Vaccine case goes before the Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by Mordeci, Oct 13, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mordeci

    Mordeci Banned Member

    Basicaly the United states has a 1986 law that established a system to compensate people injured by vaccines while barring some, but not all, lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers. In other words instead of going through regular court people who claim they were hurt by a vaccine go through a special "vaccine court" that limits damages to the vaccination company. The current case is challenging the legality of the legality of the law, and if the plantiffs win the, Vaccine courts would be shut down, and anyone can bring suit against the phramacutical company in civil court. This could be a serious concern for phramacutical companies, especially with people who believe the link between autism and vaccination (I believed it once not so sure now) basically every parent of an austic child can sue the companies in civil court and hypothetically collect millions of damages per case, its a real possablity since the plantiffs won in appeals, and Kagan exucesed herself from this case, so they would need a 5-3 decesion to reverse it.
  2. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    Even if autism did go up some because of the measles/mumps/rubella/polio vaccines I don't much care because the got rid of measles/mumps/rubella/polio.
  3. Mordeci

    Mordeci Banned Member

    I just mentioned autism as an example really the current case is much bigger then that. If they rule that the vaccination courts are illegal alot of people who wouldn't have had the right to sue (autisic included) will be able to, if the law is rulled illegal this will be a big blow to the phramacutical companies.
  4. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    I sincerely hope there will remain an incentive to develop vaccines.
  5. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    If the US were to make it unprofitable the companies will relocate to Canada, Europe, wherever.
  6. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    They won't sell in the States, though, and then not only do they suffer, the presence of those diseases in the US will hurt those in Canada/Mexico who can not get the vaccine for whatever reason... Basically, at least all of North America will be substantially worse off.

    The girl whose parents are suing had a higher chance of a worse adverse effect (e.g. death) from getting the diseases than she did of the side effect. :\
  7. Krem

    Krem Well-Known Member

    And yet another stellar example of why not living in the US is a good thing.

    "Medicine has side-effects! It saves millions of lives! Let's get their money because we can! Screw the fact that we're putting millions of people in danger because of it, possibly doing irreversible damage to the nation, OUR MADE-UP SIDE-EFFECTS WHICH ARE NON-LETHAL AND NOT CONNECTED TO THE VACCINES MEANS WE GET THEIR MONEY!"

    Sagan would vomit from the ignorance.
  8. Issaccs

    Issaccs Well-Known Member

    Quicj question, wasnt the link between MMR jabs and autism proven to be not only non existent but fabricated for one Doctors monetary gain?
  9. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    That was indeed proven, but what does that have to do with reality? It's almost as if you believe facts should count for something - heretic!
  10. Mordeci

    Mordeci Banned Member

    The link was orginally fabricated in a top British medical journal, the article the doctor wrote was withdrawn (a major disgrace) and the doctor was pretty much shunned, to this day he says it was a conspicarcy by the phramactuical companies, but he orginally recanted the article before that. Anyway once the article got published alot of families looking for a reason jumpmed on the bandwagon and never got off, books and articles were written for and against the link. So yeah in all likelyhood the doctor made up the link, but that spawned a movement of people in and outside the medical community who still believe in it. Put it this way, if there is an autism case that goes to trial, their will be many repubital doctors who are willing to testify that their is a link, dosen't mean their right, but they would testify.
  11. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    What I always find remarkable is how experts - i.e. the people that actually know about the subject in question - are so easily dismissed by a large segment of the population that has little to no knowledge whatsoever. The medical community has run the tests and done the research repeatedly, and has yet to find any evidence whatsoever that links autism with vaccination.

    Yet, ironically, the fact that they are experts lessens their credibility with the public because they're either seen as "elites" that are too detached from suffering of victims of autism, or because their professional status by nature makes them untrustworthy.

    I understand that dishonesty and conflict of interest are pervasive in the medical and scientific community (as in every field and industry for that matter), but you'd have to be unrealistically cynical to think hundreds of thousands of doctors are in on it.

    Just my two cents.
  12. Mordeci

    Mordeci Banned Member

    I think we are loosing sight of the bigger picture here, if this law is ruled illegal (which there is a good chance that will happen) the it's open season on every phramacutical company whoese vaccines caused someone damage in any capacity, not just for unproven stuff like autism but for thoese 1% of people who were severly damaged by a vaccine and had to settle for only 100,000 cause that's what the vaccine court allowed, this could hypotheticaly give tens of thousands of familes sercurity which they need since they are caring for an ill child. On the other hand it could open pandoras box to lawsuits against phramacutical companies who might just stop selling or producing vaccines in the us in fear they might be sued, even if they make millions of dollars if that 1% sues for millions of dollars and wins their is little reward for companies like phizar (sp) to make vaccines. Of course if this law is struck down in all likelyhood congress will just craft another better worded one, but in the meantime, they will be thousands of lawsuits mostly friviolus, some ligitmate.
  13. Krem

    Krem Well-Known Member

    Actually, the bigger picture would be if these lawsuits would stop many people from getting vaccines, since, among other things, prices would go way up to pay for the damages during the lawsuits. A few hundred people damaged, and getting "only" 100.000 USD for it is better than the thousands of potential deaths caused by lack of vaccines. It'll not just be the kids with shitstupid parents who'd be at risk for the diseased we're vaccinating against, it'll be the kids whose parents won't be able to afford the vaccines, because the shitstupid parents cause such trouble for the companies that they'll need to increase prices to pay the lawyers, and any damages they might get if a lawsuit actually manages anything.

    Also, the autism thing is based on nothing. Oprah is not a source of factual accuracy. If you'd go and look at how vaccines work, you'd see that if they actually caused any mental issues, we'd've noticed it, because vaccines introduce a near-harmless agent similar to the disease being vaccinated against, for an example a dead virus. If they caused autism then, they'd most likely cause autism normally. Which, really, is not something that would go unnoticed. And seeing as these diseases are not only dangerous, but highly infectious, too, there'd be way more auties in history than there were.
  14. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Krem, the autism was actually blamed on a mercury-based preservative used for the vaccine, making it -possible-.

    But I agree, the alternative to vaccines, even if they had far, far higher adverse effect rates, is way worse.

    Oh, and I'm concerned about the withdrawal of the research: I don't know whether the researchers actually believe their work to be wrong, or if they withdrew it due to widespread pressure. The fact that they withdrew it is used as proof that they were wrong, but I don't think this is fair.
  15. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member

    It seems odd that the medical consensus in the late 1800's was that the diseases that are vaccinated against are 'generally benign' and 'not worth avoiding', yet nowadays they consider them to be so harmful. What has changed?
  16. Krem

    Krem Well-Known Member

    Some of the "benign" things we're vaccinating against:, I should join up with some political/media group and do some fear-mongering. It's fun.
  17. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    Working for a company that deals directly with some really important vaccines, and seeing how expensive they are, yet how slim the profit margins are, this is a bunch of bullshit. When people start dieing because companies stop producing these vaccines, maybe all the fear mongering will stop. The healthcare bill is already going to kill a ton of innovation anyhow. I guess darwin was right.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.