By Ginger Taylor, MS
We have all heard it from our peers (and our elders) when we say that we are not vaccinating any more because the vaccine program is corrupt and high risk.
“But I was vaccinated and I am fine.”
Then we attempt to launch into a 30 minute educational session on the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, Hannah Poling, Poul Thorson, William Thompson, Thomas Verstraeten, Julie Gerberding, HHS's failure to do their legally mandated vaccine safety research for 32 years, and no this is not really about Andrew Wakefield.
In an attempt to stop having to tell my story over and over again, I even managed to get a Johns Hopkins bioethics journal to print my very wordy reason for “No,” so that I could just hand it to people rather than explaining over and over and over.
Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics: “Families are Under No Obligation to Put Their Children at Risk By Participating in the Corrupt Current US National Immunization Program”
I ended my piece with this statement:
“The controversy surrounding vaccinations will never be resolved until the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act is repealed, and until families 7th amendment rights to have their complaints heard in civil court, under established legal procedure and ruled on by a jury, is restored.
Until there is a way to force public health officials, vaccine industry representatives and medical professionals to testify under oath, and under penalty of perjury, to either defend or retract their fraudulent claims, to pay for the damages done to children (including my child) for their institutionalized abuse and negligence, I will never consent to another member of my family participating in the vaccine program under any circumstances.”
I could have put it more succinctly by just saying, “we won't use liability-free vaccines any more.”
After doing this for 15 years I am a bit exhausted by the whole exercise of explaining, and expounding, and reminding, so as we here in Maine start up our fight against what promises to be an “SB277” type bill coming to our legislature, I have decided there is a more simple way to make this case without a 30 minute conversation, 30 times a day.
As there has not been a simple “vaccine” administered to a child for school entry since the 80s, I am going to stop talking about “vaccines,” and talk about “liability-free vaccines.”
I am going to point out that what the Maine mandatory vaccine law was written before 1985, was applicable to “vaccines,” when families had legal recourse against vaccine makers for corruption and hidden risks, and that current law should not apply to “Liability-Free Vaccines.” Which is what we have now.
I am philosophically opposed to my child receiving liability-free vaccines. Boom. Done.
“But you HAVE to! Do you want polio to come back?!”
No, I don't have to. If you were really afraid of polio coming back, you would replace liability to vaccine makers and fix the corruption in the vaccine program. You have not done your job to protect my children for the last 30 years. I'm out.
What I received as a child, even though in some cases they may be sold by the same company under the same brand name, was a fundamentally different product than what my children were given. Vaccine makers were subject to liability to harm from their products. That ended the year I graduated from high school.
Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg have correctly pointed out that vaccines free from liability when they are defectively designed, give no reason for vaccine makers to improve design, to mind how they are distributed, or to even keep up with basic or emerging science:
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
RUSSELL BRUESEWITZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. WYETH LLC, FKA WYETH, INC., FKA WYETH LABORATORIES, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
[February 22, 2011]
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins, dissenting.
Vaccine manufacturers have long been subject to a legal duty, rooted in basic principles of products liability law, to improve the designs of their vaccines in light of advances in science and technology. Until today, that duty was enforceable through a traditional state-law tort action for defective design. In holding that §22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act or Act), 42 U. S. C. §300aa–22(b)(1), pre-empts all design defect claims for injuries stemming from vaccines covered under the Act, the Court imposes its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress. In doing so, the Court excises 13 words from the statutory 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. Its decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products. Because nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history of the Vaccine Act remotely suggests that Congress intended such a result, I respectfully dissent.
Legislatures are ignorant of vaccine liability protection, and think vaccination has not changed since the mid-20th century.
“But I was vaccinated and I am fine.”
But you were not given liability-free vaccines.
It is a fundamentally different product line, subject to minimal oversight, and vaccine makers have no impetus to design them well or even manufacture them cleanly.
It is up to those who are advocating for vaccine mandates to defend the use of these products, and defend their mandates for school.
So let's start calling these products what they are, “Liability-Free Vaccines” so that nobody can possibly confuse them with the vaccines made once upon a time by manufacturers who could have been sued for a faulty product.
I am philosophically opposed to my child receiving liability-free vaccines.
About the Author: Ginger Taylor, MS, is the director of the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice.