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: Vaccine makers cannot be sued

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Supreme Court: Vaccine makers cannot be sued


www.msnbc.msn.com

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a federal law bars lawsuits against drug makers for the serious side effects from childhood vaccines.

By a 6-2 vote, the court ruled against the parents of a child who sued the drug maker Wyeth in Pennsylvania state court for the health problems they say their daughter, now 19, suffered from a vaccine she received in infancy.


(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I find this very disheartening. The ability to sue a company with for a bad drug, is one small thing we have to hold these companies accountable. We are not talking a fever here, we are talking serious disabling side effects that were proven have caused serious damage to a person.

I wonder now, without the threat of recourse what sort of garbage will they now attempt to get away with knowing they will not be held responsible for their actions.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
The pharmaceutical industry is incredibly wealthy, no way that would ever pass



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
That makes them God, or what? Its an illegal decision and the courts need overhauling and all their other decisions looked at.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by searching4truth
 


I agree.

All should be held accountable for their actions.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
From the source:

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

This is what happens when you have a conservative court that only sides with the corporations. It bends over backwards to see they remain untouchable or accountable for their actions.

For all the conservatives who fought against the mandatory vaccines resulting from the recent H1N1 flu scare, or felt that the WHO-predicted epidemic was another excuse to force vaccinations on the populace, guess what, your conservative SCOTUS just handed these pharmaceuticals impunity from any legal consequences resulting from their own drugs.

Way to go SCOTUS, another example of "power to the people" - not.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
The Scalia apparently determined that if a company were able to be sued, that companies would just stop making vaccines altogether.
I'm sorry, but there is far too much money in pharmacuticals for all the companies to close shop for few of being sued.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by searching4truth
 


but that little law does'nt apply in other countries



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Why were they giving vicodin to an infant? Doesn't the maker state that it could be dangerous even through breastmilk? If that is how it was given then they should have been warned by the pharmacist. It isn't the makers fault that they didn't follow directions. Sue the pharmacist. Unless they were illegally given to the mother which the parents are completely responsible.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by searching4truth
 

Where's the conspiracy?

The US Congress set up a special court solely for the "junk science" of vaccine litigation, only to see people try to go around or subvert it w/mass plaintiff litigation.

If these people had science on their side, they could go tot he proper forum.

They have neither the science nor the law on their sides, therefore, they lose.

jw



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by searching4truth
 




I wonder now, without the threat of recourse what sort of garbage will they now attempt to get away with knowing they will not be held responsible for their actions.
THE HORROR!!!!


No seriously...that is freakin scary...



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
I am going to write this but I want people to know that there are higher powers that control how this works I just want them to be in the forefront. When someone, anyone excepts a prescription and does NOT read the fine print, you are actually entering into an agreement with the Company. Not only to not sue them due to them telling you, even in very small print, but you have agreed to try and induce their product and deal with the consequences.

When a commercial is giving you the laughable yet very truthful information of suicidal thoughts, violent diarrhea, and uncontrollable urges to eat, that is YOUR for warning, and there is nothing that you can do about it if you enter the agreement by buying their product.

There was a time when these things were not told. Read, and be careful.

Peace, NRE.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by searching4truth
 


I read that earlier and I think it is ridiculous to not be held liable for negligence caused by your company. If you are profiting off the vaccines than there is a duty owed to the people who take the vaccines. They are taking them for protection not to get worse diseases.

It is always riskier getting your flu shots than living a healthy lifestyle.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I already started a thread on this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:43 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 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
 


You are quite right and more people should pay attention. I was extremely proud of my 80 year old mother last week. Her doctor told her he was giving her a RX for Celebrex. She told him not waste his time, she had seen the commercials on TV and she would rather deal with the problems she had then to invite in any new ones. He laughed and said well I don't want you taking anything that you don't feel comfortable taking. She said thank you and don't worry, I won't.

I guess for some wisdom only comes with age and for some never at all.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Can I ask the question if vaccinating children before they are able to be enrolled in either pre school or elementary school (I think that's what you call it) a legal requirement in America?
Because is so and parents can't opt out of vaccinating their children, then it's a gross miscarriage of justice if they can't then sue the company for life altering side effects.
I would think not being able to sue in those circumstances a valid reason not to be compelled to vaccinate either.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
From the source:

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

This is what happens when you have a conservative court that only sides with the corporations.
....


So the liberal judges "dissented". What does that mean?
They're in favor of the people and they lack the cajones to say so?
Read between the lines... read... the lines.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Flighty
 


Yes, there are shots the kiddies receive before entering school, actually they get numerous shots their first week of life. I told my doctor I was spacing them out because since I breastfed they had my immunities and I took my time shooting them up toxins.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


The special vaccine court is crap. There are limits to what a person can sue for, so that the company is in no risk of going bankrupt. Also, I have never heard of this said court before, I wonder if part of the settlement is that they will not speak publicly? Because that would be incredibly dangerous.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join