The end of USA vaccination court?

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/09/the-end-of-vaccine-court.html#more

I've put this up, but it's awaiting moderation.


Yes, it is easier to sue McDonalds for being burned by a hot coffee, than to sue manufacturers for a produce injected into American children whose parents chose to vaccinate.

In 1986, there were a huge number of organisations, doctors and individuals who fought against the 1986 legislation. At the time, most of the vaccine manufacturers were against it. Even President Reagan was against the legislation.

In fact, the legislation might not have even got past the word "go", had not one particular organisation decided to partner the American Pediatric Association, and draft the law with them.

Perhaps it's time for that organisation to explain to American parents, why it ignored the mountains of advice given to it, to NOT be involved in any such legislation, or give the Senate or the medical profession the illusion that this awful legislation was what all "sensible" parents wanted.

Perhaps it's time for the then head of that organisation, who remains the current head of that organisation, to consider the cost of the huge increase of children injured, and dead as a result of that legislation, which breathed "life" back into a vaccine industry supposedly "near terminal" as a result of successful tort cases.

Perhaps this organisation should now change their focus, and make first priority, the scrapping of the very legislation which they worked so hard applying huge pressure, to get the majority of media, congress, and public to support, thereby having a major part in bringing it into existence in the first place.

How, you may ask, did this happen? It was a case of divide and rule. Those who campaigned against the legislation, were by implication, made to look as if they were uncaring; the lunatic fringe; the unreasonable. Those who supported the act were portrayed as reasonable, and sane.

Of course they were "insane". As those who campaigned against the legislation said, at the time, the only thing this legislation was, was a "licence to kill more, with greater impunity". And they were proven right.

There are three things which could make the difference now:

1) Kill the 1986 legislation now.

2) Vaccination should be a medical procedure which parents have to actively OPT INTO, and parents should have to sign on the dotted line to do so. It should not be a system where parents have to legally opt out of. Neither should compensation payments come from a system supported by money from the taxpayers pocket.

3) Given that No 2 will never see the light of day, make the current administration allow philosophical exemptions in all states, no questions asked.

4) Coercion to vaccinate, or intimidation during the exemption process, should be made a criminal offence similar to stalking, or sexual harrassment.

5) No employment, in any sector or work, should be contingent on vaccination. That too, should be a criminal offence.

(Yes, Pigs ~other than swine flu~ might fly.)

Only when it can be seen that parents mean business and will opt out of vaccination programmes, or sue their butts of to the enth degree if something happens, will government and the medical profession get the message.

And I have a warning for any who think greening the vaccines will help. It won't. The tail that wags the dog, can easily be cut off.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

It was put up.

My next post awaiting moderation:
Benedetta, the issue isn't whether information received by you, from an organisation, was helpful.

The issue is whether the 1986 legislation was good for children, and parents then, and in the future. 99.9% of lay submitters to the Senate record wanted the legislation scrapped.

The only way anyone could have conceived that the 1986 legislation was the very best thing since sliced bread, was to serially ignore extensive arguments presented to them, and to congress in the many hearings, by many doctors, individuals and organisations.

The sequence of events was:

One of the members of the organization co-wrote the law, and in November 1983, copies were sent to certain people for "advice". Some of those people copied that information, and sent it to an even wider circle, so that everyone knew which hand was doing what. Copies of the replies to that advice were likewise circulated.

The congress records of these hearings are available to US citizens at no cost. You can read this information for yourself, though obviously, it won't tell the story that correspondence of the time does.

So for three+ years, this organisation had at it's finger tips, all the arguments stating that the 1986 legislation would lead to today's situation.

The Spring 1987 issue of DPT News (Volume 3 No 1) goes into great detail as to the extend of the NVIC campaign.

The issue today, is how to move forward. I don't believe that the "green the vaccines" movement understands the real issues, any better than NVIC did in 1983.
The problem is that it's the people with "money" and "clout" who have the biggest shout, and are perceived to have the answers.

But it's parents without a voice, who landed up with no choice.

It's time to move forward with a clear focus of WHY the 1986 legislation should be abandonned, and why the ONLY way to get sense on any vaccine issue is by ensuring vaccination is opt-in, or a philosophical exemption is available to all, and coercion and harrassment to vaccinate become criminal offences.

If vaccines are so safe, and so effective, the evidence should speak for itself shouldn't it?

If CDC pro-vaccine assertions are true, no-one in government could possibly have any objections to allowing parents to make the choice as to whether or not to vaccinate.

What the 1986 legislation did, as a parental mental side effect, was to send many parents to sleep when it came to vaccination decisions. The doctor would say, "Do it!" and parents would sign the form, with a mental "whatever..."

Anyone making choices on the basis that vaccines are "free" (choke) and a Govt safety net is ready and waiting (false security) does not make logical, informed choices.

Where "Risk" is understood to be taken by the person "buying" a product, that person usually investigates vaccines and issues much more closely than would otherwise be the case.