Suing Pharma for Vax injury?

[bbrandonsmom]

I couldn't answer this question. I was asked why "If vaccines were causing autism or other damage, why aren't parents lined up at lawyers offices demanding to sue the pharma company?".
I explained about the protection act, and that lawyers cost money as well. I was then asked "There are a ton of non profit lawyers out there, they jump at defending just about anyone, so if vaccines were harmful, the lawyers would be lining up to gather families to go to court and not charge a dime. Why isn't that happening? Because it's not true."
I said something like who wants to throw them selves in front of the lion, like any of the doctors who are taking a stand and being slaughtered, and was rebuffed again, with "the claims are not true, but that even bad news exposure is good, so there should be a ton of cases in the courts, but there are not."
It did make me wonder though, and I'm sure we don't know how many parents go to a lawyer, but where are all the cases? Where are all the lawyers calling out to the courts to sue the pharma? There's an astounding number of families who believe they were damaged by vaccines, so there is no lack of them.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

I couldn't answer this question. I was asked why "If vaccines were causing autism or other damage, why aren't parents lined up at lawyers offices demanding to sue the pharma company?".

Answer. Ask them the questions:

1) You tell me exactly what the procedures are, in the USA, which parents have to follow if they believe their child is vaccine damaged.

They must give you an itemised list of the steps a parent has to take, and what has to be done, and in what order it has to be done.

2) What are the various options which Special Masters can offer to the two parties concerned?

(answer 1 - sometimes the Special Master simply dismisses the case) In which case, at that point, the parent has the option to go tort, in which case - who foots the legal bills? There is no pro-bono for tort in USA, neither is there a cut-deal.

(answer 2 - sometimes the Special Master recommends a payoff situtiation whereby the vaccine company and parents lawyers come to a confidential agreement, the files are locked, and the parents sign an agreement in return that they can never talk about the case thereafter. One case at another board that I was on, ended exactly like that. Why did the parents agree? Becuase the case was crucifying them emotionally, financially, and physically and the "offer" the vaccine company made, was too good to turn down. It set their kids education up for uni and more and meant they wouldn't be debt ridden. So they were bought off. And a huge number of vaccine cases end up as confidential settlements, where no-one gets to know what happens.)

Answer 3 - the case is awarded, and compensation evaluated.

I've been involved in all three sorts of "outcomes"


I explained about the protection act, and that lawyers cost money as well.what protection act?


I was then asked "There are a ton of non profit lawyers out there, they jump at defending just about anyone, so if vaccines were harmful, the lawyers would be lining up to gather families to go to court and not charge a dime. Why isn't that happening? Because it's not true."

That USED to happen before 1986, but that's exactly why AAP and the vaccine manufacturers conned Barbara Loe Fisher into getting into bed with them and writing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986 which PROHIBITS that from happening. All cases MUST go through the NCVIC Act first. Which takes years.

And IF they are turned down there, then they can go tort.

Show me a parent who at the end of all that, has the energy to continue fighting, as well as looking after a damaged child.

Tell whoever is stupid enough to think that, to read Marge Grant's book "A stolen life".


I said something like who wants to throw them selves in front of the lion, like any of the doctors who are taking a stand and being slaughtered, Why say that?

Say to them, "Picture this: You're a parent, with a seriously sick child, and you've spent years going through NCVIC and have the opportunity to go tort. BUT there will be no doing it for nothing! Anything rejected by NCVIC doesn't come for free. Exactly what will that involve for the parents - to do that? Why dont' you go and find some who have tried and ask them how wonderful that is for the children, the parents and family life. Particularly if they have family who are totally unsupportive, think the parents are nut cases, and are constantly on their backs about "making the medical profession look bad".


and was rebuffed again, with "the claims are not true, but that even bad news exposure is good, so there should be a ton of cases in the courts, but there are not."


There were once tons of tort cases, until the NCVIC 1986.



It did make me wonder though, and I'm sure we don't know how many parents go to a lawyer, but where are all the cases?What research have you done, and where - in order to find the answers to these questions?


Where are all the lawyers calling out to the courts to sue the pharma? There's an astounding number of families who believe they were damaged by vaccines, so there is no lack of them.What research have you done to find out the answer to these questions?

If you're saying the above, you must be convinced by their arguments, so what was the point in arguing with them in the first place?

[Spy]

It did make me wonder though, and I'm sure we don't know how many parents go to a lawyer, but where are all the cases? Where are all the lawyers calling out to the courts to sue the pharma? There's an astounding number of families who believe they were damaged by vaccines, so there is no lack of them.

Have a look here: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/opinions-decisions-0

Or here for a general feel of the statistics of those cases and compensation amounts for the times where it was possible: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/hrsa.html#post_1988

[bbrandonsmom]

MT-I had meant the NCVIC when I was telling them about the protection.
Let me rephrase and I'll have to look into this-but where is the mass media on today's cases? If there are current cases being presented, why not bring them to the media so people can see that they are out there, not just the "big" ones that are being reported. It's almost like no one knows that there are vaccine injuries, so if it's thrown in their faces, wouldn't more people stop and ask what was going on and maybe take pause on the issue? This is prob coming across wrong, I'm sorry.

[MinorityView]

Recent post on Age of Autism quotes Sebelius asking the media not to pay attention to vaccine injury claims. So there is actually a bit of a media black-out.

There was a case in Vermont a couple of years ago, where a baby died the night after receiving 9 vaccines. The newspaper carried a story about it and got a very angry opinion column from a doctor a couple of days later, basically saying that it was wrong of the paper to do the coverage.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

MT-I had meant the NCVIC when I was telling them about the protection.
Let me rephrase and I'll have to look into this-but where is the mass media on today's cases? If there are current cases being presented, why not bring them to the media so people can see that they are out there, not just the "big" ones that are being reported. It's almost like no one knows that there are vaccine injuries, so if it's thrown in their faces, wouldn't more people stop and ask what was going on and maybe take pause on the issue? This is prob coming across wrong, I'm sorry.

We used to have plenty of coverage of this. I used to be interviewed on radio, TV - everywhere, and then it all stopped. I wondered why, until a sympathetic doctor told me that the New Zealand Health Department had sent out a letter to "people" (he was one of them) stating that I made fraudulent claims that I'd once been a paediatric nurse: I was a lesbian, and furthermore, because most doctors didn't appear to be able to "handle" me well in the public media, the best defence against such an obnoxious species as myself, was to turn down interviews on the basis that it "wasn't in the public's interest".

There is no such thing as freedom of speech.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

READER’S DIGEST: Arthur Allen: What can be done about public mistrust of vaccines?

HHS SECRETARY KATHLEEN SEBELIUS:There are groups out there that insist that vaccines are responsible for a variety of problems despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. We have reached out to media outlets to try to get them to not give the views of these people equal weight in their reporting to what science has shown and continues to show about the safety of vaccines.

http://www.rd.com/health-slideshows/h1n1-the-report-card/article174741-1.html (http://www.rd.com/health-slideshows/h1n1-the-report-card/article174741-1.html)