April 12, 2020

Please reload

Recent Posts

Table of Contents

April 12, 2020

1/1
Please reload

Featured Posts

Vaccine Court

American's are confident that if a product is dangerous the manufacturer will be held accountable by the USA court system. And rightfully so, history has shown that massive settlements are awarded to Americans for injuries sustained as a result of defective products, manufacturer negligence or criminality.

 

In 2005, David Graham, the FDA Whistleblower, was asked, “What are your thoughts on former President Bush’s attempt to pass tort reform, which would protect most pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits except in the most egregious cases?” Graham's response was:

I think it's dangerous and wrong for the following reasons:

  • We already have an FDA that’s been neutralized by industry and sees industry as its client.

  • The Center for Drug Evaluation and The Office of New Drugs dominates drug safety so that the drug safety is not independent.

  • Government now isn’t going to protect the average citizen from the consequences of unsafe drugs.

  • The only alternative [the public has] left is the legal system - the tort system...All that’s left to people now is the courts. That’s the only way we have of getting companies to change their behavior.

 

Unfortunately with vaccines, in 1986 the legal system was abolished as a consumer safety measure. Other countries have adopted similar legislation (Canada did not). As a result, an American vaccine injured person cannot sue the pharmaceutical companies. Instead, all American vaccine injuries are evaluated through an administrative process where the pharmaceutical companies are not involved. A government webpage explains, "[This program] was created in the 1980s, after lawsuits against vaccine companies and health care providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce U.S. vaccination rates." (Link Here)

 

Though the administrative process is referred to as vaccine court, it does not at all operate like the actual court system, and many barriers have been put in place against the petitioners. This is explained by Robert F Kennedy, from an interview he gave on episode three of the Vaccines Revealed documentary (Link Here) he said,:

...not only do [manufacturers] avoid the liability but they also avoid the discovery, the depositions, the documents searches, all those things that would explore and scrutinize the decision making that are taking place in that vaccine company.

 

...you want to see how these same companies, these pharmaceutical companies are behaving when they have this big defense bar looking over their shoulders, and suing them and getting $100 million and billion dollar settlements year after year after year or judgements year after year for their pharmaceutical products. Why would that same company behave any differently when it comes to vaccines? Of course the answer is, they don't.

 

The thing is that nobody it looking at them and nobody is allowed to look at them, and not only that but the congress not only made them immune from any liability, but they also made it very easy to bring a vaccine to market. So you don't have all these kind of burdens, hoops, and impediments and testing. You don't have for example double blind placebo testing of big populations.

 

Robert F Kennedy Jr stated that in vaccine court, there is no deposition – which is where witnesses provide sworn out-of-court testimony. Deposition is used to gather information as part of the legal discovery process and, in limited circumstances, may be used at trial. He also explained that there is no discovery - which is a pre-trial procedure where each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as a request for answers to interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.

 

And finally, the vaccine court process does not allow for class action lawsuits

 

At its inception, vaccine court was intended to be an easy and fast system, to provide prompt support and compensation to those who were vaccine injured. Unfortunately, the reality of how vaccine court actually plays out and operates today is far different from how it was envisioned in its creation stages. The vaccine court process can take years. For many cases, a decision isn’t made for a decade.

 

In vaccine court, because the vaccine manufacturers are not involved at all, it is actually the department of Health and Human Services (HHS) who steps in to take the manufacturer's place as the defendant. HHS is the highest level of USA government overseeing all things medically related. As a result, government appointed attorneys from the Department of Justice represent the government (HHS), to defend the government mandated vaccination program, and a government appointed Master (the judge) determines the final ruling in the case (if it gets that far). Few parents stand a chance. If a parent wins their case or if the government offers a settlement, those "awards" are paid for from a government fund, created and grown from tax payer dollars.

 

Because the manufacturers no longer have to worry about depositions or discovery, that basically means they can do whatever they want, because everything stays behind closed doors. The only way we learn of wrong doing is if whistleblowers choose to take great personal risk and speak out. 

 

Another incredible nuance about this "court," is that the rulings are often sealed, and one successful lawsuit cannot serve to assist other people who sustained similar injuries. 

 

This was the reality for the autism cases. The autism omnibus trial grouped 5000 autism cases together, reviewing them in three separate categories. The 2007 ruling was that vaccines don't cause autism, and all 5000 requests for compensation were denied. What's interesting about that though, is that one of the cases that was originally within the omnibus trial was that of Hannah Poling. At some point, Hannah's case was removed from the omnibus proceedings. Despite the omnibus conclusion that "vaccines don't cause autism," in Hannah's case, vaccine court later conceded that her severe autism was the result of the brain injury she sustained because of the vaccine she received. Her case was supposed to be sealed, so that the public would never know this, but somehow documents were leaked.

 

After documents were leaked, Sanjay Gupta interviewed Hannah's father, Dr. Jon Poling who is a neurologist. His 5 minute interview is incredible and is a must watch for everyone.

