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.

 

Has the United States Supreme Court just legalized collateral murder?

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


So, according to that fund, and the Supreme Court's decision, all vaccine manufacturers pay a certain amount of fees or taxes into this fund, their cost is established upfront, and then any potential lawsuits or wrong-doing are paid out of the fund.

That seems like a recipe for disaster. Vaccine makers are for-profit establishments, and there is no risk associated with cutting corners or taking chances to enhance profit potential. On the one hand they are responsible to share holders and investors, and on the other hand they are not responsible to anybody for mistakes. That system cannot work in a free-market society. Usually the profit potential is weighed against the liability potential, and the product is derived in such a manner to maximize profit vs. risk. It is still a little dirty, but it has some semblence of reason. When we establish a blanket fund and blanket immunity, we eliminate all risk, and the companies only concern is profit.

Then we wonder why there are so many reports and conspiracies surrounding vaccines.

In my opinion the vaccines are only 1/2 the problem though. They other 1/2 is the way they are administered. Giving 4 or 6 shots into a 5 month old infant is bad practice. My son was only about 5 lbs at 5 months old, he was barely out of the hospital from his premature birth, and a major heart surgery, but his peditrician decided it was ok to give him 5 shots, split between both of his bony little thighs. The next day is demeanor changed, within a week he had developed Infantile Spasms with a very bad prognosis. Of course, there was no way to connect it to the vaccines, even though I did prove the Multi-Dose vials contained Thimerosal. Luckily for my child, we got him top-notch care, and we found the best Neurologist in the country works out of Shand's in Gainesville, and within a year or so my child made a full recovery. Several of the kids that shared his diagnosis didn't partake of the same doctor and have since passed on, or are battling major disabilities.

So, vaccines can cause harm, there is potential for contamination, there is potential for fraud, and there is a major problem with common practice of administering vaccines. There needs to be more harsh repercussions for these issues.




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ohioriver
 





The company that released contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria confirmed Friday that the experimental product contained live H5N1 avian flu viruses.


That was Baxter Labs.

The interesting point is that the experimental product contained live H5N1 avian flu viruses should not have been any where NEAR that plant. cGMP protocols are very very strict. For example, labels are kept under lock and key, and not one but two people must count and sign out all labels. Unused labels are signed in and the number used, destroyed and returned are reconciled with the amount of product produced.

Given the tight security, there is no way in hades an experimental product would be allowed on the same property, much less in the same building as production material, at least not in the USA. Te experimental stuff is kept completely separate in a separate building and usually in a separate location to prevent cross contamination.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I disagree. Risk hasn't even been close to eliminated, at all. What's the alternative, allow everyone who ever gets a vaccine to potentially drag a case into open court? Companies wouldn't even have to lose. The cost of fighting and winning would be prohibitive. Exorbitant settlement costs would factor into the price of all medicines.

There are plenty of impediments to bringing new products to market now, with R&D costs being what they are. Want to ensure no new drugs and treatments are ever developed? Take the profit out of it.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I think it is important for parents to know to second guess their pediatrician. And quite possibly some of the liability should be placed on the pediatricians in these cases? As much as I dislike big Pharma I do also believe the Pediatricians and physicians in general really need to have a better idea of the medications they are prescribing and the vaccines they are recommending rather than simply following the company line.

I always thought that giving physicians a greater liability for the meds and vaccinations they prescribe would be one of the better ways to help keep big pharma honest.

My daughter had quite a few medical issues and I refused to accept certain vaccines. I essentially did a risk analysis figuring the chances of getting the ailment being vaccinated for and the negative consequences of the ailment being vaccinated for. I am completely opposed to vaccines for non-lethal ailments. I really think this is something the pediatricians should lay out for each person but they are still as a group pretty much going to deny any negative consequences of vaccines.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I disagree. Risk hasn't even been close to eliminated, at all. What's the alternative, allow everyone who ever gets a vaccine to potentially drag a case into open court? Companies wouldn't even have to lose. The cost of fighting and winning would be prohibitive. Exorbitant settlement costs would factor into the price of all medicines.

