U.S. Gov Loses Landmark Vaccination Lawsuit

originally posted by: Athetos
Now Autism stats will be down and child mortality will be up, enjoy your mumps,measles,small pox,HPV, and polio you guys earned it.

Disease that leads to wearing a fedora, vaping, wanting tendies, playing online games, and posting on 4chan, doesn't seem that bad...

Actually... On second thought... Maybe some would prefer to risk it.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Nothing will happen next unfortunately.

At least not yet. In a few years maybe. The populous is getting woke to this, but there is still too much power and money, and suffering to be had (which leads to more money and power for pharma and co).

originally posted by: avgguy
Nothing is safe, but vaccine have saved millions, probably billions of lives. The impact of the flu alone per year is incredibly expensive, especially in the elderly and the immunocompromized.

The hell of it is that both you and Stosh above you are right.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

My question is why would the US government introduce a law to give economic immunity to vaccine makers in the first place? This is what happens in a system where corporate lobbyists get to influence policy. Either that, or there’s an even bigger conspiracy at play..

Why?

I'll tell you why. There is no way to make any vaccine 100% safe, just like there is no way to make one 100% effective. Not even the very best, most carefully made vaccine can be that way. The reason is because it's your fault ... and mine ... that random guy down the street's.

We are all individuals.

We all have different biology and different immune systems. A vaccine that works 100% for me may not be 100% for you and it might provoke a fatal immune system reaction in that random guy down the street. There is just no way to know. And there is no way to tell who will react in what way when they give you the vaccination, too.

It is a numbers game. When they make the vaccine, they are trying to give you the dose of pathogen that will provoke a strong enough immune response without giving you too much or strong enough to actually make you ill with the disease or provoke your immune system into flaming into overdrive and killing you in trying to protect you (hint: a 100% immune provocation dose would do this to a lot of people - more than it would actually save).

Now, add in that the government mandates that people must be vaccinated against certain things, so we all have to take certain shots, and that's why the vaccine makers were given immunity.

The government knew when it mandated that a certain percentage of people, no matter how well-made and safe the shots were, were going to react badly to them, but they mandated them anyhow. The government decided that risk was acceptable and decided to take on the burden of liability instead of burdening the manufacturers with it. Because the government decided the losses from vaccine injury were going to be less than the losses from diseases like polio and measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, etc.

Of course, the government has also been keen to add to the number of things they deem mandatable for vaccines too. I find that unacceptable, but walk through an old cemetery sometime and look at the number of tombstones for very, very young children who died to those older diseases we don't think on anymore.

Now I can't tell you why the government hasn't been collecting safety and efficacy studies on those vaccines. Considering the amount of data that has to be produced for animal vaccines, that seems very, very odd. Human pharma is magnitudes more stringent.

Once again the conspiracy loons are proven correct.
Not all vaccines are safe and effective.
The government is spying on all of us.
When do we get an apology?

I think we all just want to know that there are tests and published test results for the safety of vaccines.

I think this is a good thing. All it will do is force vaccine makers to make sure vaccines are safe. I don't see the problem.

originally posted by: stosh64
Yet if you dare go against the 'herd' mentality and don't fully trust the government you are called a 'denier of science' and a threat to the herd.

Every time I refuse a flu shot from the doc I get the 'look', she then shakes her head and says ok. I can see a time when the government, who hasn't done the work to make sure vaccines are safe, will make it illegal to refuse their vaccines.

Now I'm a crazy anti-vaxxer, I know.

They are working toward mandatory vaccination. Now is the time to tell you "care provider" that you have severe allergic reactions to vaccines.. there will be a day in the near future where that will be the only excuse they will allow.

Apropos to the obvious science that shows vaccines work, its important to note that the US system has created conditions that allow pharma companies to make vaccines with less than nice chemicals to both save cost and increase production. As I'm to understand it Europe/China don't even use the American type vaccine's because they've deemed them unsafe....

originally posted by: amazing
I think we all just want to know that there are tests and published test results for the safety of vaccines.

I think this is a good thing. All it will do is force vaccine makers to make sure vaccines are safe. I don't see the problem.

That's the key takeaway here. They wanted to see the test results, and the government couldn't find any. Now we have to wonder if they ever ran the tests at all.