 

Hannah Poling is not an isolated case. Sarah Bridges is a psychologist and mother to Porter Bridges. Sarah also won her case for her son, and Porter now receives financial compensation as well. He is severely autistic as a result of the brain injury he sustained from the vaccines he received in infancy. Sarah explains this in a 20 minute interview, and she also explains how gruelling the vaccine court process is.

 

Mary Holland is a lawyer and is the Director of Graduate Legal Skills at NYU. In 2011 she published a legal review which explains that 83 similar cases have received financial compensation through the vaccine court, for the child's vaccine-caused brain injury. In all 83 cases the child was subsequently left autistic or with autistic like symptoms, because of their vaccine-caused brain injury.

 

In Ch9: Part 3, I explain that in 1986, when Congress decided that vaccine manufacturers could not be sued, they then tasked HHS with completing biannual safety audits on vaccines, meaning HHS became responsible for evaluating vaccine safety. The 1986 Act explains that every two years, HHS is required to prepare a report that details the existing vaccine problems and from there HHS needs to explain strategies to improve those problems. Every biannual reports is required to be submitted to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

 

In theory, these safety audits should have worked to ensure vaccine safety, except HHS has never done any of that work. This reality was discovered by the non-profit organization called ICAN.

 

ICAN submitted a FOIA request to HHS, to receive a copy of all of those biannual reports. HHS refused to respond, and so ICAN was forced to sue them. In an interview, Del Bigtree (the founder of ICAN) and Robert F. Kennedy Jr (ICAN's legal representation), discuss what happened in their lawsuit. Robert F Kennedy Jr said the following:

All those institutions that normally would protect a victim, a child, no longer exists [for vaccines], and the only thing that's left over is HHS's, scrutiny and vigilance. And we absolutely rely on that. 

 

Because of this lawsuit, HHS was forced to sign official court documents admitting they have never followed federal law, meeting their required obligations of the 1986 Act. ICAN provides this official court documentation for the public to see, and in a letter attached, they say:

The result of the lawsuit is that HHS had to finally and shockingly admit that it never, not even once, submitted a single biennial report to Congress detailing the improvements in vaccine safety. This speaks volumes to the seriousness by which vaccine safety is treated at HHS and heightens the concern that HHS doesn’t have a clue as to the actual safety profile of the now 29 doses, and growing, of vaccines given by one year of age.

 

In contrast, HHS takes the other portions of the 1986 Act, which require promoting vaccine uptake, very seriously, spending billions annually and generating a steady stream of reports on how to improve vaccine uptake. Regrettably, HHS has chosen to focus on its obligation to increase vaccine uptake and defend against any claim vaccines cause harm in the National Injury Vaccine Compensation Program (aka, the Vaccine Court) to such a degree that it has abandoned its vaccine safety responsibilities. 

 

HHS is the defendant in vaccine court. The Department of Justice represents HHS, battling against plaintiffs - parents who have submitted a claim of vaccine injury. The government is supposed to serve and protect the people. But, the 1986 Act put HHS in conflict with itself. To protect the people, would require researching and disclosing how vaccines cause harm. Publicly disclosing that would provide the evidence needed to win vaccine court cases, meaning HHS would lose. And therefore, HHS has refused to do that work. HHS has put protecting the vaccine program ahead of protecting the American people.

 

Over the last three chapters we've covered the details of the various systems that are supposed to be enacted, to ensure the public is protected from unsafe vaccines. All those safety measures have been compromised and neutralized. Watch this 17 minute video, it covers many of the points made over the last three chapters. The male voice you hear throughout this video, is that of Dr. Kroger, from National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The female voice you hear asking questions is that of Marcella Piper-Terri. I introduced you to her in Ch4: Part 3.

 

 

Continue to the next article: Ch11: Part 4

 

 

Article Sources

  • Robert F Kennedy Jr Interview in Vaccines Revealed Here

  • MUST WATCH HereNeurologist and Father, explaining their vaccine court ruling – the Government conceded that his daughter’s autism resulted from her vaccine injury.

  • MUST WATCH HerePsychologist and mom, explaining their vaccine court ruling - her son is being compensated for his medical problems, which include autism, which resulted from his vaccine injury. She describes the grueling vaccine court process.

  • Mary Holland - 83 Cases where autistic children received financial compensation through the vaccine court Here

  • A short video that explains how the US Vaccine Court process works Here

  • National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program – the Government Website Here
    Explains that the program was established because vaccine makers were being sued

  • A short video where Barbara Loe Fischer explains the consequences of the 1986 US Legislation  Here

  • Bio for Barbara Loe Fishcher - She worked with Congress to establish the 1986 Act Here

  • The 1986 Act - Part 2 National Vaccine Compensation Program Here

  • Interview between Del Bigtree and Robert F. Kennedy Jr Here

  • Court Documents - HHS admitting they haven't followed US law Here

  • Question Dr. Droger - a National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases /  CDC representative Here

 

 

 

 

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Follow Us
Please reload

Search By Tags
Please reload

Archive
  • Facebook Basic Square