posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:49 AM
The real problem is not the "rare instances" in which a child, or any person, experiences lethal side effects from vaccinations. I believe this
could easily be proven to not be the fault of the pharmaceutical companies since they have no way of knowing every single issue a particular person
has. That they may be prescribed their medication/vaccine isn't really up to them, but their doctors. Again, the key words here are "rare".
However, what this ruling creates is the possibility that pharmaceutical companies will no longer bother checking interactions across a broader
segment (i.e. more common conditions such as asthma) knowing that they can no longer face potential lawsuits.
I personally believe this came about because of the Swine Flu and the government's insistence that a vaccine be produced in months, not the usual
years. By rushing to find a vaccine, the drugs are not as well tested and therefore the risk of unknown side effects increase. On the side of the
pharmaceutical companies, why should they listen to the government's urge to speed up production if they face they risk of financial ruin later in
something goes wrong? Well...this takes care of that in my opinion. Rush the vaccines when required and eliminate the possibility of repercussions
later. I also believe that the continuing litigation regarding autism vs. vaccines also plays a role in this decision.
While I do not support frivolous, desperate "someone must pay for this tragedy" lawsuits, I don't believe preventing anyone from going after a
pharmaceutical company was the right move. Perhaps creating a "one bite at the apple" clause would have been better....such as insisting lawsuits
against pharmaceutical companies because of a particular vaccine would have to be handled only once, solely as a class action or something. This
would prevent one by one lawsuits that become rather costly and often have the same outcomes. I'm not sure of exactly how this would work, but
that's the simpleton version.
As to the title: collateral murder, I find it to be grossly exaggerated. No matter the Supreme Court ruling, if thousands, or even hundreds, of
children begin dying or suffering because of a particular vaccine I can assure you that parents will stop having their children injected -- lawsuit
potential or not. No vaccine = no money. No matter how many laws the government passes mandating vaccines, if enough parents banded together and
refused, because of an increase in side effects, something would change. The government would not allow schools across the country to remain closed
because not enough students are in attendance.
Sometimes I think we forget that we do not need to sue a company or person in order to get our voices heard.
Further, I also think we forget our rights. Nobody says you HAVE to have your child vaccinated. They may not be able to attend public school, but
then that would be your choice. The option of home schooling, or even attending a private / charter school that does not have the same vaccination
requirements, is always an option if one feels that strongly about it.
One can also be exempt from vaccinations based on freedom of religion rights.