CNN Covers Measles Vaccine Debate with Mary Holland and Alex Berezow
By Anne Dachel
Mary Holland, Research Scholar at NYU Law and Alex Berezow, PhD appeard on CNN with Alisyn Camerota to discuss the measles outbreak.
As long as the media is adamant that vaccines carry no real risks and every child needs to be vaccinated to prevent death and disease, the cover-up will continue.
The lies are everywhere. In the face of all the propaganda, Mary Holland's appearance on CNN was a voice for us all.
Forbes contributor Alex Berezow advocated for FORCED VACCINATION. It was very scary to hear him talk.
Berezow cited the movie Erin Brockovich and said that Brockovich's claim that hexavalent chromium was dangerous had been debunked by population (epidemiological) research. (And of course this kind of science is often used to deny damage because the results are so easily flawed and manipulated. They're the science that shows vaccines carry no serious side effects.)
Anyone who's seen that movie witnessed how the industry tried every lie and underhanded maneuver to cover up the damage being done. By defending a toxic chemical compound, Berezow appeared to be an industry shill and not an authentic journalist.
By the way, here's what the CDC says about Hexavalent Chromium. Someone should tell Alex Berezow.
NIOSH considers all Cr(VI) compounds to be occupational carcinogens. Cr(VI) is a well-established carcinogen associated with lung, nasal, and sinus cancer. Some of the industries in which the largest numbers of workers are exposed to high concentrations of airborne Cr(VI) compounds include electroplating, welding, and chromate painting. A hierarchy of controls, including elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, and the use of personal protective equipment, should be followed to control workplace exposures. Dermal exposure to Cr(VI) should also be prevented to reduce the risk of skin irritation, corrosion, ulcers, sensitization, and allergic contact dermatitis.
Alex Berezow of RealClearScience believes parents who don't vaccinate their children should be put in jail. NYU Research Scholar Mary Holland reminds him that the vaccine can kill, so parents and their medical providers are the best people to make vaccine decisions for children.
On the video Forbes reporter Alex Berezow proposes that jail for non-vaxxing parents should only be used when nothing else works. "And as a last resort, in extreme cases, put someone in jail for 24 hours while they vaccinate their kids. I certainly wouldn't support prison for people though."
Mary Holland: "It is important to remember that as a legal matter, all vaccines are considered 'unavoidably unsafe.' In other words, all vaccines, like the illnesses that they're intended to prevent carry inherent risks. People are injured by vaccines. More than 3,800 people have been compensated by the federal government for vaccine injury, including death. So brain damage and death are common side effects of the vaccine, just as they are of the illness."
Mary made the case for informed consent and parental choice. She cited the death associated with the measles vaccine.
Berezow focused on the deaths from measles and dismissed the risks. "The numbers are very, very, very, very small. ...In 1980, before we started mass vaccination, 2.6 million people globally died from measles. To this day, 400 people throughout
die everyday from the measles. Measles kills one in 1,000 children who get it. One in twenty who get it, will come down with pneumonia--which is a very very serious infection and can be lethal in and of itself. So you have to compare the risk getting
measles to the risk of vaccinating against measles. I was checking the CDC statistics. They said there is no is no reliable data on the MMR vaccine because deaths are so infrequent. The most serious side effects from the MMR vaccine are seizures--which happen in a one in 3,000 vaccines, and allergic reactions, which happen about one in a million. The CDC itself said there were no deaths from the MMR vaccine."
Mary's response: "Alex is not talking about the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which is a federally funded program to deal with vaccine injuries. The pharmaceutical industry and doctors have almost no liability, and for that reason we created this. In that program, we've had 57 allegations of death and over 350. . . compensated cases for vaccine injury from MMR."
CNN Anchor Alisyn Camerota asked why parents should be allowed to make this decision, considering they're not the experts, and not vaccinating could lead to more death from measles and other diseases.
Mary pointed out that the number of parents opting out is very small.
