COVID 19 Vaccine Liability

Because Congress and politicians are all on the take. The pharmaceutical lobby is the most powerful lobby in Congress.

Since 1986 it's been the case that vaccine makers are shielded from direct liability by federal law.

This arose after a scandal in the 1970/80s that linked an old form of the pertussis vaccine to permanent brain damage. Despite no casual link to the brain damage many vaccine makers didn't want to have to battle it out against brain-damaged kids in court (juries would be very sympathetic to the plaintiff), so almost all companies stopped making the pertussis vaccine by the mid 1980s. To spur robust vaccine supply, Congress passed a law the set up an independent system for arbitrating damages caused by vaccines - shielding the makers from lawsuit.

Basically pharma didn't want to be liable to whims of a jury and have fight anti-vax disinformation so they figured it was safer to just not produce the low-margin vaccines anyway. Congress realized this was national security issue and worked with them to provide a better system.

Good of the tribe vs good of the individual?

No ones going to create a vaccine if you can get sued from one bad reaction out of a million doses. I’m no scientist, but I’m guessing you can’t make a “perfect” vaccine - considering all of the slight differences in genetics between humans.

So... do you vaccinate 1,000,000 and lose 1, or vaccinate no one and lose thousands?

Feel free to correct me. I know nothing about the subject - just my hunch.

Explain this to me wrote:

Okay, if vaccines are so safe, why do the vaccine manufacturers have no liability? Keep in mind this is the case with all vaccines, not just the new covid vaccines.

I still have yet to think of a good reason or been presented with one.

Because they know there are potential risks of severe things down the road.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Explain this to me wrote:

Okay, if vaccines are so safe, why do the vaccine manufacturers have no liability? Keep in mind this is the case with all vaccines, not just the new covid vaccines.

I still have yet to think of a good reason or been presented with one.

Because they know there are potential risks of severe things down the road.

No... it's the plaintiff friendly American justice system. See: Monsanto/Bayer glyphosate lawsuit, Johnson and Johnson talcum powder lawsuit.

2600 bro wrote:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Because they know there are potential risks of severe things down the road.

No... it's the plaintiff friendly American justice system. See: Monsanto/Bayer glyphosate lawsuit, Johnson and Johnson talcum powder lawsuit.

I still cannot believe the talcum powder lawsuit...

Luv2Run wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

No... it's the plaintiff friendly American justice system. See: Monsanto/Bayer glyphosate lawsuit, Johnson and Johnson talcum powder lawsuit.

I still cannot believe the talcum powder lawsuit...

If you can get the case to trial (big if) it's easy for the single, "harmed," helpless individual to win the hearts of the jury vs. the monolithic corporation.

There is obviously a power imbalance, and so things should always slant some toward the plaintiff, but I don't think a random sample of 12 people is going to be scientifically/statistically literate enough for these cases. Makes sense why these companies just settle so often... even when it seems stupid.

Vaccine manufactures have to be protected by nutjobs like yourself.

If they would get sued by all these naysayers they would not produce anything. It's that simple.

Explain this to me wrote:

Okay, if vaccines are so safe, why do the vaccine manufacturers have no liability? Keep in mind this is the case with all vaccines, not just the new covid vaccines.

I still have yet to think of a good reason or been presented with one.

Because literally nothing is guaranteed safe, and some very small subset of people vaccinated will suffer adverse reactions, including death. If those people or their families sue, and you get the right jury full of hysterical liberals, you are looking at damages verdicts that could make the whole vaccine program prohibitive or much more difficult for the vaccine companies to invest in. We don't want that, since Covid is a serious public health problem, and large scale vaccine programs can solve it or significantly lessen it. Hence the limitations on liability.

An adult with average intelligence, common sense and sophistication would not have asked this question, by the way.

The no liability is a huge RED FLAG. People don't even realize this, just fall for the propaganda. Think about it, if you or a loved one dies from vaccine (which will probably be labeled a covid or other death), there is no accountability from the government or big pharmaceuticals. That's sickening.