There are plenty of impediments to bringing new products to market now, with R&D costs being what they are. Want to ensure no new drugs and treatments are ever developed? Take the profit out of it.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




I can totally get on board with that argument, as long as we give the same consideration to all other start up businesses that are are strapped with costly liability insurance and legal fees and often fail before they ever start. We also have to consider an alternative for Doctors and Nurses that are choosing early retirement over exorbitant malpractice insurance costs.

So, your argument has merit, as long as it is applied across the board to all business people. It is unfair to only give this consideration to large pharmaceutical companies. If we tackle all of Tort Reform, then I can support it, but not just vaccine makers.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Why whine about it?

Throw some dirt in a barrel and boil it with water. Put it in needles and tell people it'll cure everything. charge them $100 a pop and whallah.

You can't be sued. sounds like a good business model the Supreme Court set up for ya. ....There's a reason they set it up like that. Legalizes MURDER....Government Endorsed.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
So, your argument has merit, as long as it is applied across the board to all business people. It is unfair to only give this consideration to large pharmaceutical companies.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I disagree.


They're already regulated differently and under a much different set of restrictions than other industries. A guy who decides to start a taco truck street food business has many hurdles to jump, but nothing compared to pharmaceutical companies. You cannot possibly apply anything across the board to all business people without saying taco truck guy needs the same regulation as Wall Street guy and drug or oil guy.

Medicine is a whole other thing. Firms are given patent rights for a few years on new drugs coming to market. Those take in the billions to develop. Not every drug will get to market, and the ones that don't have an enormous sunk cost anyway. It's not just the embedded costs of the ones that work, it's also the cost of determining which ones won't.

It's not like you can fire up the assembly line and produce a cancer drug on the fly.

Not everyone will react the same to every drug. Sometimes there's no way to predict what will happen to a specific individual. Do you keep millions from getting the benefits of cost effective (or at least more cost effective than it could be) treatments so the minuscule number of people who might legitimately get an adverse reaction can break the bank? Ultimately, that's to whose detriment?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


I've been involved in some Pharmaceutical studies, my degree in Chemistry is from FSU, which takes in more patent money than MIT, and it comes primarily from pharmaceuticals. I know how the studies, the side effects, and the research goes down. My job is also involves pharmaceuticals and doctors, so I am intimately involved with how they are regulated and how the government goes about quality assurance. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the manufacturing process or regulations, so I cannot comment on those.

From my experience, I do not think it would be difficult to have similar quality assurance standards from a Taco Truck guy, to a Stock Broker, to a Medical Doctor, to a Pharmacy Tech, to a giant Pharmaceutical Company. The Taco Truck guy is affecting people's health with his practices, he falls under merchant laws, city ordinances, health inspection codes, zoning laws, worker's comp regulation, etc., etc. He has an enormous overhead just to sell some $0.50 tacos, and he still runs the risk of being sued or fined or closed down or robbed or wiped out by a tornado. His profit potential is on par with his overhead and risk. The Pharmaceutical Industry has an enormous upfront investment, but also an enormous profit potential, they have the same risks and regulations as the Taco Guy, and their costs are on par with their profit potential. They are showing massive profits year after year, so they are doing OK for themselves.

In my opinion, Doctors....and especially Nurses, get the biggest shaft in the whole deal. They make good livings, but they are not elaborately rich, they have enormous risk potential, exorbitant insurance costs, strict regulations, and duties to report just about anything in their life to numerous oversight boards and regulating entities. They are literally being run out of business, but the drug companies can manipulate facts, take calculated risks knowing there is a danger, and get away with it? They can turn huge profits, and then claim immunity when something goes wrong? It isn't fair. Like I said, the fund is useful for the families of victims and accidents, but the immunity for the companies is not fair, unless we can apply it across the board to all business people.