Berezow: "As Ms Holland well knows, just because you can get a win in a courtroom, doesn't mean that it's scientifically valid. Everyone remembers the movie Erin Brockovich, in which the hexavalent chromium supposedly caused cancer in a small California community, and the company that was supposedly guilty, ended up settling out of court of $330,000,000. Well, a subsequent epidemiological investigation totally debunked the case that Erin--"
After a question from Camerota in vaccine injury, Berezow said, "You can become injured by a vaccine, but these are rare compared to the injures caused by the diseases--"
Mary: "That may be, but who's in the best position to decide? . . . Doctors and parents have to make those calls."
Anne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism and author of The Big Autism Cover-Up: How and Why the Media Is Lying to the American Public, which is on sale this Fall from Skyhorse Publishing.
Anne Dachel, thank you for your work here. In addition, in terms of what he said about Erin Brockovich and Hexavalent Chromium (posted video at 5:16 minutes), thank you for pointing out that “By defending a toxic chemical compound, Berezow appeared to be an industry shill and not an authentic journalist.” You gave excellent references. Perhaps he might look also at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25231674 . So yes parents, please consider the tradeoffs between benefits and risks of each vaccine and do not let the Pharmaceutical corporations do it for you.
Posted by: Jim Thompson | February 12, 2015 at 07:46 AM
Godfrey
It would be progress. However, we have theoretical access to the courts in the UK which is effectively blocked by a highly politicised funding body, so it would have to be for real.
Posted by: John Stone | February 12, 2015 at 03:11 AM
John, I had prepared a much longer reply, which I could supply, but I think that this might go to the heart of the matter:
Would you be satisfied with an amendment to the NCVIA that provided for an exclusive choice between the Court of Federal Claims no-fault system as it stands or state tort litigation?
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | February 12, 2015 at 02:17 AM
Hi Godfrey
Welll you could try page 3 of the syllabus (document not available on-line this morning)!
Actually, I believe I have gone into quite lengthy explanation of why you are wrong. And if you go to Judge Scalia's lengthier consideration on which the syllabus is based it is pretty clear because he examines the problem that there may have to be a sacrifice of safety to effectiveness and when he considers the interpretation of Brueswitz he also asserts how he understands comment k - and this is obviously important to the case, otherwise he would't go on about it.
"The second regards the questions of whether Bruesewitz rendered the NCVIA bad public policy, or, subsidiarily, the law did this itself: Few would argue with no-fault divorce laws, for example. Were you to have a magic wand, would you create a system under which one had the choice only of one or the other?"
I am not sure what you saying here. But I think most fundamentally pharmaceutical companies should be held liable in law for the safety of all their products. I also object to the way the machinery of the NVICP leaves most cases sealed. These things leave the citizen at a grave disadvantage.
Also, I note that the only way to get a vaccine injury recognised is to sue through the NVICP. No one is going to hold their hands up and say 'Sorry, we did it'. No one says thank you to the vaccine injured and there families (as Julie Obradovic recently pointed out): they just run campaigns of abuse and intimidation to keep the numbers low.
PS I just got it - one spouse or the other. I don't really think it is like that.
Posted by: John Stone | February 11, 2015 at 04:11 AM
John, I will address these two points and refrain from unnecessarily drawing out the exchange. The Media Update "NBC News' Measles The Press" makes clear that this is an editorial stance.
The first of these points is your assertion that I am mistaken. You have not explained why. The syllabus is a summary written by the Court. http://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/13/fall_2012/how_to_read_a_ussupremecourtopinion.html
The second regards the questions of whether Bruesewitz rendered the NCVIA bad public policy, or, subsidiarily, the law did this itself: Few would argue with no-fault divorce laws, for example. Were you to have a magic wand, would you create a system under which one had the choice only of one or the other?
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | February 11, 2015 at 01:32 AM
re: "It is important to remember that as a legal matter, all vaccines are considered 'unavoidably unsafe."
John and Jenny, it seems that some these comments by Godfrey divert discussions here on the legal matter of risks of vaccine injury.
Consider that Mary Holland may not have been specifically talking about the Supreme Court Ruling. But if she were then the word “any” replacing the word “all,” and the words “may be” replacing the word “are” might resolve the point.
Either way serious injury and death from vaccine design defects are federally exempt from pursuit of justice in State courts. And our elected representatives in Washington, DC bear that responsibility because they granted the drug companies immunity from liability for vaccine injury in 1986. We must demand they change the law.
