Make Pharma Liable Again. Arizona Rep. Gosar seeks to amend 1986 Vaccination Act eliminating manufacturer liability
Government caves to vaccine manufacturers
Passes 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Act
In the mid-1980s when vaccine manufacturers threatened to stop manufacturing vaccines because they were being sued for injuries in lawsuits that would bankrupt them, the government was duly cowered and the 1986 Act, which absolved vaccine manufacturers of all liability for mandated childhood vaccines, was passed. That was the point at which the number of childhood vaccines increased at breakneck speed. From the 24 doses given to US children in 1983 to the 72 doses in 2016, pharmaceutical companies have made billions on vaccines without any responsibility for any injury or death their products may cause. In fact, it’s the taxpayers, in the form of a $0.75 tax on each vaccine dose that provides the funds for the “vaccine court”, an administrative court that provides limited compensation to some of the many vaccine-injured children and adults and their families. The “court” was introduced with the 1986 Act.
Learn the Risk tweeted its chart showing the progressive increase in vaccines given to children following the passage of the 1986 Act.
Safety now inconsequential?
Vaccine manufacturers have also been able to push aside most any semblance of safety concerns when devising their clinical trials; no placebos or non-inert placebos have been used and safety reviews are of short duration. Even serious adverse events, such as deaths that occurred during the clinical trials, have been ignored, and the vaccines approved, by the FDA. This chart (image below), provided by Attorney Aaron Siri of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), shows just how little safety is considered when trialing the vaccines.
"Vaccine Court" fiasco
As of July 19, 2021, the government, through the "vaccine court," paid out $4.6 billion for injury claims, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson reported. Children's Health Defense (CHD), reporting on the government's manufacturer-friendly stance, makes the point that the payout would be larger if not for the high threshold for making claims, the 56% of claims that the government has thrown out, and the fact that most vaccine injuries go unreported.
Over the vaccine court’s 30-year history, individuals and families have filed over 20,000 petitions for vaccine injury compensation. This month, even as 12% of filed petitions remained unadjudicated, the payouts crossed over the $4 billion threshold. This amount was awarded in response to barely a third (31% or 6,276) of the filed petitions. There is no telling how much more money the taxpayer-funded program might have shelled out if the court had not chosen to dismiss the remaining petitions (56%)—possibly doing so fraudulently in at least some cases.
. . . While government-funded Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers vigorously represent and defend the interests of HHS and vaccine manufacturers, the consumer-unfriendly system forces the vaccine-injured to meet an exceptionally high burden of proof. For dismissed claims, there is no assurance that the program will even cover attorneys’ fees and costs.
CHD described the injustice experienced by some vaccine-injured families. An Omnibus Autism Proceeding "allowed" the court to throw out 5,400 claims of autism connected to vaccines.
In 2007 and 2008, DOJ attorneys exhibited “highly unethical and appallingly consequential official misconduct” during an Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP) orchestrated to determine the fate of 5,400 families who had filed claims for vaccine-induced autism. The potential value of the claims exceeded $100 billion—an amount that “would have bankrupted the [compensation] program many times over.” HHS’s Department of Justice lawyers, “under pressure” to deprive petitioners of their rightful relief, successfully achieved that aim through allegedly fraudulent means.
A bill to amend the 1986 Act
Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar, D.D.S., has proposed a bill, ‘‘End the Vaccine Carveout Act’’, to amend the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Act by removing the liability shield vaccine manufacturers currently enjoy, and tightening up the science, Trialsite News reported. The concerns highlighted above are all reasons why Gosar has come forward with his bill.
Gosar's package of documentation associated with the bill includes research into why the current laws create too many victims, compromised science, state-backed profit grabs and more.
. . . a plaintiff must prove that the vaccine manufacturer either committed “fraud,” intentionally withheld “information relating to the safety or efficacy of vaccines,” or “failed to exercise due care” in following federal law regulating vaccines – and be backed up “by clear and convincing evidence.”
The current legislation from a consumer protection lens creates a nearly impossible bar to surpass for many classes of plaintiffs and places limitations on those who do suffer from injury or loss of life of a loved one, for example.
. . .
According to the bill’s supporting documentation, “Although federal agencies insist that vaccines are safe, there is an unfortunate dearth of science relating to studies exonerating vaccines from causing dangerous side effects.”
The bill’s supporting material cites an unacceptable dichotomy: that federal regulations are more rigorous when it comes to ensuring the safety of drugs.
Among the changes, Gosar's bill would,
- Allow plaintiffs to file a civil action against a vaccine administrator or manufacturer for damages related to injury and death (page 2). This would serve to make doctors, nurses, and pharmacists liable for injury and death, as well as the manufacturer.
‘‘(2) Beginning on the date of enactment of the End the Vaccine Carveout Act, and subject to paragraph (4)(B), irrespective of whether a person has filed a petition for compensation under the Program in relation to a vaccine-related injury or death, such person may bring a civil action against a vaccine administrator or manufacturer in a State or Federal court for damages arising from such injury or death.’’
- Remove the short time limits in which a plaintiff can bring a lawsuit against a manufacturer for injuries and death (pages 3-4).
(I) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘no petition may be filed for compensation under the Program for such injury after the expiration of 36 months after the date of the occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of the significant aggravation of such injury’’ and inserting ‘‘unless prohibited by section7 2111(a)(4)(A), a petition may be filed8 for compensation under the Program for such injury at any time’’. . .
(II) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘no petition may be filed for compensation under the Program for such death after the expiration of 24 months from the date of the death and no such petition may be filed more than 48 months after the date of the occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of the significant aggravation of the injury from which the death resulted’’ and inserting ‘‘unless prohibited by section22 2111(a)(4)(A), a petition may be filed for compensation under the Program for such death at any time’’. . .
- Remove COVID-19 vaccines from covered countermeasures
Gosar's bill doesn't stop with the 1986 Act. It also addresses the PREP Act under which vaccine manufacturers were absolved of any liability for the COVID-19 vaccines (pages 8-9).
(b) EXCLUDING COVID–19 VACCINES FROM DEFINITION OF COVERED COUNTERMEASURE.—Section 319F–8 3(i)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d–9 6d(i)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
. . .
‘‘(B) does not include any vaccine used to mitigate, prevent, or treat COVID–19.’’
Can this bill be passed?
Opponents of vaccine mandates believe this bill has been sorely needed for a long time. From a practical perspective, the thousands of lawsuits that would be brought against vaccine manufacturers, should the bill pass, could bankrupt them. After all, pharma going bankrupt from injury lawsuits was the reason for the 1986 Act. Would politicians funded by Big Pharma, or news outlets that receive advertising money from Big Pharma, support this?
Whether or not this bill goes anywhere, its introduction can be a good first step to upending a law that, perhaps, should never have been passed in the first place. As more people become aware of the travesty being committed, the likelihood of change increases.
The information contained in this article is for educational and information purposes only and is not intended as health, medical, financial or legal advice. Always consult a physician, lawyer or other qualified professional regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition, health objectives or legal or financial issues.
