It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court bars lawsuits against drugmakers over side effects from childhood vaccines.

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   


Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said Congress set up a special vaccine court to handle such claims as a way to provide compensation to injured children without driving drug manufacturers from the vaccine market. The idea, he said, was to create a no-fault system that spares the drug companies the costs of defending against parents' lawsuits.





Such was the case for Robalee and Russell Bruesewitz of Pittsburgh, who filed their lawsuit after the vaccine court rejected their claims for compensation. According to the lawsuit, their daughter, Hannah, was a healthy infant until she received the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine in April 1992. The vaccine was made by Wyeth, now owned by Pfizer, Inc.
news.yahoo.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Such was the case for Robalee and Russell Bruesewitz of Pittsburgh, who filed their lawsuit after the vaccine court rejected their claims for compensation. According to the lawsuit, their daughter, Hannah, was a healthy infant until she received the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine in April 1992. The vaccine was made by Wyeth, now owned by Pfizer, Inc.

So if this stands, the drug companies really are no longer held responsible in a court of law, for side effects from the vaccines they they put in our infants and children. It's big business, and our children are the casualties. This makes me sick. It's one thing to promote vaccines publicly, and to shell them out left and right. But now the Supreme Court has blocked the ability for parents to sue the drug makers for harmful side effects to their children. Makes me want to vomit.
edit on 22-2-2011 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2011 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Well until such time as this overturned, I'd suggest those that have any recourse than to buy from the companies producing the vaccines, they boycott the companies in question. While one person, or a thousand people doing so will just be ignored, it is the first step to causing a million people doing to boycott, and that can't be ignored by a company.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


They dont have any business in a Parents choice to vaccinate nor to butt in when a drug damages a childs life. Do not accept this.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Sounds like the eugenics program is stepping up a gear. It has been know for some time that there is a risk with vaccinations and when you look at the long term data the risks are greater than the benefits. This move to impede liability and compensation looks to be in defence of the corporations, yet again. How do we turn this situation around when the processes that are suppose to put balance back into the conflicts just shut their doors to it?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
Sounds like the eugenics program is stepping up a gear. It has been know for some time that there is a risk with vaccinations and when you look at the long term data the risks are greater than the benefits. This move to impede liability and compensation looks to be in defence of the corporations, yet again. How do we turn this situation around when the processes that are suppose to put balance back into the conflicts just shut their doors to it?

That's a good question.One of the reasons I'm surprised this hasn't struck a nerve with more people.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


This tells us that some of the vaccines coming out are designed to cause all kinds of problems e.g. sterilization, illnesses etc, so they are changing the laws to protect themselves, otherwise the risk would be too great


edit on 23-2-2011 by jameshawkings because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
It has been know for some time that there is a risk with vaccinations and when you look at the long term data the risks are greater than the benefits.


I SINCERELY hope that the above statement was a joke. There are easily thousands upon thousands (probably tens of thousands) of peer-reviewed scientific studies out there that show how beneficial vaccinations are and essentially none (that can be repeated and stand up to scrutiny) that show the risks outweighing the benefits.

Also, even if there was a 1 in 100,000 chance of a vaccine causing some terrible side effect, wouldn't that be better than a disease that has a death rate as high as 1 in 100 or even 1 in 50 (for some of the diseases now prevented by routine childhood vaccines).



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join