If there was no protection from lawsuits, nobody would develop or market vaccines. And people would die from stone age diseases.

Seems like vaccine development should enjoy at least as much immunity as cops.

2600 bro wrote:

Since 1986 it's been the case that vaccine makers are shielded from direct liability by federal law.

Is that right ? 1986. A law enacted long before mRNA shots existed applies to mRNA shots.

The 1986 law applies to something that did not exist in 1986 !

Amazing what bought off politicians can get you.

DanM wrote:

Is that right ? 1986. A law enacted long before mRNA shots existed applies to mRNA shots.

The 1986 law applies to something that did not exist in 1986 !

Amazing what bought off politicians can get you.

Sounds like the 2nd Amendment and the assault rifle problem.

Luv2Run wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

No... it's the plaintiff friendly American justice system. See: Monsanto/Bayer glyphosate lawsuit, Johnson and Johnson talcum powder lawsuit.

I still cannot believe the talcum powder lawsuit...

The J and J talcum powder lawsuit, and its ilk, is the gift that just keeps giving. thank you america - my pension is safe. Please never reverse this insanity (or export it).

On the other hand, as evidenced by actual asbestos claims - it screws it up for genuine complainants.

Explain this to me wrote:

Okay, if vaccines are so safe, why do the vaccine manufacturers have no liability? Keep in mind this is the case with all vaccines, not just the new covid vaccines.

I still have yet to think of a good reason or been presented with one.

Vaccines can have a significant risk of adverse events or the manufacturers wouldn't be granted immunity:

That's such BS college kid. If vaccines are so safe and carry an extremely low risk of injury, then manufacturers should be able to convince a jury with their overwhelming evidence that the vaccines aren't the cause of the injuries be brought forth in the lawsuits. Jurors aren't stupid - they'll listen carefully to expert testimony and consider all the evidence (I've served on a jury before in a civil case with a bunch of educated, smart people).

And if vaccines are so safe, why hasn't Congress rescinded the 1986 provision and put the manufacturers back on the hook for being responsible for their products? (If I buy a new set of wheels and the engine blows up and injures me, I can sue the snot out of the manufacturer!).

And if the mRNA vaccines are nearly 100% safe and can't possibly cause any of deaths or serious injuries being reported to VAERS (as you and your sidekick, Harambe, have been preaching all along), then why is Pfizer & Moderna getting immunity from product liability?

I think you need to learn a couple things in life with Big Pharma. First & foremost money talks with Big Pharma; always has...always will. They're the biggest lobbyist in Congress outspending Big Oil & Gas by a 2-1 margin! Big Pharma also controls the MSM as well as the CDC & FDA (captured agenices).

Btw, how much is pharma paying you & your sidekick to come on these discussion sites and aggressively market the Covid vaccines? 🤔

At least one reason along with practically all medicines, is because of disclosure of adverse events in trials, disclosure of possible side effects and their likelihood, and at the point of care the receiver of vaccine indicate that they have given informed consent and known/understood the risks. This is then kept on file.

In other words, everyone getting one knows what could happen, or claims they do. Therefore they haven't a legal or moral leg to stand on if one or more of those side effects occurs - that they said they knew of, considered the risks, and accepted. If there was a big mismatch (say a certain SE was claimed as 1-5%, but 50% suffered it, the drug or whatever would be eventually recalled).

Where medical practitioners of any discipline have to be careful is that they have disclosed the risks of that which they are administering. If not, there actually would be grounds - but that would be the fault of the practitioner, not the company - and the practitioners will have personal and/or union indemnity (at least in ROI/UK/NI).

If the manufacturers did not disclose significant risk, then they'd be 1) found out most likely, as there are a lot of competing academics, say in other nations, who'd be pretty keen to scrutinise products but 2) pretty heavily financially penalised - which is why they don't withold risk

What a shill