Persons? Who is behind hording this treasure?

Great article! Unfortunately reading the National Law Review requires a subscription. Right now congress will not touch this subject. What are they afraid of? Since "no elected official" is being bribed by any of the PAC money (just kidding), they should be free to do what's right. It is so important for congressmen/women to for once act like upstanding citizens.

Millions of American children have been given the same 9 vaccines as Hannah Poling. Some with 9 on the same day, some with a small amount of space in between.

Hannah Poling probably had more tests and records than any other American child, on what "actually happens" to a child after multiple vaccines.

Of course all her court records & tests were demanded to be sealed from the public by the CDC.

Louis and Wayne ARE THE EXPERTS on how the NVICP works. They've spent YEARS studying it. The NVICP is a corrupt, clandestine and unjust program in the Federal Court System. It serves only the interests of the vaccine industry.