Sjostrom and Nilsson had it right 40 years ago.
“It is preposterous to assume that the drug industry can be allowed to prosper when their results are positive, but refrain from paying damages and pass the burden of responsibility on to society when something goes wrong with their products…It seems, in principle, self-evident that no free enterprise can expect only to share the profits of their products without also taking responsibility for any damage caused by them.”
Sjostrom and Nilsson, “Thalidomide and the Power of the Drug Companies,” (1972) p. 276.
Make no mistake here. Serious injury and death from vaccine design defects occur and are federally exempt from pursuit of justice in State courts. Does that mean then that since our society might not survive without cars, trains, or planes that we must allow legal immunity for the manufacturers’ design? Of course not, or in John Stone’s words--“rubbish!”
Posted by: Jim Thompson | February 09, 2015 at 07:47 AM
Jenny
Yes, indeed. And it is a bit much when what Scalia does at of the end the judgment is to consider what is meant by the phrase "unavoidably unsafe" outside any history of what significance lower courts have placed on it - what it means is entirely relevant to the judgment. He is upholding the principle which the Bruesewitz lawyers were trying to limit. He could have said this issue is excluded from consideration by the vaccine injury act but actually he said something a lot more complicated, including about how products might have to be more dangerous to be more effective, and about the historical context in which the Vaccine Injury Act was drafted.
Godfrey - perhaps I went a bit far but I think you are mistaken and that it is necessary to go beyond p.2 of the "syllabus". And does it stop it being oppressive and bad law, anyway? Maybe people can avoid discussing the nitty gritty on the major news networks - write and broadcast a lot of rubbish about anti-vaccinationists and Andrew Wakefield etc. etc. - but we are here on AoA and we are discussing the reality that we have a foolishly unbalanced legislative framework which only protects the interests of behemoth corporations and their ever more captive market. And this is presumably the position which you are supporting.
Posted by: John Stone | February 09, 2015 at 02:39 AM
"unavoidably unsafe" is a very specific term of U.S. legal art."
Love this definition Godfrey Wyl. I will be adding 'legal art' to my growing list of spindoctoring quotes and doublespeak. (Dorit Reiss is a master of 'legal art'.).
Posted by: Jenny Allan | February 09, 2015 at 02:17 AM
Here is another link to the 1986 federal law discussing "side effects"
See http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/ucm149475.htm
Posted by: Jim Thompson | February 08, 2015 at 11:38 PM
I believe Godfrey, although I think he is arguing a technicality of legal classification.
I wonder what the legal term for "will cause injury or death to a percentage of users, with the non-random statistical chance of injury varying per person, per product lot and per circumstances of delivery"
Could you shed some light on this Godfrey?
Posted by: Doodle | February 08, 2015 at 11:18 PM
As a legal matter serious injury and death from vaccines is considered a “side effect.”
A 1986 federal law states:
“(a) GENERAL RULE.-Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (e) State law shall apply to a civil action brought for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death.
(b) UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE SIDE EFFECTS; WARNINGS. -- (1) 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 the effective date of this subtitle if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”
See (42 USC 300aa-22) and Section 2122 at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-2 .
And the Supreme Court majority opinion generally upheld the denial of victims and their families’ rights to sue in State courts for those “side effects.”
Also a federal law requires disclosure on package inserts for risks of vaccines. See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-09-13/html/05-18040.htm .
So as a legal matter is that why the CDC covered up evidence found in a 2004 CDC case study showing Measle/Mumps/ Rubella Vaccines given to African American babies under three years old may have tripled their risk of Autism? See http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/09/08/cdc-scientists-shocking-confession-mmr-vaccine-likely-cause-autism-black-babies/ .
Posted by: Jim Thompson | February 08, 2015 at 11:16 PM
Jenny, I have a related comment awaiting moderation, but "unavoidably unsafe" is a very specific term of U.S. legal art.
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | February 08, 2015 at 08:50 PM
You appear to be arguing that the preemption outcome of Bruesewitz is functionally equivalent to an adoption of comment k and that, therefore, they are the same thing.
This is false.
