First They Came for the Anti-Vaxxers

[mosquitobite]

The lawsuits for these vaccines DID exist due to excessive harm, and they could NOT exist in a free market, so government had to come in and guarantee the market for them, by BOTH buying the vaccines, and MANDATING them.

In the real world, no intelligent consumer who is acting of their own free will and not under compulsion would take the offer from a doctor in your scenario where the doctor's only guarantee was "I guarantee that you will walk out my door and take at least 3 steps before dropping dead." He might initially fool a few people, but true market forces would eventually win out and people would demand stricter contracts/guarantees, which would then make the product no longer viable in a free market.

And historically, this is almost EXACTLY what has happened in the vaccine industry.

You must spread reputation around before giving more to Created4.


There is no guarantee of "do no harm". This is why choice must remain.


With a free market, the manufacturers would be FORCED to provide a 100% safe product if they wanted to stay in business. They would have to study which genetic make ups are most likely to have a reaction and recommend against certain segments getting them... FOR THEIR SAFETY.

Instead we have people who must believe that every human body is 100% equal and the government mandated schedule is 100% safe for all. Any deviation is a threat to their precious herd immunity.

Screw the anecdotes.

There is no reason to study why someone has a bad reaction.

They are the compassionate ones. The ones who think society as a whole is more important than its parts.
^ yes that's sarcasm.

We get recalls for baby cribs, carseats, bath toys, etc because a few children are hurt.

But vaccines? Well, they're off limits. Sorry about your genetic lottery kid!

We can't risk studying WHY you had that reaction... by golly... that's a rabbit hole we can't afford to touch!

 

[Created4]

With a free market, the manufacturers would be FORCED to provide a 100% safe product if they wanted to stay in business. They would have to study which genetic make ups are most likely to have a reaction and recommend against certain segments getting them... FOR THEIR SAFETY.

Exactly. Very few people understand the totality of the vaccine debate, and all the issues it encompasses, because ultimately it is NOT about the science, but the Government control. It is a protected market, probably the most protected market in the world since it is a guaranteed market in the MANY BILLIONS of dollars. Remove that protection by eliminating the National Compensation Program and putting a stop to government purchasing over 90% of the vaccines via taxpayer funds, and here is what would happen in a truly free market:

1. There would be far fewer vaccines in the market.
2. Those that survived in a free market would be much more SAFE, and much more EFFECTIVE.

As it is now, due to no market pressures/accountability, they are neither safe (not even debatable - this point is conceded) - nor very effective.

 

[donnay]

You must spread reputation around before giving more to Created4.


There is no guarantee of "do no harm". This is why choice must remain.


With a free market, the manufacturers would be FORCED to provide a 100% safe product if they wanted to stay in business. They would have to study which genetic make ups are most likely to have a reaction and recommend against certain segments getting them... FOR THEIR SAFETY.

Instead we have people who must believe that every human body is 100% equal and the government mandated schedule is 100% safe for all. Any deviation is a threat to their precious herd immunity.

Screw the anecdotes.

There is no reason to study why someone has a bad reaction.

They are the compassionate ones. The ones who think society as a whole is more important than its parts.
^ yes that's sarcasm.

We get recalls for baby cribs, carseats, bath toys, etc because a few children are hurt.

But vaccines? Well, they're off limits. Sorry about your genetic lottery kid!

We can't risk studying WHY you had that reaction... by golly... that's a rabbit hole we can't afford to touch!

Excellent points!

 

[donnay]

Exactly. Very few people understand the totality of the vaccine debate, and all the issues it encompasses, because ultimately it is NOT about the science, but the Government control. It is a protected market, probably the most protected market in the world since it is a guaranteed market in the MANY BILLIONS of dollars. Remove that protection by eliminating the National Compensation Program and putting a stop to government purchasing over 90% of the vaccines via taxpayer funds, and here is what would happen in a truly free market:

1. There would be far fewer vaccines in the market.
2. Those that survived in a free market would be much more SAFE, and much more EFFECTIVE.

