So we all know that vaccines injure and kill children and adults on a daily basis around the world. We also know that the pharmaceutical company has no LIABILITY for when this happens and we, as consumers, are expected to just let it go. Even the Supreme Court has said that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe”. But here are some things you didn’t know that this law professor discovered and wrote about in 2018. First a little bit about the author: Mary S. Holland, ” Director of the Graduate Lawyering program. She joined the NYU Lawyering faculty in 2002 and has directed the Graduate Lawyering program since 2004. Before teaching, she clerked for a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, worked for an international human rights organization, and was an associate at two major US law firms in international transactional law. She worked for American law firms in Moscow, Russia for three years. She graduated from Columbia Law School, Columbia School of International and Public Affairs and Harvard College. Her research interest is in human rights and health law, with a particular focus on the law and policy of vaccination. ” https://www.law.nyu.edu/graduateaffairs/graduatelawyering/facultybios
In an article she published in the Emory Law Journal in 2018, she made the following discovery details regarding vaccines and their safety during and AFTER the 1986 U.S. NATIONAL CHILDHOOD VACCINE INJURY ACT. Here are some excerpts from that article, but I recommend you read the complete article on the Emory Law Journal website at the links below.
” An important empirical study recently published confirms that the inability to sue vaccine manufacturers in U.S. civil courts since 1986 is associated with a decrease in vaccine safety in FDA-approved vaccines after 1986. 235 In this peer-reviewed analysis, Professor DeLong looked at what happened to vaccine safety after “delitigation” or removal of litigation risk through the Vaccine Act. Using national and state-level data, she found that vaccines the FDA licensed after the Vaccine Act are associated with more adverse events than those it licensed earlier when consumers could sue. 236
DeLong observes that after the Vaccine Act passed in 1986, the amount of investment in biologic products, including vaccines, tripled from $85.6 million in 1986 to $273.7 million in 1989. 239 Also the number of investigational new drug applications more than doubled from the 1980s to the 1990s, suggesting that manufacturers had incentives to produce new and potentially riskier products. 240
DeLong found that vaccines licensed after 1986 are associated with approximately 5.2 more reported adverse events per 100,000 vaccine doses than the vaccines that were licensed before the passage of Vaccine Act. 247 The weighted averages suggest that pre-legislation vaccines are associated with 14.0 adverse events per 100,000 while post-legislation vaccines are associated with 19.2 adverse events per 100,000. 248 This difference is statistically significant at the 1% level. 249 (Emphasis added)
DeLong’s analysis suggests that the Vaccine Act “gave firms greater incentives to capture the regulator: If consumers cannot sue firms for product liability, the only barrier to sales is regulatory approval.” 252
She suggests that the Vaccine Act may be creating “moral hazard” because vaccine manufacturers do not have to answer to people damaged by their products. 253 The manufacturers do not even contribute to the compensation fund; excise taxes from consumers fund it. DeLong has shown empirically that “[d]elitigation appears to have removed an important safety monitor in the vaccine industry” and suggests the need for further study. 254 She suggests that Dr. Salk, who opposed the creation of the NVICP in congressional hearings before Congress passed the Vaccine Act, “appears to be prescient in his concerns that indemnification would reduce incentives to improve an existing vaccine and to change vaccine policy.” 255 “Emory Law Journal, Volume 67, Issue 3 , 2018 (Holland)
Accessed June 11, 2019
If you wish to download it as a PDF you can download it at http://law.emory.edu/elj/_documents/volumes/67/3/holland.pdf
With all that being said, I feel that we are justified when we say that as long as the pharmaceutical giants don’t have to answer for their vaccines, which injure and kill people, they have no incentive to make sure that they are safe. Therefore, we must retain the right to choose for our families which vaccines, IF ANY, that we are willing to subject our families to. Remember, WHERE THERE IS A RISK, THERE MUST BE CHOICE!
Disclaimer: Information provided on this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical or legal advice.