2011.03.05 Q'uo on Vaccines

[xise]

the underlying situation that creates emotion for the issue for people, crazy or not.

Which in your view would be...?

My perspective comes from my background, which is legal. Parents whose children are hurt by vaccination want to feel valued, properly compensated, and be heard about their loss. We're currently doing the opposite on all fronts.

I think the issue is that much of this revolves around parents who are 'ex-vaxxers' - they vaccinated and killed or maimed their child due to the vaccination, however unlikely - are not satisfied with the compensation process, and thus really genuinely seek to raise the issue online. Vaccines do cause harm to children, however minute, and since the creation of the closed vaccine court proceedings in 1986, $4B has paid out for vaccine injury even with a paltry 250k cap when a child dies, and its paid by the gov't; not by vaccine manufacturers. 

Truly, if you believe the vaccination system is safe enough, then these parents are heroes, having sacrificed their children for the betterment of all. Yet they are treated like dirt. They get paid almost nothing for a child who dies (compared to most deaths in other areas). They are ignored (none of them got to testify at the congressional hearing recently). They are pressured to shut up, or social media that carries their story is told to semi-censor all things anti-vax, including their voice. Are we really surprised they and their friends are outraged at such treatment and get rabid? (Btw, I am drawn to causes of people whose voice isn't heard, or there is a large systemic power imbalance, if you haven't noticed  )

I don't think it's unreasonable to consider their #1 request, which is to undo the special law governing vaccine liability. Every single other industry in the US, from normal medicines to cars to planes to chemicals in food, has normal liability and its worked. You don't often see this 1986 NVIC act repealment actually parsed out and discussed on media or by people, for whatever reason. This really isn't that outlandish of a request, especially given the Supreme Court case that upheld federal preemption of immunity shield portion for manufacturers which also had a dissent by Sotomeyer (with Ginsburg) stating we should not allow the federal law to preempt new state law which wants to make manufacturers liable:

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.

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011)