As it is now, due to no market pressures/accountability, they are neither safe (not even debatable - this point is conceded) - nor very effective.

That's right, vaccine manufacturers were LOSING money prior to government protecting them and giving them government contracts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

YOU HAVE ALL THE RISK – MANUFACTURERS HAVE NO LIABILITY

by Sherri Tenpenny, DO, AOBNMM, ABIHM

Until recently, the concept of mandatory and mass vaccination was thought to be a far off possibility. Vaccination laws are regulated at the state level, and the federal government seemed to keep a watchful distance away from the subject. That appears to be changing, but the push for mandates is not new. This has been coming for a long time.

The groundwork to force everyone to be vaccinated began shortly after 911. President George W. Bush introduced Project BioShield during his State of the Union Address in January, 2003. Project BioShield created a comprehensive, joint effort between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the private pharmaceutical industry to develop drugs and vaccines to be released in the event of a biological and chemical weapon attack. Signed into law in July, 2004, the program was funded with $5.6 billion over ten years.
Project BioShield put forth three major components:

Indefinite funding “medical counter-measures” – vaccines, drugs, technologies – to be released as soon as “experts” agree they were “safe enough.” In other words, Project Bioshield allowed the Secretary HHS to purchase – and use – unapproved and unlicensed vaccines/drugs.
New authority to the NIH to speed research and development of drugs and vaccines for bioterrorism threats, and
Authorized fast-tracking of drugs and vaccines, a fancy way to use medicines barely researched or tested – in the event of an “emergency.”

Between July 2004 and end of 2006, which was also the close the 109th Congress, 11 bills were introduced. Each of these pieces of legislation would have given unprecedented advantages to the drug industry and would have removed all safeguards preventing dangerous vaccines, drugs, and medical devices from reaching consumers.

The reaction against the bills was strong and loud from all political parties, stopping all bills except S. 3678, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act.

Continued...

 

[Created4]

That's right, vaccine manufacturers were LOSING money prior to government protecting them and giving them government contracts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

YOU HAVE ALL THE RISK – MANUFACTURERS HAVE NO LIABILITY

by Sherri Tenpenny, DO, AOBNMM, ABIHM

Until recently, the concept of mandatory and mass vaccination was thought to be a far off possibility. Vaccination laws are regulated at the state level, and the federal government seemed to keep a watchful distance away from the subject. That appears to be changing, but the push for mandates is not new. This has been coming for a long time.

The groundwork to force everyone to be vaccinated began shortly after 911. President George W. Bush introduced Project BioShield during his State of the Union Address in January, 2003. Project BioShield created a comprehensive, joint effort between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the private pharmaceutical industry to develop drugs and vaccines to be released in the event of a biological and chemical weapon attack. Signed into law in July, 2004, the program was funded with $5.6 billion over ten years.
Project BioShield put forth three major components:

Indefinite funding “medical counter-measures” – vaccines, drugs, technologies – to be released as soon as “experts” agree they were “safe enough.” In other words, Project Bioshield allowed the Secretary HHS to purchase – and use – unapproved and unlicensed vaccines/drugs.
New authority to the NIH to speed research and development of drugs and vaccines for bioterrorism threats, and
Authorized fast-tracking of drugs and vaccines, a fancy way to use medicines barely researched or tested – in the event of an “emergency.”

Between July 2004 and end of 2006, which was also the close the 109th Congress, 11 bills were introduced. Each of these pieces of legislation would have given unprecedented advantages to the drug industry and would have removed all safeguards preventing dangerous vaccines, drugs, and medical devices from reaching consumers.

The reaction against the bills was strong and loud from all political parties, stopping all bills except S. 3678, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act.

Continued...