I also do not appreciate in the slightest your assertion that I am lying ("trying to pull the wool").
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | February 08, 2015 at 08:37 PM
Hi Jenny
Of course, British citizens have not lost the theoretical right to sue the manufacturers but they will be prevented effectively from doing so by the highly politcised Legal Aid Agency, formerly the Legal Services Commission, formerly the Legal Aid Board. In the UK the way to the courts is effectively blocked for any pharmaceutical these days (the LSC as it then was even blocked suing Merck over Vioxx in 2008/9). Pharmaceutical companies can market all their wares without significant fear of legal liability. While the UK Vaccine Damage Payment Unit offers a very slow trickle of derisory awards (often years go by without a single award) it shares with the US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program its no fault element - from a legal perspective I suspect no vaccine injuries are ever acknowledged in either country.
Scalia's judgment reminded me once again of the line from Orwell's '1984': “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.”
Posted by: John Stone | February 08, 2015 at 09:17 AM
John -I agree vaccine and other health service related damage compensation laws are ROTTEN as they stand, hopelessly weighted against plaintiffs attempting to sue for health damage caused by mistakes, incompetence and bad government decisions.
Parents need to be told, vaccine injury compensation schemes are presently not fit for purpose. They are hugely costly and parents have to prove the vaccine damaged their children, (almost impossible). Attempts to sue through the courts have an additional 'proof', namely the parents as well as proving vaccine damage, must also prove their child was damaged by a mistake or incompetence in vaccine administration, and not by unfortunate 'misadventure'. In other words if vaccine damage is stated (as it is) to be extremely rare, then parents, who are required to provide consent, are accepting the risk, albeit a stated unlikely one. Since vaccine manufacturers have no legal liability in both US and UK, then plaintiffs must sue the health providers administering the vaccines, and somehow prove incompetence.
It took Jackie Fletcher more than 18 years in the UK, to get compensation for her son Robert, severely disabled following the MMR vaccine. The amount awarded was derisory, but this victory was significant. I believe this was Jackie's third attempt at obtaining justice for her son and her success was only possible after an official UK government admittance, 20 years after MMR vaccine was introduced in the UK 1988, that the Urabe containing MMR vaccine was unsafe. Even then, the health clinic responsible for administering the Immravax MMR vaccine, later claimed Robert was vaccinated with a Tetanus vaccine, by the same French manufacturer. I expect Jackie, kept Robert's copy of Deer's 'baby book' nemesis. This is what Deer called the little red books issued to every mother, which record all vaccinations and other infant health issues, written and signed by health personnel.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | February 08, 2015 at 06:20 AM
Hi Jenny
No, Godfrey is definitely wrong and trying to pull the wool. Scalia doesn't stop with the vaccine injury act which may exempt the product from litigation, he is asserting that there is no obligation on the manufacturer to attempt even relative safety.
For all I know Scalia's opinion is right but it is rotten law al the same.
Posted by: John Stone | February 08, 2015 at 04:44 AM
John and Godfrey
OF COURSE vaccines are 'unavoidably unsafe' and admitted to be so, even by the likes of that vaccine millionaire and procrastinater, Paul Offit. If vaccines were 100% safe we would not have Government vaccine damage compensation schemes. You are both correct in your arguments, but courts of law are not level playing fields. The Supreme Court will have been under tremendous corporate and political pressure in the Bruesewitz case. If the court had found in their favour, this would have 'opened the floodgates' to thousands more vaccine damage litigation cases.
The following explanation explains the legal responsibilities of Courts. Inevitably, the perceived ‘public interest’ issues skew the verdicts:-
http://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/what-is-an-unavoidably-unsafe-product.html
Extract
“Types of Unavoidably Unsafe Products
The most widely recognized category of unavoidably unsafe products is prescription drugs. Some courts hold that all medications automatically qualify as unavoidably unsafe on the theory that public policy favors the development of beneficial drugs even if their introduction poses some risk. Other courts weigh the usefulness of the drug against its risk of harm in the same way they would for any other product.
Some courts also find medical devices, vaccines, and blood products are unavoidable unsafe. When deciding whether these products are unavoidably unsafe the court may look at the type and quality of research done on the drug or device. Courts also look at how necessary to human life and public health the product is and whether the FDA looked at it to determine its risk vs utility.”
