FYI: In the US alone, the vaccine "court" has paid over $3.3 BILLION to victims of vaccines.

This seldom discussed statistic (by seldom I mean never), comes directly from the Department of Health and Human Services website:

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $3.3 billion.

The "compensation" for the fund is thru taxes both directly and indirectly.

There is a $.75 tax on the sale/use of every vaccine. While the pharmaceutical companies are responsible for paying this tax, they in turn collect it from the end user.

Indirectly the taxpayers subsidize the fund because 53% of all vaccines are purchased by Medicare/Medicaid (double taxation).

What we have here is an industry which cannot be sued for a defective/harmful product (Bruesewitz v. Wyeth) and whos profits are protected by the Federal Government...

a reply to: gladtobehere

Gladtobehere - glad I found my way to this thread. Good topic - 3.3 Billion, that is telling. Love the photo you tried to include, makes me think of FEC vs. McCutcheon et. al (no limit on monetary contributions, effectively turning the dollar bill into a voting mechanism), Superdelegates who are also Lobbyists, and all the backdoor deals and other corruption that can be classified as "other"

Wonder how much money companies made (/pocketed) from ebola vaccines and research activities after that scare. Zika? You BET their doing the same thing again.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
This seldom discussed statistic (by seldom I mean never), comes directly from the Department of Health and Human Services website:
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $3.3 billion.

We have discussed the vaccine compensation awards countless times on this forum.

Yes, $3 billions since 1988. Here are the statistics for 2006 to 2013: less than 1 injury per million doses.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Right here - following the money, Senator Bill Nelson is a total scumbag just like the REST of 'em:

Senator Bill Nelson is calling for an additional $1.9 billion in federal funds to fight the mosquito-borne Zika virus. He calls it a "crisis." Why? As of this morning, the CDC is reporting that the number of people infected by Zika while inside the US is 0. ZERO. Doesn't sound like much of a "crisis" does it?

Time to follow the money. First, we have to ask some questions. What chemicals are commonly used for mosquito control spraying by government entities? A few minutes of research revealed that Pyrethrins are probably the most common. Who manufactures Pyrethrins? It turns out that lots of chemical companies around the world make them, but the big players are 3M, BASF, Bayer, and Merck. So they would likely benefit the most from an increased demand for Pyrethrins. So, how do giant corporations generate artificial market demand? Through government spending, of course. That means lobbyists.

What lobbying firms do 3M, BASF, Bayer and Merck pay to lobby Congress on their behalf? A partial list of those lobbying firms include Akerman LLP, Greenberg Traurig LLP, and Holland & Knight. And, how much has Sen. Bill Nelson received in campaign contributions from the above three lobbying firms in the 2016 election cycle alone? $118,975

So, in about 30 minutes of research, I've answered my own question. Bill Nelson is bought and paid for...And that's why Zika is now a "crisis." And, if I can find that out in a half hour searching public records on the internet, why can't the mainstream media?

Adrian Wyllie's comments on the Zika scare www.facebook.com...


and floridapolitics.com...

a reply to: gladtobehere

From your source:

How many petitions have been awarded compensation?

According to the CDC, from 2006 to 2014 over 2.5 billion doses of covered vaccines were distributed in the U.S. For petitions filed in this time period, 3,422 petitions were adjudicated by the Court, and of those 2,173 were compensated. This means for every 1 million doses of vaccine that were distributed, 1 individual was compensated.

That's pretty good if you ask me. Not a fan of big pharma by any means, it is certainly an entire sector of the medical/financial services field that needs to be overhauled.

But vaccine damages? Either very under reported, or just not that huge of a deal considering the amount of vaccines given vs the actual # of patients who have complications.

~Tenth

You missed out the extremely relevent information in your OP, instead whipping up hysteria over nothing:

Over 80 percent of all compensation awarded by the VICP comes as result of a negotiated settlement between the parties in which HHS has not concluded, based upon review of the evidence, that the alleged vaccine(s) caused the alleged injury.