Older material from Sherri, but still very relevant. Project Bioshield, another "protected market" for vaccine manufacturers, opens up another whole can of worms about government control via the use of forced vaccines. This is Homeland Security action that can be invoked (and already has several times) to use unapproved vaccines and other medicines without even FDA approval. They are using it to stockpile billions of dollars worth of experimental vaccines, some of which get used on military personnel who have even less rights than the general public when it comes to vaccine choice.

Project “Bioshield” allows the U.S. Government to stockpile billions of dollars worth of experimental vaccines that have never been approved by the FDA to be used on American Citizens when the government declares a state of emergency.

The U.S. Government has guaranteed a thriving U.S. vaccine market for pharmaceutical companies by purchasing billions of dollars worth of vaccines every year with U.S. taxpayer dollars.

The CDC is the largest purchaser of vaccines in the U.S., spending over $4 billion annually to purchase vaccines that are approved by the FDA. Since the CDC is the government agency responsible for overseeing vaccine safety, this creates a huge conflict of interest.

However, this is another U.S. Government agency purchasing billions of dollars’ worth of vaccines. The Department of Homeland Security, created shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 2001, has been authorized by Congress to purchase and stockpile billions of dollars of experimental vaccines that are not approved by the FDA, to use on American citizens during a time of a "national emergency" as defined by the U.S. Government.

One might think that the only time an unapproved vaccine could be authorized for use would be during a time of national crisis, such as a biological terrorist attack. The fact is, however, that the government has broad powers to use unapproved vaccines whenever they want to, and have already done so.

Full Article here.

 

[Reece]

Exactly. Very few people understand the totality of the vaccine debate, and all the issues it encompasses, because ultimately it is NOT about the science, but the Government control. It is a protected market, probably the most protected market in the world since it is a guaranteed market in the MANY BILLIONS of dollars. Remove that protection by eliminating the National Compensation Program and putting a stop to government purchasing over 90% of the vaccines via taxpayer funds, and here is what would happen in a truly free market:

1. There would be far fewer vaccines in the market.
2. Those that survived in a free market would be much more SAFE, and much more EFFECTIVE.

As it is now, due to no market pressures/accountability, they are neither safe (not even debatable - this point is conceded) - nor very effective.

You can say that would be the likely outcome, but saying that this "would happen" is too strong of a claim. I happen to think that your first claim would be wrong.

There are plenty of ways the state negatively impacts the vaccine market. Most businesses are unable to mandate vaccines - they have to show that it is a business necessity and that there aren't alternatives (health care workers and people who work with children have sometimes managed to get past this). Even then, there are a plethora of regulations that often make mandating vaccines more trouble than its worth. The business generally has to make ridiculous exceptions for employees who object on religious grounds (like masks in the health care industry). At that point, most of the benefit is already gone, because most people already get vaccines anyway. Privacy laws can obviously play a big role as well. Increasing insurance rates based off of a lack of vaccinations is also effectively banned, which there would be a clear incentive to have in a free market (especially considering the likely decreased cost of vaccines due to increased competition).

Another problem I have with this is that people who like vaccines would likely be able to get more vaccinations. Whether its for a disease where there currently isn't a vaccine or covering more strains of an existing one, I think the relaxing of regulations would give people the choice of getting significantly more vaccines.

There is also the possibility that a free market would actually require certain vaccines for segments of the population. The parent does not own the child. For some diseases, the risk of not giving the child a vaccine could be high enough where the parent does not have that right. Furthermore, not getting certain vaccines could be considered reckless behavior that puts others at a high risk, which would obviously not be allowed in a free market (consider the extreme example of playing Russian roulette, except with someone else's property).

As for safety of vaccines, they actually are safe. If you want to argue that they aren't safe, I would go with the chance of getting in a car crash on the way to the doctor, since that's a far more likely possibility. One in a million people (or likely less) having an extreme reaction because of a vaccine is not impressive.