Perhaps every industry needs a bulk fund to protect them from litigation, and then we wouldn't even need Tort Reform, we would make Torts obsolete?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Settlements will not necessarily get to the nub of an unknown problem. In many ways rushing out, "new" vaccines in response to possible crisis' is brinkmanship in a bid to get the highest dollar, like the madness of a couple of years ago. A vaccine is a commodity, like aircraft and other complex vehicles, and they are subject to courts as they should be. Just because someone has a fistful of dollars to bail them out in a payoff, should not make them immune to the courts. Everyone should have the right of redress in the law. Seems to me that the US supreme court is acting outside of its jurisdiction, it should be a matter for goverment in the senate to make those decisions in the first place, only that way can you be sure that the people can have a hand in it.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
Once again a very complex and involved subject gets oversimplified.

The truth is there is no right answer only varying degrees of wrong answers and in the quest to choose the least wrong we will undoubtedly have our values questioned and have to eventually make a moral judgement.

The truth is the vaccines are not really optional. The other truth is that it is very difficult to substantively link negative health effects with vaccines or even particular vaccines.

Also I am all for offering a complete list of possible risks with every vaccine we already get it for regular meds and medical procedures. At that point it is allowing people to make a decision. Once the person has been informed or has at least been given the information the company should no longer be liable at all.

For instance if I had a medication that killed 1 in 10 people but saved 9 out of 10 and I decided to take the risk the manufacturer should not be liable for my decision to take a risk... But if nobody told me it was dangerous and they kept it from me that it was risky they should be liable because I wasn't able to make the decision for myself.


Methinks that you are actually oversimplifying greatly with your example. It is an impossible statistical event you describe, not a "medical anomaly" and in any case if manufacturers produced something that had fatal, or even permanent debilitating effects that they had not realised, then they are still liable. Any other way you are a guinea pig and nothing more. Don't forget also, that the high costs of drugs is always put forward because of the intensive research done, and therein is the rationale.
edit on 23-2-2011 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Okay, let's back up a step here. The premise of this thread is to ask if the Supreme Court has "legalized collateral murder". I certainly don't think so, and until someone can present a reasonable, sound argument to show intent to kill, I think the question is preposterous. I don't think anyone could make a legitimate argument that the pharmaceutical industry isn't regulated heavily. Is the law passed by Congress in 1986 Constitutional? Fair? Necessary?

If a taco truck guy goes out of business, that's a tragedy. For the taco truck guy. If regulations cause him to add a dime to the cost of a taco, that's an unfortunate, but acceptable outcome.

If a pharmaceutical company is discouraged from doing what it's supposed to, potentially millions can suffer and maybe die needlessly. I think the end game here is to make medicine as safe and affordable as possible. If you squeeze one end of that balloon, the other inflates. It's a balancing act, and I sure don't have the answer. Remember, we're talking about vaccines specifically, here and no one is suggesting a free ticket for companies to be immune (no pun intended) from responsibility. What if there were enough disincentive to the development, manufacture and distribution of vaccines that the companies just considered it an unacceptable risk? To hell with vaccines, we'll sell impotence treatments.

I personally have no problem with the act passed by Congress in 1986, and I believe the Supreme Court ruling in the case which resulted in the creation of this thread was the proper one.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


I agree, the title of "collateral murder" is overly dramatic, and I do not think the law or the ruling are doing anything near that. At worst, I think it is an unfair business practice, but nothing near murder.

I also agree that the intent of the laws is to provide the best healthcare possible. There is no secret genocide or depopulation agenda at play. The vaccines help exponentially more people than they hurt, so I agree on the intent of the law when it was written.

I disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling, because it serves as a precendent that will result in "blanket" immunity. No attorney will take on a case knowing that any settlement will probably be overturned on appeal because of this precedent and interpretation, so the result is no new lawsuits. This may be an argument against the entire judicial system relying so heavily on precedents rather than an argument against this particular ruling though.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling, because it serves as a precendent that will result in "blanket" immunity.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


The Supreme Court ruled to the letter of the law in that all vaccine related claims are handled in the manner outlined in the 1986 law passed by Congress. I'm hoping they'd establish a precedent of following the law, or overturning it as unconstitutional. There should be no other option.