No causal link needs to be found, as is the case in over 80% of the cases.

According to the CDC, from 2006 to 2014 over 2.5 billion doses of covered vaccines were distributed in the U.S. For petitions filed in this time period, 3,422 petitions were adjudicated by the Court, and of those 2,173 were compensated. This means for every 1 million doses of vaccine that were distributed, 1 individual was compensated.

So even if we take the absolute worst case scenario in which we take every case at face value as being causally linked (which the data does not support), the chances of ANY sort of injury (no matter how mild or severe) is about 1 in a million.

But of course the big bad government is trying to hide the truth that they are poisoning us...
...by publicly awarding compensation without ever needing to prove a causal link.
LOL!

Got any stats on what the costs to taxpayers and society would be if there were no vaccines or if manufacturers were subject to every claim of harm attributed to them?

You're wrong about Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, BTW. The decision was not that vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued for defective products. The decision upheld an existing law, one which does allow lawsuits.

A civil action against a vaccine manufacturer for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, which is not barred by section 300aa–11(a)(2) of this title shall be tried in three stages.

www.gpo.gov...

a reply to: gladtobehere

I don't think that all vaccines are bad, but why all the secrecy? People deserve to be able to make informed decisions. Why is the Government protecting Big Pharma over We The People? This lack of truth and transparency is telling us there IS something that are hiding.

a reply to: Phage

Phage, people deserve transparency not more Government cover-ups. Even you can't be opposed to the truth being told to the people and the ability for individuals to make informed decisions over what we put in our bodies. They are hiding something and WE deserve to know the truth.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: gladtobehere

I don't think that all vaccines are bad, but why all the secrecy? People deserve to be able to make informed decisions. Why is the Government protecting Big Pharma over We The People? This lack of truth and transparency is telling us there IS something that are hiding.

A profit motive?

Look at those at the head of the FDA and other pharma organizations. All filled with executives from the large drug companies and the politicians, well who donates to their campaigns the most after big oil?

You guess it!

It's not different than the rules and regulations that govern banking, they are obfuscated by default and on purpose, to make sure that you cannot understand it to begin with, let alone try and solve the problem. Ever try to read Modern Money Mechanics from the Fed?

Jebus, I'd rather translate the bible from Latin to English twice over.

~Tenth

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: gladtobehere

I don't think that all vaccines are bad, but why all the secrecy? People deserve to be able to make informed decisions. Why is the Government protecting Big Pharma over We The People? This lack of truth and transparency is telling us there IS something that are hiding.

Given what a vaccine is there is always going to be a chance that you will have a reaction to it. There is simply no way to make it 100% safe just like there is no way to make it 100% effective.

Since the government stepped in and starting making it legally necessary that people that people had to receive vaccines against certain diseases, they either had to protect the makers of the vaccines against a certain amount of liability since there is always that chance you could be one of the unlucky ones who are going to have a reaction to a given vaccine or watch vaccines stop being produced because no one wanted to be sued out of existence for producing something everyone had to get that some were going to be looking for an excuse to sue over.

And since we are all pretty much isolated from the days when plagues of these diseases would sweep through and kill little kids and old folks in enough numbers that people feared them, or in the case of polio, permanently maim people if it didn't kill them, people can only point to the cases of vaccine reaction as the worst things to come from vaccination.

We have forgotten whether or not the cure actually is worse than the disease.

a reply to: GetHyped

Firstly, $3.3 Billion is a staggering amount and it was was paid due to harm caused by vaccines.



Well, no it would mean 1 person would be compensated.

This assumes that every person injured by a "covered vaccine" approached the VICP for damages... How many people are even aware that such a program exists?

How much would the manufacturers have been forced to pay in civil court of law is anyone's guess but I feel comfortable in assuming that it would be a lot more than $3.3 Billion.

To your other point, regardless of what the VICP "admits", why pay anything if they felt that vaccines did not cause harm?