 

[mosquitobite]

As for safety of vaccines, they actually are safe. If you want to argue that they aren't safe, I would go with the chance of getting in a car crash on the way to the doctor, since that's a far more likely possibility. One in a million people (or likely less) having an extreme reaction because of a vaccine is not impressive.

There's actually a well known phrase in the law that gave vaccine manufacturers protection from liability. It's *THE REASON* they gave for passing the law and shielding them from lawsuits.

Do you know what that phrase is?

 

[Created4]

I happen to think that your first claim would be wrong.

Sure, that is the beauty of free speech. Anyone can express their beliefs, particularly beliefs in vaccines. What you "happen to think" is your own personal belief in vaccines, and having covered this issue for many many years, I have found almost all the arguments in favor of vaccines and forced vaccinations to be arguments based on religious-like beliefs - not facts. Most of the true facts regarding vaccines are covered up and not covered in the mainstream media, so one has to do their own research to uncover them, such as the DOJ's quarterly reports on settlements for vaccine injuries and deaths in the Federal Government vaccine court. As far as I know, we are the only ones that publish those reports each quarter. (Last one is here.)

The historical facts here are that the pharmaceutical companies in the 1980s told Congress that it was no longer profitable for them to manufacture vaccines, due to all the litigation costs in fighting claims for vaccine injuries. So Congress passed legislation to exempt them from litigation in civil court, and setup the National Vaccine Compensation Program (which in itself disproves your other religious-like belief that vaccines are safe.) This law has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

So those are the facts, and everything else you wrote was based on your religious-like beliefs in vaccines, not facts, and has been refuted elsewhere.

 

[Reece]

There's actually a well known phrase in the law that gave vaccine manufacturers protection from liability. It's *THE REASON* they gave for passing the law and shielding them from lawsuits.

Do you know what that phrase is?

I don't know the exact phrase you're looking for. Immunity? Why does it matter?

Yes, they are shielded from lawsuits, which would likely not happen in a free market, but that doesn't meant hat there would be less vaccines, which was my point. Since there is no evidence of wrongdoing on their part in the vast majority of cases, it wouldn't very expensive.

 

[Reece]

Sure, that is the beauty of free speech. Anyone can express their beliefs, particularly beliefs in vaccines. What you "happen to think" is your own personal belief in vaccines, and having covered this issue for many many years, I have found almost all the arguments in favor of vaccines and forced vaccinations to be arguments based on religious-like beliefs - not facts.

You expressed more than what you thought would happen. You said: "here is what would happen in a truly free market: 1. There would be far fewer vaccines in the market." You cannot possibly know that for sure, despite your claim that this would happen. There are clear ways that the government favors vaccines, but also clear ways that they favor the other side.

Most of the true facts regarding vaccines are covered up and not covered in the mainstream media, so one has to do their own research to uncover them, such as the DOJ's quarterly reports on settlements for vaccine injuries and deaths in the Federal Government vaccine court. As far as I know, we are the only ones that publish those reports each quarter. (Last one is here.)

Everyone here is aware of the vaccine court. They aren't evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the vaccine makers. They actually favor the anti vaccination advocates in a way that would probably not be supported in a free market. Rather than just something bad happening around the same time, you would need actual evidence that it was linked.

The historical facts here are that the pharmaceutical companies in the 1980s told Congress that it was no longer profitable for them to manufacture vaccines, due to all the litigation costs in fighting claims for vaccine injuries.

So what? Businesses say all the time that they are not able to be profitable without state assistance. That isn't evidence that they aren't actually profitable, and it certainly isn't evidence that less would be made in a free market. In fact, the massive amount of court costs probably wouldn't be paid in a free market. Nobody would be willing to take up a case that would clearly lose, which would be the inevitable result if the judge actually understood science (which would hopefully happen in a free market). Furthermore, court costs would probably be considerably lower in a free market, particularly for the winning side.