A lawyer won't take a case to sue for vaccine claims because the 1986 law prevents it.

There's your tort reform, right there. I'm still having real difficulty in seeing why this is a bad thing overall. Claimants have their grievances addressed. Valid claims are paid. Frivolous claims don't make it very far. To my view, it's fair and all interests are served, other than the lawyers who love nothing more than dragging crap like this out for billable hours. This is bad?

If it's bad, let's push to have the 1986 law repealed. Is there justification or for that, beyond getting more of what we're already trying to avoid? What other option should there be?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


I think the bad part is not the ruling itself, but that the ruling upheld the law, and the law establishes a set fund for all pharmaceutical companies to pay into, and that fund is like an insurance against lawsuits.

They get blanket immunity. It doesn't necessarily harm the consumer at the outset, but it sets up a system where the companies that take the most shortcuts and risks get the most profit. The competition to survive as a company means taking more and more risks and shortcuts, and since your have a set fee for liability, there is no negative repercussion for that risk taking. It rewards the companies with the worst practices, because all the companies pay the same fees. The litigation system has an element of unknown liability, so the risk is amplified and the incentive is to limit that risk. With this law, the risk is eliminated and the incentive is to maximize profit and beat your competitor to the marketplace. Thereby rewarding the shadiest business practices with the highest profit.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

For the convenience of whomever may be interested, the full text of the SCOTUS ruling can be found here.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 2/25/2011 by yeahright because: Typo



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
What people have no clue is that big pharma is going farther now that they got the corrupted entity call supreme court in their side.

The state of Washington is going to be the first state that parents will be at the mercy of nurses and physicians when they opt for vaccinations.

In other words the opt out for certain vaccines have to be sign by a nurse or doctor after they make the decision if in their views if it has merit or not, including the power over religious views and personal choices.

They can go ahead and vaccinate your child regardless of you wanting or not.

Once Obama care comes into effect the vaccination police patrol will ensure that your child will get every vaccine available be safe or not

Bonus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they big pharma can not be sue for negligence.


Welcome to corporate America, when people doesn't complain this what we get. . .



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Complain complain complain!

It really won't matter how much we complain because making vaccines mandatory for every person will happen. It will happen under the pretense of public health and that it hurts others if you don't get vaccinated.

I've already seen the argument that when not enough people are vaccinated that gives the disease time to adapt and begin to effect the vaccinated people. Making yourself a carrier (as the argument goes) because you don't have a vaccine makes you a public health hazard and dangerous. Therefore everyone who isn't vaccinated is posing a serious threat to the public health of everyone and will need to be forcibly vaccinated in order to save society as a whole.

I disagree with this completely. I think people are turning into weaklings and being protected from everything under the sum makes us more vulnerable every generation, thins out and weakens us a species. We grew up in adversity and in peace we will die.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
www.tetrahedron.org...

check out the vid inset on flu vaxx on this page. I love Dr Horowitzs books and materials on vaccines and other issues.

here is a list of articles on vaccines on the tetrahedron site www.tetrahedron.org...
edit on 28-2-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelicdefender2012
 


the sUPREME cOURT justifies the existance of itself over and above the population in a few cases ..this being one. The good of the many is supreme to the good of the one. No matter how many the one adds up to.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Am i hearing this right from some of the familiar faces here on ats? It is ok for big pharma to kill your kids with sometimes mandated shots, but one can spill coffee at Mcdonalds and get a million dollar settlement


No wonder we are in the predicament that we are in today, mandatory litigation-legislation for the lil guy, as the white shoe boys do whatever the #### they want too!
I can honestly say that i would have never joined the U.S marines to defend the bunch of pansies that have taken root in the U.S



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join