Vaccines are a proven and valuable thing. That shouldn’t be in question. What I have a problem with is how they are being pushed by the companies that make them.

I think these companies saw the level of profit in them and decided to maximize it. Who knows what else that would have effected? Maybe cutting corners on ingredients or quality control leading to some of the adverse effects that are attributed to childhood vaccines.

The known things Big Pharma has done is bad enough. Who knows what we don’t know about.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
How do we know this? Who gives us the numbers?What if the flu shots did contain something more? how would we know? Why would anyone trust the governments we have now?

This, times 1000.

I believe that vaccines could possibly be made safe and effective.

I also have exactly zero trust in our government or the massive medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex that what they offering as safe and effective vaccines, are, in fact, safe or effective.

a reply to: strongfp

Not really, in my family my father is the only one that gets flu shots, and every time he gets them he gets the flu. No one else gets the flu shot, even my mother who is always at his side and they both sleep in the same bed. I don't even get the flu shot myself, instead I take vitamin c, if I feel the early symptoms of the flu, I just take a higher dose of vitamin c and within 1-2 days the symptoms are gone.

Not to mention the fact that there are several studies which prove that the flu vaccine causes the flu instead of preventing it, but what's more for decades we have been told that "vaccines are safe" every time concerns have been raised, and every time studies have shown the contrary. Now we know this is not true, vaccine makers haven't properly tested for 32 years their vaccines' efficacy, or safety.

Now, one of the issues with this new information is that every lawsuit against vaccine makers will probably have to be reviewed due to this information which vaccine makers, and the HSS, have hidden for 32 years. If they don't review every case, which they will try to do by pouring millions if not a few billions to try to stop case reviews, new lawsuits can ensue. Of course, because vaccine makers have a lot of money it will take years if not longer unless a class action lawsuit is presented against vaccine companies, which will still probably take years to do.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: avgguy
Nothing is safe, but vaccine have saved millions, probably billions of lives. The impact of the flu alone per year is incredibly expensive, especially in the elderly and the immunocompromized.

The hell of it is that both you and Stosh above you are right.

But also because vaccine makers did not have an incentive to make safe/safer vaccines, they haven't done so and instead more children, and people as well, have been injured.

Vaccines could have been made safer, for example the flu shot. To this day there are still multi-doses of the flu vaccine which contains thimerosal, which several studies have proven to cause neurological problems, more so on children and those with a genetic pre-disposition.

I have been saying this for a few years now, don't take the "multi-dose" flu vaccine. Ask your pharmacist to give your children, and even yourselves the single dose flu vaccine, if you really want to get it, because it does not contain thimerosal/ethyl-mercury.

Here are a few of the older links i have posted on this topic.

Israeli Medical Association rejects mandatory flu shots for doctors

Another Research Paper Finds Aluminum Adjuvants in Vaccines do Cause Autism.

Merck accused of stonewalling in mumps vaccine antitrust lawsuit

The Real Next Level BS of the Vaccine Controversy.
page: 1

Nurse Fired for Refusing Flu Shot Sues Hospital, Federal and State Governments for $100,000,000

a reply to: strongfp

Smallpox was eradicated back in 1980, the incentive to make vaccines safer was taken off in 1986. (I made a typo on the op and posted 1984 when it should be 1986) Since then vaccine makers haven't been testing their vaccines for either efficacy or safety.

Several lawsuits have come forward trying to prove this, including doctors/people working for vaccine makers who have testified on the fact that vaccines were not being tested properly for either efficacy nor safety. But because vaccine makers had government agencies like the CDC and HHS, among others, backing them nothing came about from these lawsuits. Now there is evidence that the government has known that vaccine makers were not testing their vaccines for 32 years.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

That's just it. Where husband works, they have all that information on hand, and they have to produce it pretty much any inspector who wants to see it on demand, including the US inspectors.

But as I said, they do animal vaccines. However, the rules for human pharma are far more strict, so I can't imagine that would be any different. The only thing I can imagine here is that the defendant didn't have the documentation with them meaning not that it doesn't exist but that the FDA (defendant I am assuming) doesn't have it with them or keep it on-hand which also seems odd.

originally posted by: ketsuko
...
Now I can't tell you why the government hasn't been collecting safety and efficacy studies on those vaccines. Considering the amount of data that has to be produced for animal vaccines, that seems very, very odd. Human pharma is magnitudes more stringent.