So Congress passed legislation to exempt them from litigation in civil court, and setup the National Vaccine Compensation Program (which in itself disproves your other religious-like belief that vaccines are safe.) This law has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

So those are the facts, and everything else you wrote was based on your religious-like beliefs in vaccines, not facts, and has been refuted elsewhere.

The government setting up a program to give payouts is proof that vaccines are safe? Someone called the pro-vaccine people "oligarchs" earlier, and yet here you are appealing to the Supreme Court and Congress as somehow proving vaccines aren't safe. The government paying billions of dollars to subsidize the anti-vaxxer claims isn't evidence of anything other than the government being ridiculous. Ironically, they didn't even set up the program because there were actual injuries, they supposedly set it up because people weren't getting vaccinated since they thought vaccines were harmful. Clearly that didn't work.

Link me to where you refuted anything I said.

 

[Reece]

If I had a child that developed a problem around the same time as they got the vaccine, I would definitely consider going to the vaccine court and making up my thoughts on the matter. I'm sure a lot of people would. This isn't a typical court; there is no innocent until proven guilty for the vaccine manufacturers, it's strongly in favor of the person bringing the claim. This is a clear subsidy to anti-vaxxer claims. If it was the other way around, and people were getting massive amounts of money because their child got measles or something from someone who wasn't vaccinated, but they didn't need much proof, you can be sure the anti-vaxxers would use this to support their claims, not the pro-vaccination claims.

In truth, this isn't proof either way. You claiming that this somehow proves something just goes to show the low level of evidence that you find convincing.

 

[Created4]

There's actually a well known phrase in the law that gave vaccine manufacturers protection from liability. It's *THE REASON* they gave for passing the law and shielding them from lawsuits.

Do you know what that phrase is?

I don't know the exact phrase you're looking for. Immunity? Why does it matter?

I believe the phrase he is referring to is the phrase "unavoidably unsafe" which Congress was forced to include in the text of their bill in 1986, and which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2011.

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC

Yes, it matters, because it means the highest law of the land has ruled that vaccines are unsafe. To argue they are safe is take a contrary position that is conceded by those who protect Vaccine Manufacturers.

Interesting side note for those who followed the thread regarding the Rodriguez v. United States case earlier this week where the Supreme Court upheld the 4th Amendment in the dog sniffing case, as I pointed out there the case would NOT have upheld the 4th Amendment had not Sotomayor and Ginsburg adamantly argued and ruled in favor of 4th Amendment rights, since "conservatives" Thomas and Alito ruled against it - so too in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC it was Sotomayor and Ginsburg who dissented in the minority to give pharmaceutical companies total legal immunity to vaccine injuries and deaths, and grant them a protected market.

Check out the dissenting opinion written by Sotomayor. It is very good, and stands for principles of liberty, once again, more than so-called conservatives sitting on the bench.

 

[Reece]

I believe the phrase he is referring to is the phrase "unavoidably unsafe" which Congress was forced to include in the text of their bill in 1986, and which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2011.

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC

Again, you're using language here that seems unsupportable. Who forced congress to include it in the text of their bill?

Yes, it matters, because it means the highest law of the land has ruled that vaccines are unsafe. To argue they are safe is take a contrary position that is conceded by those who protect Vaccine Manufacturers.

Kind of like water is unsafe. People have died from drinking water, and that doesn't mean you shouldn't drink it. It doesn't even mean that you have the right not to provide water to your children. Really, any food product people have choked on would fall under the same category too; do you want these places to be sued? If the vaccine manufacturers put a warning label on their product, describing the risks, they should not generally be liable if something happens. If something happens that they didn't warn about, or their warning did not meet the extent of the danger, then it is reasonable that they should have to pay. The government paying for the real risks makes some sense. The government paying people who make crazy un-backed claims in a court that will favor you with little evidence does not make sense, and helps spread anti-vaccination claims.

 

[mosquitobite]

The government has deemed them UNAVOIDABLE UNSAFE yet you are arguing they are safe.

