The Supreme Court says you cannot sue for a vaccine injury
Uploader Comments (morepuppies)
Top Comments
-
whats the motivation to make a safe product if they cannot be held accountable for anything unsafe
-
Our government was bought and paid for by the corporations. Our government agencies are corrupt to the core.They bow to companies like Monsanto Dupont,Smith-Glaxco-keens,McDo
nalds and too many others. We need to clean house. Literally get rid of all 435 members of congress and start fresh. GOOOH.com is the way to do it. We need to get back to what this country was founded on. By the people for the people.
All Comments (18)
-
That guy said that vaccine induced autism has yet to be proven. maybe he should revisit the came of hannah Poling and her multi million law suit. her father was a nuerologist and was able to prove that her autism was indeed caused by her vaccinations.
-
Parents don't trust the science because they are dumb. vaccines are extremely safe. There is NO EVIDENCE that they cause autism. Parents think that vaccines cause autism because vaccinations given to small children come at a time right before autism can be diagnosed. When a parent doesn't get their kid vaccinated they put everyone else's children at risk.
-
Sure morepuppies. Every one of the six autism omnibus cases made it to the courtroom. Did you do ANY research? Lots of cases make it into vaccine court & many even win. Stop blindly believing every inane thing Mary Holland says & do some research. Vaccine court protects both citizens & manufacturers. It provides an expedited route to compensation w/ a generously low threshold for evidence. For certain listed injuries, compensation is automatic.
-
In response to "more puppies" you said, "Vaccine manufacturers are still held accountable for avoidable harm due to a manufacturing defect." Please listen again to what Mary Holland said in the beginning of the youtube video. She said you can no longer sue in civil court for a defective vaccine design. All you can do for an injury from a defective design is to use the 1986 vaccine injury compensation program, not civil court. -Susan Pearce
-
The fact that vaccines are mandated (currently by various forms of official discrimination) says that public health "authority" in America has failed.
We have a war on poverty, a war on drugs, a war on crime. The next war will be a war on informed consent.
-
@morepuppies So is there a loophole or could an appeal be done? Maybe there should be a boycott campaign of the trash company.
mjr... you do realize that i am a contributing editor on Mary Hollands book, yes? So yes... I have done some research. Probabli in the thousands of hours at this point. I wrote chapter 18 in Vaccine Epidemic, entitled 'Government and Media', which was largly about the Poling case in the VICP. And as mentioned, it is not a court. It is an administrative process where the government does whatever it wants.
morepuppies 1 year ago 3
The Supreme Court did not say you can't sue for a vaccine injury. They simply said they can't be sued for any common "unavoidable risks" that are vastly outweighed by the benefits. The vaccine court compensates those who may have suffered a side effect. Without this avenue vaccine manufacturing in this country would be overwhelmed by frivolous lawsuits from anyone who so much as gets a hang nail. Vaccine manufacturers are still held accountable for avoidable harm due to a manufacturing defect.
mjr256 1 year ago
@mjr256 No they won't. Please point out one vaccine injury lawsuit that has made it to a courtroom since the law was passed 25 years ago.
morepuppies 1 year ago
What law is in place that says the supreme court can tell people they can't sue? Just curious? I mean can they just make a law out of thin air?
screwopenborders 1 year ago
@screwopenborders the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. It created the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation program, and said that people must go through that first before going to court. So they did, the "Vaccine Court" is totally corrupt, and when families finally got to civil court, Pharma claimed that the Act said that they could never go to civil court. SCOTUS just ruled in favor of Pharma, ignoring the language in the law, and making new law.
morepuppies 1 year ago 2