It's not only that the government hasn't been collecting safety and efficacy studies, the thing is that vaccine makers haven't been testing their vaccines for either efficacy nor safety for 32 years.

No one is saying "make vaccines 100% safe," but if it could be done, so be it. But the thing is, vaccine manufacturers haven't been testing their vaccines.

Some time ago I posted an article, and evidence, that one of the main doctors working for the U.S. government, from Switzerland or Sweden, on testing vaccines was being sought after because instead of using the millions of dollars he was given to test vaccines, he actually pocketed the money and to my knowledge is still on the run. Yet to this day that same doctor and his fake studies are being used by the CDC, and other government agencies as proof that "vaccines are safe and efficient."

I would have to find the link. It's in one of my threads on this topic.

Vaccines can in fact be made safer. Thimerosal should be completely banned, as well as aluminum adjuvants and other metals which are known to be toxic/can cause neurological problems.

Imagine if all hospitals and doctors were allowed to smoke in hospitals, and even while performing surgeries on patients, and imagine someone saying "there is no way to make hospitals and patients safer from cancer."

Does smoking or second hand smoking give cancer 100% on everyone? No. It increases the chances of getting cancer, and respiratory problems. There are people who have smoked for decades, or were inhaling smoke from cigarettes for decades and did not get cancer. But there are many people who did get cancer, or respiratory problems for smoking, or second hand smoke.

That's kind of the argument you are making without realizing it. No one is asking for 100% efficient and safe vaccines, but people are asking for safer and efficient vaccines instead of mandating people and children to take vaccines which have not been tested for either efficacy or safety.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What's your solution?

If they test vaccines for a flu strain, it's worthless before it materializes. That bit about the vaccines causing the flu is well, wrong.

Isn't a larger risk to public health the anti-vaccine crowd themselves? Doubly so if they manage to get them taken off the market for even a short while.

We have grown up in world where we have not seen just how bad it was prior to vaccines. My own father, born in 1913 had six of his siblings die in the same year from the flu. I grew up with people in the community who had polio because not everyone was getting vaccinated and it took until my time when they were educated enough to know how dangerous it was to not get vaccinated.

I nearly died from the Whooping Cough, the Measles and had a horrible time with the Mumps after I got it at age 13. No kid needs to go through that now unless their parents are anti-vaccination.

Stuff like this just encourages people putting their own children at risk over what amounts to illiteracy.

a reply to: ketsuko
ask your hubby if they use the term vaccinosis in vet science.

I imagine animal vaccines do not qualify for the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

The agencies responsible for the NCVIA are stacked full of people with ties to big pharmaceutical companies. If a vaccine is proved unsafe it will be removed from the NCVIA. Cannot prove a vaccine is unsafe if there is no testing into it's safety. That is why government has no test results.

originally posted by: smkymcnugget420
a reply to: strongfp

nobody here is questioning that...what we are here questioning is the safety of giving 28 shots to newborn humans who don't have a single fully developed biological system in their bodies. we were told by the government that it was/is fine, clearly they were talking out if their collective asses. that is entirely above and beyond the question of if they work...

polio was given away for free for the benefit of humanity. all the others are patented for maximum profit. also polio (1955) and smallpox (1972) would be well before HHS took over safety regs. 32 years ago (1986)..which i think its worth noting that Autism started increasing around 1993...about 6 years AFTER that happened.... weird

blogs.plos.org...

that link also states that "ut that prevalence has actually declined between 2000 and 2010 (3,4)." which ironically enough coincides with that evil antivaxxer movement.

I understand where you are coming from. I really do, I myself don't even bother with the seasonal flu shot.

But when I hear horror stories of people getting tetanus because they didn't bother to keep up with vaccinations, it really does speak volumes.

Think of it this way, the world is becoming much more populated and more connected, globalized, vaccines are needed, and whether they are bust or not, they need to be put in place, there will always be those few cases where they don't 'work' or cause some sort of headache, or tragedy, but they need to be put into the human population.

Which then brings us to the question, what is in the vaccines? (and I have seen this as a main argument against me) I can't be 100% sure, but we have to trust someone to immunize us, what will it take for those people or company's to gain our trust?