There is a difference between sometimes being unsafe and UNAVOIDABLY unsafe. Getting in a car is UNAVOIDABLY unsafe. Yet many of us parents buy cars with the highest safety ratings possible and we buckle our children into car seats because of the free market. Car manufacturers are still liable in the event of a malfunction of their product. They still have recalls.

Even if there is competition of a vaccine between 2 manufacturers, the parents are not given the choice - the doctor will decide which manufacturer he will stock and give to his patients. And there is a ridiculous amount of trust placed in their hands. It would be like trusting the car dealer to decide which car you will purchase! Any questioning of his expertise is denounced. (yes, I understand doctors go to school for much longer than a car dealer - but they are taught only one side of vaccines. They are not taught to be critical or open minded on the issue.) Wouldn't it be ridiculous if there were car dealer schools and they taught them that only motorized vehicles were safe for travel. Walking is hazardous to the greater good and therefore we must all use motorized vehicles to get from place to place. In addition, much of the research grants for these car dealer schools come from Ford, Chevy, Volvo, etc.


They are not taught to question. Which, from my perspective, goes against everything SCIENCE is supposed to be about. Many of these doctors go on to become researchers. Since they are taught in school that vaccines are only good and that only the pro-vaccine stance is allowed (or be shunned, ala Wakefield) and that most of your research money comes from pharmaceutical manufacturers... well... It's kinda like expecting a Congressman to stick with his principles and give up his committee assignment instead of siding with leadership.

And that doesn't even get into the revolving door between pharmaceutical executives and the CDC/FDA.

Nope. Nothing to see here folks. Stop worrying about the free market!

 

[mosquitobite]

The majority’s structural arguments fare no better than its textual ones. The principal thrust of the majority’s position is that, since nothing in the Vaccine Act or the FDA’s regulations governing vaccines expressly mentions design defects, Congress must have intended to remove issues concerning the design of FDA-licensed vaccines from the tort system. Ante, at 13. The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the FDA’s silence on design defects existed long before the Vaccine Act was enacted. Indeed, the majority itself concedes that the “FDA has never even spelled out in regulations the criteria it uses to decide whether a vaccine is safe and effective for its intended use.”18 Ibid. And yet it is undisputed that prior to the Act, vaccine manufacturers had long been subject to liability under state tort law for defective vaccine design.

From Sotomeyer's dissent. ^

 

[Reece]

The government has deemed them UNAVOIDABLE UNSAFE yet you are arguing they are safe.

First, I'm using a different definition of safe than them. I would also say drinking water is safe. I'm not using safe as in "no danger," I'm using safe as in "very little danger." The way they are using unsafe in this instance, and the way the Supreme Court agreed with (as can be seen in the case Created linked to), was that there is very little risk. Second, why does it matter what the government says? There are a lot of people in government who know very little, are going to say whatever their constituents want to hear, etc.

There is a difference between sometimes being unsafe and UNAVOIDABLY unsafe. Getting in a car is UNAVOIDABLY unsafe. Yet many of us parents buy cars with the highest safety ratings possible and we buckle our children into car seats because of the free market. Car manufacturers are still liable in the event of a malfunction of their product. They still have recalls.

When there is a malfunction, it isn't an inherent risk of their product. It's a mistake. If I choke on an apple, that's a risk inherent to eating the apple. Getting into a car is another good example. If I get into a crash, I can't sue the manufacturer unless if there was something wrong with the product that was not inherent to the product.

Even if there is competition of a vaccine between 2 manufacturers, the parents are not given the choice - the doctor will decide which manufacturer he will stock and give to his patients. And there is a ridiculous amount of trust placed in their hands. It would be like trusting the car dealer to decide which car you will purchase! Any questioning of his expertise is denounced. (yes, I understand doctors go to school for much longer than a car dealer - but they are taught only one side of vaccines. They are not taught to be critical or open minded on the issue.) Wouldn't it be ridiculous if there were car dealer schools and they taught them that only motorized vehicles were safe for travel. Walking is hazardous to the greater good and therefore we must all use motorized vehicles to get from place to place. In addition, much of the research grants for these car dealer schools come from Ford, Chevy, Volvo, etc.