For example, in the case of Ryan Mojabi, the concession document is under seal and the case was "unpublished" meaning information is limited, and access to medical records and other exhibits are blocked.

Obviously, the government is not forthcoming. What are our public servants trying to hide?

We're not talking about public disclosure and admissions of guilt or liability. We're talking about non-public proceedings and secrecy.


a reply to: Phage

Not for design/defect claims ie damage caused by a vaccine.

These must go thru the VICP.

Something like a manufacturing or labeling defect claim, however, can go through the tort system.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

The problem, Tenth, is that the information is not meant for public dissemination which is very troubling.

At the end of the day, the most important point to realize from this debate is that no one, no government, has the right to tell/order an individual (or their children) to take something into their bodies against their will.

a reply to: gladtobehere

LOL!

Explain how some secret big grand conspiracy is making public payments to the tune of $3BILLION!

If there was some big scary coverup, there wouldn't be a frickin' compensation scheme for the public. They wouldn't be paying out $3 BILLION and advertising it on their website!

Jeez, your conspiracy isn't even internally consistent. Lazy.

a reply to: GetHyped

Sorry, dont know what you mean by "internally" consistent.

Its no conspiracy, the VICP has paid $3.3 Billion to people injured by vaccines.

This fact is rarely mentioned by the MSM.

You're aware because I just posted it on ATS.

Regardless of its label, there is obvious collusion between government and a for-profit-industry, decreeing that they cannot be held liable for damage caused their product in a civil court of law.

That a "special" court will be established to compensate victims.

Its also disturbing that all of the information from these proceedings is not publicly available.

Lastly, if $3.3 Billion was paid by this kangaroo court, I feel confident in saying that civil awards would have been much much higher.

a reply to: gladtobehere

brilliantly short sweet and to the point.

Like the bottom pic.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

But vaccine damages? Either very under reported, or just not that huge of a deal considering the amount of vaccines given vs the actual # of patients who have complications.

the number is probably greater...this is just the ones that couldnt be denied. They arent in a busyness of truly compensating...but avoiding compensation. Like insurance companies want to pay you out.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: tothetenthpower

At the end of the day, the most important point to realize from this debate is that no one, no government, has the right to tell/order an individual (or their children) to take something into their bodies against their will.

That line of thinking is STUPID when it comes to vaccinations. Your right to 'put what you want want, when you want it' into your body actually ends when the rest of the population is at risk because of you.

Can't force an HIV positive person to put on a condom but you can charge them with attempted murder afterwards though right? Same concept.

Remember how awesome it was to not get POLIO when you were a kid? Yeah, I bet you don't, cause we eradicated polio with a vaccine.

I get that they aren't suppose to be public and I don't like that either. But this whole anti vaccine movement has no legs to stand on and we are already seeing the very very bad repercussions of people not vaccinating their kids.

Measles, Mumps, Whooping Cough, etc. All completely preventable with a perfectly safe form of medicine, yet we allow guppy parents to go without.

Here's a deal, let's strike down all the things that say you have to get your kids vaccinated, but then put in new laws where un-vaccinated people can't do certain things. Like go to public schools or universities etc.

Cause their stupid, stupid, stupid decision, puts the rest of us at risk and that's not fair to me.

~Tenth

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: GetHyped

Sorry, dont know what you mean by "internally" consistent.

Yes I do. Case in point: this hilariously self-contradicting and sloppily put together conspiracy theory.

Lazy, lazy, lazy.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

Here's a deal, let's strike down all the things that say you have to get your kids vaccinated, but then put in new laws where un-vaccinated people can't do certain things. Like go to public schools or universities etc.

Cause their stupid, stupid, stupid decision, puts the rest of us at risk and that's not fair to me.

~Tenth

In that case don't put my kids at risk of further auto immune and neurological damage because you think a minority is expendable. Real medical freedom isn't forcing one person to get treatment to protect another. That would be medical fascism.

At what point are people allowed to say no?