About

“The Committee has set forth… in this bill because it intends that the principle in …regarding unavoidably unsafe’ products, i.e., those products which in the present state of human skill and knowledge cannot be made safe, apply to the vaccines covered in the bill and that such products not be the subject of liability in the tort system.”

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
RUSSELL BRUESEWITZ, et al ., PETITIONERS v. WYETH LLC, fka WYETH, INC., fka WYETH LABORATORIES, et al.
562 U. S. ____ (2011)

Justice Sotomayor , with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting

“Vaccine manufacturers have long been subject to a legal duty, rooted in basic principles of products liability law, to improve the designs of their vaccines in light of advances in science and technology. Until today, that duty was enforceable through a traditional state-law tort action for defective design. In holding that §22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act or Act), 42 U. S. C. §300aa–22(b)(1), pre-empts all design defect claims for injuries stemming from vaccines covered under the Act, the Court imposes its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress. In doing so, the Court excises 13 words from the statutory text, misconstrues the Act’s legislative history, and disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market. 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. Because nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history of the Vaccine Act remotely suggests that Congress intended such a result, I respectfully dissent.”

Read the entire document – here 

(emphasis mine)

 

 

“And ‘informed consent’ originates in the theory of battery, where harm
results from an unconsented touching, as, for example, between agreeing to
participate in a boxing match and being mugged…..Thus the ‘duty to warn’ derives from product liability for unavoidably dangerous but socially useful products, where vaccines are viewed in the same manner as, for example dynamite.

Compensation for Vaccine-Related Injuries
November 1980
NTIS order #PB81-163909

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 80-600187

(emphasis mine)

 

 

In effect, if this is so easy for amateurs to get involved in vaccine controversies, this is because as a whole, the development, assessment and administration of these agents is a shame for the medical world: the weaknesses, contradictions, dissimulations and even lies of most vaccine leaders or governmental “experts” are so gross that they cannot escape the attention even of non medically-trained persons. – Marc Girard M.D., M.Sc.

 

 

Please use this page as a starting point for your investigations and to help with making an informed choice on vaccination.

This page is not intended for the purpose of providing medical advice.
All information, content, and material of this website is for informational purposes only and are not intended to serve as a substitute for the consultation, diagnosis, and/or medical treatment of a qualified physician or healthcare provider.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s