Posted by: Jenny Allan | February 08, 2015 at 04:29 AM
Godfrey
"The consistent gloss represents the public understanding of the term. We cannot make the same assumption when widespread disagreement exists among the lower courts.We must make do with giving the term its most plausible meaning using the traditional tools of statutory interpretation."
So Scalia is not only rejecting Brueswewitz's interpretation of how the law has evolved he is upholding an undiluted form of "unavoidably unsafe" in relation to the case. He is rejecting the idea that because there might be safer versions of the product the manufacturers were negligent.
Or try p.13:
"Indeed, 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. And the decision is surely not an easy one. Drug manufacturers often could trade a little less efficacy for a little more safety, but the safest design is not always the best one."
Posted by: John Stone | February 08, 2015 at 04:06 AM
John, I honestly have no idea what you're trying to contend. I have already noted that mentioning an argument is a prerequisite to rejecting it.
I will readily concede that every time the "unavoidably unsafe" slogan comes to my attention, I am puzzled as to why the Bruesewitzes advanced it in the first place. The internal inconsistencies are described here:
http://druganddevicelaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/bruesewitz-footnote.html
The assertion that "as a legal matter, all vaccines are considered 'unavoidably unsafe'" remains false all the same.
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | February 07, 2015 at 10:51 PM
Godfrey
Whatever, if you go to p.18-19 of Scalia's judgment he is apparently invoking the principle of "unavoidably unsafe" and "comment k" while rejecting Bruesewitz's interpretation of how the law had evolved by the 1980s. It is a relevant principle that he considers at the end of his judgment.
Posted by: John Stone | February 07, 2015 at 06:36 PM
Comment k, the origin of the term "unavoidably unsafe," comes from the Restatement (Second) of Torts. This is not law per se, and not all jurisdictions accept its original form.
The briefs are readily available. The Bruesewitzes' argument was that comment k entitled them to present to a jury whether its exemption from strict liability applied (Petitioners' Brief at 23--26). That is, they sought a case-by-case determination whether the vaccine in question was "unavoidably unsafe"; were it not, they would have faced a much lower hurdle as state-law plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court, in rejecting this invocation of comment k, also rejected wholesale the applicability of the term of art. It is simply false to assert that this somehow amounts to precisely the opposite.
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | February 07, 2015 at 04:49 PM
Alex Berezow says "...put somebody in jail for 24 hours while they vaccinate their kids." What a Pharma marketing tool!
Posted by: Jim Thompson | February 07, 2015 at 09:00 AM
Godfrey
I think you are wrong but it may help readers to know what "comment k" is. As I understand the court is rejecting the case for liability because of a design defect. Although we don't have the Bruesewitz brief to hand "unavoidably unsafe" is the accepted formula for licensed pharmaceuticals with risks attached:
"§ 402A. Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer
"Comment k:
"Unavoidably unsafe products. There are some products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use. These are especially common in the field of drugs. An outstanding example is the vaccine for the Pasteur treatment of rabies, which not uncommonly leads to very serious and damaging consequences when it is injected. Since the disease itself invariably leads to a dreadful death, both the marketing and use of the vaccine are fully justified, notwithstanding the unavoidable high degree of risk which they involve. Such a product, properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warning, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous. The same is true of many other drugs, vaccines, and the like, many of which for this very reason cannot legally be sold except to physicians, or under the prescription of a physician. It is also true in particular of many new or experimental drugs as to which, because of lack of time and opportunity for sufficient medical experience, there can be no assurance of safety, or perhaps even of purity of ingredients, but such experience as there is justifies the marketing and use of the drug notwithstanding a medically recognizable risk. The seller of such products, again with the qualification that they are properly prepared and marketed, and proper warning is given, where the situation calls for it, is not to be held to strict liability for unfortunate consequences attending their use, merely because he has undertaken to supply the public with an apparently useful and desirable product, attended with a known but apparently reasonable risk."
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/drugsf02/comment_k.htm
http://druganddevicelaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/comment-k-some-of-way.html
The principle is certainly being invoked.
