On March 8, the Supreme Court voted to hear Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, an appeal from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether a vaccine-injured child has the right to pursue a traditional "design defect" claim under state tort law when "Vaccine Court" refuses compensation.
Majority support parental vaccination choice according to a new Harris Poll. Over Half Of Parents Say Pharmaceutical Industry Has Too Much Influence Over Government Vaccine Mandates and Support More Safety Research
We, the people who affirm our belief in personal rights, in order to promote the general health and welfare for ourselves and our children and to establish justice, advocate the following principles:
Vaccination choice based on complete and accurate information is a fundamental human right.
The right to conscientious objection from vaccination mandates, namely the right to a philosophical exemption, is a fundamental human right.
Laws that make education, employment, daycare and public benefits contingent on vaccination status, except in the most extreme of public health emergencies, violate the fundamental human right to vaccination choice.
When vaccination is used as a preventive medical intervention for healthy individuals, the precautionary principle must apply. If there is no public consensus about the need for or safety of certain vaccines, they should neither be recommended nor mandated for universal use.
Individuals who are in a position to evaluate, recommend and mandate vaccines must be free of all actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
Calls for Immediate Action in the United States
Every state should permit philosophical exemption to vaccination mandates, upholding the human right to free and informed consent for all medical interventions. Without the real right to say no, current policy is coercive and lacks legitimacy.
Congress should conduct oversight hearings on the national vaccine program, including mandates for the military and immigrants, examining vaccine safety, conflicts of interest, suppression of science, evidence of vaccine injury, and comparative empirical data from countries with differing vaccination schedules.
Congress should immediately initiate a prospective study of vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations for long-term health outcomes. Such a baseline study has never been done. This bill is called the “Comprehensive Comparative Study of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Populations Act” and was originally cosponsored by Rep. Maloney (D.-N.Y.) and Rep. Osborne (R.-Ne.).
Congress should re-evaluate the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to reinstate ordinary tort liability for vaccine manufacturers and medical professionals. The 1986 Law’s liability protections have fueled the expansion of the vaccine schedule and have not made vaccines safer, as the Law required.
Congress should re-examine the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The Program has failed in its purpose to quickly, generously, and administratively compensate families for vaccine injury and to improve vaccine safety.
Cedillo vs. Secretary of Health and Human Services Highlights Failure of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Written by Mary Holland
Monday, 30 August 2010 00:00
Vaccine-Autism Decision a 'Major Disappointment' Says Autism Advocacy Community
Aug. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy (EBCALA) is deeply disappointed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision to affirm Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services. EBCALA submitted a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of 23 civil society organizations in January 2010 urging the Court of Appeals to reverse. In affirming the decision, the Court of Appeals failed to do justice by Michelle Cedillo and thousands of other petitioners in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP). This case, the first test case in the OAP, highlights the overall failure of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). As Rebecca Estepp, an OAP petitioner, said, "These are government lawyers, representing a government agency, presenting government-funded science to government judges, with no jury and no normal rules of evidence. Where's the justice in that?"
Michelle Cedillo, a 15-year-old girl, developed autism and many other severe medical problems in the immediate aftermath of her measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and other mercury-containing vaccines. Her lawyers advanced scientific and legal arguments that the combination of her mercury-containing and live virus vaccines substantially contributed to her life-threatening medical conditions. In EBCALA's view, Cedillo met the required standard of "more likely than not."
While the Court of Appeals criticized some of the Department of Justice's conduct as "troubling," it did not find that the government's conduct merited reversal. EBCALA has grave concerns
The Supreme Court Takes Bruesewitz v. Wyeth: Is There Justice for Vaccine Injury Victims?
Written by Mary Holland
Monday, 02 August 2010 00:00
On March 8, the Supreme Court voted to hear Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, an appeal from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court will decide whether a vaccine-injured child has the right to pursue a traditional "design defect" claim under state tort law when "Vaccine Court" refuses compensation. The Supreme Court must interpret the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and decide whether Congress intended to "preempt" all industry tort liability when it wrote, “No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable…if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”
Did Congress intend to extinguish the right to sue for all defective vaccine designs in civil court? While the statutory language is awkward and thus somewhat opaque, Congress’s legislative intent was not – the statute as a whole shows clearly that Congress intended to leave civil courthouse doors open for petitioners who elect to leave Vaccine Court to sue for design defects. Lower courts, nonetheless, have decided the question both ways. So the Supreme Court must step in and resolve the conflict. The stakes are high: whether a person injured by a vaccine can challenge the safety of the design in any court in the United States.
Thimerosal Goes to Court: American Home Products Corp. v. Ferrari
Written by Mary Holland
Thursday, 22 July 2010 00:00
Until now, most civil courts have shut their doors to claims that thimerosal contributed to autism. Both federal and state courts have rejected these claims, deciding that only “vaccine court,” the no-fault compensation program under the Federal Court of Claims, may hear them. Four courts have decided previously that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986 preempts, or displaces, all state law product liability claims against vaccine manufacturers. These prior decisions concluded that Congress intended that regular civil courts could not hear vaccine-related cases that plaintiffs brought on tort law theories of strict liability and negligence.
The October 6, 2008 unanimous decision of the Georgia Supreme Court American Home Products Corp. v. Ferrari changed all that. The court resolutely decided that the Vaccine Act permits state courts to hear cases about vaccine design defects. This decision now provides a strong new precedent for vaccine cases to come to civil court.