Has the United States Supreme Court just legalized collateral murder?

"The U.S. government, in essence, has legalized medical violence against children."

"In a decision handed down yesterday, the United States Supreme Court has sold out the American people, violated the Constitution and made a mockery of the rule of law in America by denying parents of a vaccine-damaged child their right to seek redress through the court system.

"In a 6-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said that parents of vaccine damaged children have no right to sue vaccine manufacturers even if vaccines kill their children!

"This now confirms that vaccine companies have blanket immunity from all lawsuits in the USA, and parents can no longer use the law to seek compensation for their children who are damaged by vaccines.

"The U.S. government, in essence, has legalized medical violence against children."


______beforeitsnews/story/438/308/Has_the_United_States_Supreme_Court_just_legalized_collateral_murder.html

wow, i actually change my opinion. the post below me makes a lot of sense...

I support this decision. Medications do in rare cases have negative effects - there is always a small segment of the population that may be allergic or have problems with any given medication.

To call it "murder" when somebody has an unknown allergy or suffers from a rare adverse effect and to sue the producer as a result is stupid.

If you put a condom on for the first time and suffer severely from a latex allergy, just finding out you had this allergy, you wouldn't sue the company for producing a latex condom (well a reasonable person wouldn't) or say something like "Trojan Condoms sexually assaulted me!"

IMO, the US Supreme court should not be intervening. A malpractice suit should be allowed by the victims, per their Constitutional right. We are a country of " due process " are we not? Further, it would appear that the US Supreme Court just vouched, and backed up the ever so corrupt medical industry, once again displaying who they are really supporting.
It would also appear that the US SC is defending the HMO's, because with this third party involvement, it puts the doctors as " low level employees", which allows the physicians to increase their charge ability. With all that increased " cost ", suggests alot more money to be had, thus the US SC, in my eyes, defended that dollar.

reply to post by Yazman


Listen, I understand and agree at some level with your opinion here. However, the child should be well "pre-screened" for any allergies or adverse affect to the substances within the vaccine. For example mercury. What about all the children affected adversly from the mercury content that officials recently ordered removed?

reply to post by Yazman


That's why they give a list of side effects. You dont get those with vaccines. They automatically give your child vaccines when they are born. Without doing any allergy tests. It's a bad call. At the very least this suit could have changed vaccine practices and offered a solution to the problem. One may be waiting until a certain age and being able to do test on allergies and vaccine effects. To blanket over it makes it seem like a coverup. It is collateral murder. But is it worth it? That's the philosophical conversation.

Drug com

reply to post by Yazman


An Illinois-based vaccine manufacturer is being investigated after an experiment gone very wrong led scientists to discover the company had released a contaminated product feared capable of starting a world-wide avian flu pandemic.

poor source yea i know but still true:
www.wnd.com...

Still feel it is a good idea to give them blanket protection?

socioecohistory.wordpress.com...

The company that released contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria confirmed Friday that the experimental product contained live H5N1 avian flu viruses.

Were these companies held responsible for anything? How can they get away scott free when even raw milk is so heavily policed that the FEDS close down dairies selling raw milk????

Reading around, it seems that they have simply ruled in favor of exisiting law. (Wash. Post article mention various existing legislation ---- petition summary) So, even though it may be unfortunate in a few cases that the families cannot seek restitution directly from Big Pharma, it seems that the aforementioned "vaccine court" has awarded 2500 families an average of $800k each since 1989 due to vaccine related injuries to children.

So, the door was kinda already shut. SCOTUS has just left it shut.

I still think Big Pharma are turds.

The real problem is not the "rare instances" in which a child, or any person, experiences lethal side effects from vaccinations. I believe this could easily be proven to not be the fault of the pharmaceutical companies since they have no way of knowing every single issue a particular person has. That they may be prescribed their medication/vaccine isn't really up to them, but their doctors. Again, the key words here are "rare".

However, what this ruling creates is the possibility that pharmaceutical companies will no longer bother checking interactions across a broader segment (i.e. more common conditions such as asthma) knowing that they can no longer face potential lawsuits.

I personally believe this came about because of the Swine Flu and the government's insistence that a vaccine be produced in months, not the usual years. By rushing to find a vaccine, the drugs are not as well tested and therefore the risk of unknown side effects increase. On the side of the pharmaceutical companies, why should they listen to the government's urge to speed up production if they face they risk of financial ruin later in something goes wrong? Well...this takes care of that in my opinion. Rush the vaccines when required and eliminate the possibility of repercussions later. I also believe that the continuing litigation regarding autism vs. vaccines also plays a role in this decision.