Posted by: John Stone | February 07, 2015 at 04:32 AM
This should not be surprising when the comment k attempt is being flatly rejected by SCOTUS.
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | February 07, 2015 at 12:45 AM
Godfrey Wyl
It is very convoluted language but I see no ultimate alternative to the product, though defective by design and likely to cause harm, being excluded from litigation according to the ruling. The phrase "unavoidably unsafe" occurs. The fact that there might have been a safer product, for instance, still does not place liability on the manufacturer. It is an acceptable position according to SCOTUS, and notably Judge Scalia, that products are "unsafe" and this is "unavoidable". Anyone can read for themselves.
W&N (White and Nerdy) is a wellkown troll under various aliases who has spent a lot of time marking me on the web.
Posted by: John Stone | February 06, 2015 at 03:38 AM
@Who is William Thompson ?:
I have provided the plainly worded holding of the Supreme Court of the United States, which is that, "as a legal matter," vaccines are not considered "unavoidably unsafe."
Package inserts have no bearing whatever on the matter.
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | February 06, 2015 at 12:51 AM
@John Stone:
I do not know what "W&N" is supposed to denote, nor is page 4 relevant to anything that I have stated. I similarly have not the slightest idea what your second sentence is supposed to mean.
If you wish to take issue with something particular in what I have written, by all means do so.
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | February 06, 2015 at 12:39 AM
"It is important to remember that as a legal matter, all vaccines are considered 'unavoidably unsafe'...."
Godfrey Wyl - just read any vaccine insert !
I cannot believe we have to entertain people who consider themselves serious commentators , but who have such a basic rudimentary grasp of the issues !
Godfrey you are making a fool of yourself .
Posted by: Who is William Thompson ? | February 05, 2015 at 05:32 AM
Hi Godfrey
"The statement that "as a legal matter, all vaccines are considered 'unavoidably unsafe'" is false, and this is made transparently clear on page 2."
I should say that that is about as transparent as mud.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
W&N used to go on about p.4 for some reason. But you are obviously wrong both in word and in effect.
Posted by: John Stone | February 05, 2015 at 04:56 AM
One in which the Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbiter of U.S. law.
You are quoting from a footnote in the dissent in a 6-to-2 ruling. The House committee report is addressed at pages 16-19 of the actual (slip) opinion. Sotomayor's invocation of it fares poorly, which ought not to be surprising, given that a remark from a committee of one of the two houses of Congress can hardly be taken to establish the totality of legislative intent.
There is no reason to belabor the subject: The statement that "as a legal matter, all vaccines are considered 'unavoidably unsafe'" is false, and this is made transparently clear on page 2.
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | February 04, 2015 at 09:26 PM
@ Godfrey Wyl,
“ Subsection (b)—Unavoidable Adverse Side Effects; Direct Warnings .—This provision sets forth the principle contained in Comment K of Section 402A of the Restatement of Torts (Second) that a vaccine manufacturer should not be liable for injuries or deaths resulting from unavoidable side effects even though the vaccine was properly prepared and accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
“The Committee has set forth Comment K in this bill because it intends that the principle in Comment K regarding ‘unavoidably unsafe’ products, i.e., those products which in the present state of human skill and knowledge cannot be made safe, apply to the vaccines covered in the bill and that such products not be the subject of liability in the tort system.” Id. , at 25–26.
Posted by: david m burd | February 04, 2015 at 10:01 AM
@ Godfrey Wyl, What legal planet are you on??? This quote is representative of court responses in vaccination arguments; "Congress viewed the covered vaccines as a class to be "unavoidably unsafe." THIS is the rationale for the (insane in my view) law passed in 1986 absolving vaccine makers (no matter how sloppy & contaminated) of any fiscal blame. Read this quote:
8 Respondent suggests an alternative reading of the 1986 Report. According to respondent, “the principle in Comment K” is simply that of nonliability for “unavoidably unsafe” products, and thus Congress’ stated intent in the 1986 Report to apply the “principle in Comment K” to “the vaccines covered in the bill” means that Congress viewed the covered vaccines as a class to be “ ‘unavoidably unsafe.’ ” 1986 Report 25–26; Brief for Respondent
Posted by: david m burd | February 04, 2015 at 09:50 AM
Bill O'Reilly said if he had his way he would mandate the MMR vaccine.
