yeah betty saw the date...?? type error? looked for another site...found this one...
I can remember my friend talkin on this subject. Him and his wife not so keen on some of the required shots for the kids...
So they told Doc to not give them..Doc tells them they are required for the kid to go to school..and better if shot given now when baby instead of later..???
Sure enough, 5yrs later..school wanted proof of all the shots....
BTW when on this site..might want to click on the right side....China finds deadly ticks.....
read it and smell cover up...ohh yeah, the famous line..."abx will take care of it"
anyhow...."ya gotta love it"(I don't
)
wlk---
Anyhow here is a site with a correct date...
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/supreme-court-
ruling-renders-vaccine-manufacturers-immune-lawsuits
Supreme Court ruling renders vaccine manufacturers immune to lawsuits
Published 15 March 2011
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of vaccine manufacturers declaring that they could not be sued in state court for damages as a result of design-defects in their products;
the court found six to two that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act protects vaccine manufacturers from design-defect claims;
the law was passed in response to a massive increase in litigation against vaccine manufacturers that led to a shortage of vaccines;
Justice Sotomayor and Ginsberg dissented;
the two argued that the decision leaves a regulatory void and insufficient oversight over vaccine manufacturers;
proponents say that this helps stabilize the vaccine market and protects children
Supreme Court upholds shield for vaccine makers // Source: antalvali.com
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of vaccine manufacturers declaring that they could not be sued in state court for damages as a result of design-defects in their products.
The court found six to two that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act protects vaccine manufacturers from design-defect claims.
The case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court after Wyeth, a vaccine producer now owned by Pfizer, was sued by the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz.
Her parents claim that a dose of Wyeth’s diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine induced seizures and caused developmental delays in their daughter.
Wyeth insisted that the company did no wrong.
The Supreme Court ruling is based on the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which was passed by Congress in response to a massive increase in litigation against vaccine manufacturers that led to a shortage of vaccines.
From 1978 to the mid-1980s, dramatic rises in product liability lawsuits drove two of the largest domestic manufacturers out of business.
To combat the growing shortage of vaccines, Congress created a law to shield vaccine manufactures from tort litigation and help stabilize the vaccine market.
Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, individuals can file for compensation against a vaccine manufacturer in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court found that the law, “reflects a sensible choice to leave complex epidemiological judgments about vaccine design to the [Food and Drug Administration] and the National Vaccine Program, rather than juries.”
In her dissent, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote that the court’s ruling “misconstrues the Act’s legislative history, and disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market.”
She added, “Its decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products.”
Ruth Bader Ginsberg joined Sotomayor in dissenting.
Critics echoed these sentiments claiming that the ruling effectively denies parents effective recourse when vaccines are defective or cause irreparable damage.
Louise Kuo Habakus, a vaccine safety advocate said,
“The Court is telling parents that they’re on their own.
Parents know that 4 out of 5 cases of vaccine injury do not get compensation in the misnamed Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The Supreme Court has slammed the courthouse doors shut.”
A Los Angeles Times editorial defends the decision, arguing that while it may seem unfair to consumers to give vaccine manufacturers immunity from lawsuits in state courts, the Supreme Court’s ruling was ultimately correct.
The editorial reasons, “Consumer groups long have argued that preemption of state claims against pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers of medical devices unfairly tilt the law against consumers.
That may be true as a general proposition. But preemption in the case of vaccines serves the interests of children because the uncertainty caused by state actions in vaccines cases can deter the manufacture of new vaccines.”
2009-2010 © News Wire Publications, LLC
added story/emphasized thigns. bettyg, iowa leader
Post edited by: Bettyg, at: 03/21/2011 03:49 PM
Anything I post or respond to comes from a Lyme and Bart victim himself. I am NOT a doctor. I do my own research for ME...I may share my findings and will post them. They are for general talk and vent...If a group leader feels the info is worth saving somewhere, they are more than welcome to do with it as they like. Wlk=)
"What MD Junction means to me is a place where i can feel like im not alone. As someone with something as rare as hydrocephalus, it feels like im the only one in the world with it. When i came to MD, its like everyone has it. It doesnt feel like im alone. And that people need to hold up a sign to say what i have, because people know. And they understand. I can get questions answered from people who have been through it rather than from doctors or people who only can tell you from a physical standpoint. THat is what MD junction means to me." (tomboykimi)