They are not taught to question. Which, from my perspective, goes against everything SCIENCE is supposed to be about. Many of these doctors go on to become researchers. Since they are taught in school that vaccines are only good and that only the pro-vaccine stance is allowed (or be shunned, ala Wakefield) and that most of your research money comes from pharmaceutical manufacturers... well... It's kinda like expecting a Congressman to stick with his principles and give up his committee assignment instead of siding with leadership.

People don't have to learn every single possible side to every issue. I don't need to look at previous work on the earth being flat to learn about science. I don't need to look at moon landing conspiracies to learn the right history about the moon landing. We build off of previous work. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Looking at peer-reviewed scientific papers that have a good methodology is the best way to learn about the current knowledge on vaccines. That said, most doctors seem to know far more about the anti-vaccination arguments than the anti-vaxxers themselves.

As for competition, yes, there is a problem in the current situation where the patient has very little choice. In a free market, I would think that there would be more choices on doctors. I do think that doctors tend to know much more about medical science than most people do, and so people would continue to use their choice of vaccines. A lot of things your doctor decides is far more significant than what vaccine they choose, and this does happen in other areas as well.

And that doesn't even get into the revolving door between pharmaceutical executives and the CDC/FDA.

Nope. Nothing to see here folks. Stop worrying about the free market!

The revolving door helps large vaccine manufacturers, but not necessarily vaccine manufacturing in general. They restrict competition.

As for the free market, I support a free market, so I don't get what that's about.

 

[Reece]

From Sotomeyer's dissent. ^

This is an interesting argument for this specific case, but it's fairly typical for the FDA. The FDA has built in incentives to delay drugs, regardless of whether they are actually safe. Furthermore, defending current companies from competition is a powerful function that they play in the marketplace. Not giving the criteria gives them more leeway, so that's what I would expect them to do. I don't think vaccines are safe because the FDA says they are, I think they're safe because that's what the overwhelming evidence shows. If you think vaccines are dangerous and the FDA is fully bought off by pro-vaccine interests, why wouldn't they release strict criteria? Wouldn't that make it seem like these vaccine manufacturers were being super careful?

As for the actual argument, the rare cases of harm from vaccines are built in and conceded, and so seems to be no different than getting into a car crash or choking on an apple from a libertarian standpoint.

 

[mosquitobite]

Car manufacturers don't have a law on their side that prevents them from being sued, nor do they have a taxpayer funded fund to pay out in the event of harm.

Neither do farmers.

Is science about questioning and hypothesis or not?

This is why the term "settled science" is bologna!

 

[Working Poor]

I think it is very possible that vaccines are meant to cause injury to certain people with certain genetics. I don't know for certain it is just something I feel in my gut. They do hurt people and children of certain genetics it is already known who should not take them.

I do know that when vaccines were given to me a a child they made me feel horrible for sometimes a couple of years damit man. From what I have seen in my family and other people I know they do seem to cause sickness in certain people. I think they play a role in learning disabilities and many other disabilities. I am just some person that gets sick from them what do I know or, what do any other the people who live with the pain and discomfort they suffered from vaccines know? We all know we don't want them. I am pretty dam certain that more than 1 in a million people have bad reaction to them. That would be only 300 people have been injured from vaccines in this country and the number of injured are way higher than that. Anyway I think people should have a right to decide what gets put in their bodies.

 

[Created4]

As for the actual argument, the rare cases of harm from vaccines are built in and conceded, and so seems to be no different than getting into a car crash or choking on an apple from a libertarian standpoint.

Seriously?? I have no idea what definition of "libertarian" you are using then.