After Jett Trovolta's death - I saw the face of him and his guess as they were confused with what seizures, Kawasaki's disease, heart disease and autism had to do with each other -- and the next night - he and his guess had this look of astonishment but mums the word look on their faces. He darn well knows
He is nothing but a Murdoch sock puppet.
Posted by: Benedetta | February 03, 2015 at 09:58 PM
epidemiological studies-- LOL
Worked well in the way he set it up that Erin Brockvich findings of kids with cancer - just did not show up with those epidmiological studies.
He is a young guy -Young and stupid. Sigh, been there myself.
Posted by: Benedetta | February 03, 2015 at 09:54 PM
It is rather disturbing to hear this falsehood coming from Ms. Holland. Once again, to quote the Bruesewitz court's holding,
"Contrary to petitioners' argument, there is no reason to believe that §300aa–22(b)(1)'s term 'unavoidable' is a term of art incorporating Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A, Comment k, which exempts from strict liability rules 'unavoidably unsafe products.'" Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, No. 09-152, slip op. at 2 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2011) (emphasis added).
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | February 03, 2015 at 06:26 PM
Thank you, Mary Holland, Alyson Camerota!
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | February 03, 2015 at 02:57 PM
57 deaths from vaccines, 1 death from measles
The outrage about vaccines should be 57 times more than the outrage about measles.
I am quite sure this video won't be available for long, just as I am sure Rand Paul won't be elected if his opinion about vaccines remains as it is. I have not forgotten what GW Bush and Obama said about mercury in vaccines in their campaign promises. Don't be fooled again.
Posted by: A Mom | February 03, 2015 at 11:41 AM
Great job by Mary Holland here. Also I find it humorous that Allyson Cammerota (love her) had this live piece between intelligent, educated Mary Holland and some young dumb journalist who probably has zero life experience. His article was full of logical errors and just made him seem arrogant and extremist.
Posted by: Kristine | February 03, 2015 at 11:17 AM
I wonder if the producers at CNN really want their kids to be forced to take every single vaccine that Merck and the others come up with.
Posted by: Doodle | February 03, 2015 at 10:28 AM
It still amazes me that risk is assumed to be equal for all people taking vaccines in Berezow's argument. I'm sure 99% of the viewers would think so also, since they have no ability to logically deduce anything.
Posted by: Doodle | February 03, 2015 at 10:24 AM
From above:- "Berezow cited the movie Erin Brockovich and said that Brockovich's claim that hexavalent chromium was dangerous had been debunked by population (epidemiological) research."
What an idiot Berezow was to cite that much loved Julia Roberts film Erin Brockovich, and her fight to prove the dangers of hexavalent chromium. His apparent blind faith in 'epidemiological studies' which 'debunked' both the inherent dangers of hexavalent chromium, and the dangers inherent in vaccines, was easily rubbished by Mary Holland, who was able to cite the large numbers of vaccine damaged Government compensation cases, including 57 alleged MMR vaccine deaths.
I don't know when 'epidemiological studies' replaced statistical analyses, but I'm quite sure the E word was invented because it sounds quite 'scientific', and people simply don't trust statistics. Why should they, when raw data can be manipulated to 'prove' almost anything!?
I dont' want to give them 'hits', but over at Science Blogs, Gorski is attempting to prove those fully vaccinated Disney measles cases did not represent vaccine failures!! Sorry Gorski!! We are not that stupid. If fully MMR vaccinated is being 'sold' as immunised for life, (all 3 diseases), then people are entitled to expect lifetime immunity from all 3 diseases.
Vaccine failure is vaccine failure, however you dress it up, and the recent worldwide measles epidemics, in well vaccinated populations, represents -VACCINE FAILURES!!
From above:- "Here's what the CDC says about Hexavalent Chromium. Someone should tell Alex Berezow.
NIOSH considers all Cr(VI) compounds to be occupational carcinogens. Cr(VI) is a well-established carcinogen associated with lung, nasal, and sinus cancer."
Posted by: Jenny Allan | February 03, 2015 at 07:29 AM