While I do not support frivolous, desperate "someone must pay for this tragedy" lawsuits, I don't believe preventing anyone from going after a pharmaceutical company was the right move. Perhaps creating a "one bite at the apple" clause would have been better....such as insisting lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies because of a particular vaccine would have to be handled only once, solely as a class action or something. This would prevent one by one lawsuits that become rather costly and often have the same outcomes. I'm not sure of exactly how this would work, but that's the simpleton version.

As to the title: collateral murder, I find it to be grossly exaggerated. No matter the Supreme Court ruling, if thousands, or even hundreds, of children begin dying or suffering because of a particular vaccine I can assure you that parents will stop having their children injected -- lawsuit potential or not. No vaccine = no money. No matter how many laws the government passes mandating vaccines, if enough parents banded together and refused, because of an increase in side effects, something would change. The government would not allow schools across the country to remain closed because not enough students are in attendance.

Sometimes I think we forget that we do not need to sue a company or person in order to get our voices heard.

Further, I also think we forget our rights. Nobody says you HAVE to have your child vaccinated. They may not be able to attend public school, but then that would be your choice. The option of home schooling, or even attending a private / charter school that does not have the same vaccination requirements, is always an option if one feels that strongly about it.

One can also be exempt from vaccinations based on freedom of religion rights.

fail.

I had a friend back in the school days who was alergic to basically the white part of eggs. the MMR jab we we're forced to have contained egg. he told them that, and was told "its a small amount it should be fine"

within half an hour he was running on wall mounted heaters, knocked himself out and was taken to hospital.

i'm not even telling you what i'm alergic to, but I can safely say that a similar experience happened to me, myself.

no one is ever vaccinating me again, ever.

The science on this topic has been corrupt for a while (like GMO) and sold out, now the courts have sold out as well. There are lots of little studies around that refute the overall benefits of vaccinations, but without the big money support it is hard to fight. The most concerning studies are the ones that look at the long term data, not these short term studies to pay... I mean tick of some FDA boxes.

childhealthsafety.wordpress.com...

reply to post by madscientistintraining

reply to post by Yazman


Latex condoms are not mandatory (as evidenced by teen birth rates ), and FEMA can't step in to force you to wear one. As long as people have a choice your analogy has a slight shred of justifiability; however, the notion of freedom of choice is dissolving fast when it comes to vaccines.

reply to post by yeahright

So where's the fail/liability?

It sounds like it is now with the individual or parent. The science is so clouded due to money it cannot see straight or provide a straight answer. If you or your kid dies or get sick tough luck, the shareholders come first.

Yes, the good often outweighs the bad, and yes some risks are unknown, and yes some accidents are just accidents.

Still, this shouldn't preclude someone from their right to sue. EIther we have a litigious society or we do not. Either we have a free market or we do not. It is ludicrous to allow some frivolous lawsuits, but not others. It is ludicrous to offer blanket immunity on whole subjects. Without these lawsuits, how will we ever know if the drug company was aware of the risks or not? How will we ever know if it was an allergic reaction or a contamination?

It is up to the juries to decide the merits of the case not the Supreme Court. Unless the Supreme Court wants to tackle Tort Reform as a whole, and then I am on board. Lets get rid of 80% of the frivolous lawsuits, and focus on the ones that matter, but we cannot pick and choose who gets immunity and who gets sued.

The Supreme Court has been overstepping its boundaries for too long, and it is currently the most influential branch of our government, and there is no "check and balance" for decisions from the Supreme Court. Someone needs Veto Power over these decisions!

Are there risks to everything a person does? Yes. Regardless of the issue, nothing should prevent a person(s) from pursuing litigation. The Constitution grants these measures for a reason.

reply to post by madscientistintraining


But where is personal responsibility?

Child has an allergic reaction to egg whites.....
The vaccine specifically says: Do not take if allergic to egg whites....
Doctor says "give it a try" and parent says "OK"?

Why did this person even need a doctor to say anything? Allergic to egg whites...egg whites in vaccine....no vaccine.

Pretty simple to me.
Not all doctors graduate with a 4.0. SOME common sense is still required to function.

reply to post by getreadyalready

Once again a very complex and involved subject gets oversimplified.

The truth is there is no right answer only varying degrees of wrong answers and in the quest to choose the least wrong we will undoubtedly have our values questioned and have to eventually make a moral judgement.

The truth is the vaccines are not really optional. The other truth is that it is very difficult to substantively link negative health effects with vaccines or even particular vaccines.

Also I am all for offering a complete list of possible risks with every vaccine we already get it for regular meds and medical procedures. At that point it is allowing people to make a decision. Once the person has been informed or has at least been given the information the company should no longer be liable at all.

For instance if I had a medication that killed 1 in 10 people but saved 9 out of 10 and I decided to take the risk the manufacturer should not be liable for my decision to take a risk... But if nobody told me it was dangerous and they kept it from me that it was risky they should be liable because I wasn't able to make the decision for myself.