Minutus

Hello Jennifer,
This article is filled with fanatical inaccuracies. Natural news is not an objective news reporting outlet. It is consistently filled with hyperbole. It is the fox news of the faux alternative supplement industry.
That said, yes vaccines are bad, this we all know. But this article is written as if the supreme court was able to change a law enacted by congress and written by big pharma 25 yrs. ago. This is not their job. They are not constructed to do that.The supreme court is only upholding the "National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act" of 1986. This is no different than the lower courts that have done the same. I am no supporter of the supreme court but the decision here should not come as a surprise.
We should work to repeal the law, not get up in arms over the courts logical findings, it is not as if this happened just yesterday.
From this we have now the inept and incompetent VAERS system that is the mechanism that pays out (tax payer) funds to the parents of vaccine damaged children. The whole thing stinks. The idea of using taxpayers monies to pay for a private industries negligence is as immoral as vaccines themselves.
Best regards, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Jennifer Ruby wrote:

Rik
While I agree that there is lots of hyperbole, there is also a lot of fact.
The supreme court is structured to declare a law unconstitutional. I am not
up to speed on this particular case, but I can't imagine that questioning the
legitimacy of the law itself was not part of the case.
As for the amount of time lapse? Can't imagine why the law wasn't already
challenged. That being said, the Bush courts have been very lax in supporting
civil liberties and are known to support corporate fascism; ie, control of the government.
tanya

Yes the Vaccine Act needs to be rescinded but with corporations holding sway, this will never happen.......

In this case it was specifically to look at this issue:
"{The 1986 law says that a vaccine maker should not be held liable in a civil action if an injury was caused by unavoidable side effects, ?even if the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.? In other words, the provision bars lawsuits in state courts, but with an exception - claims except those alleging a manufacturing defect or a failure to warn ( back story ).

And that is what the family cited in its petition to the Supreme Court. In their lawsuit, the family argued her seizures and serious developmental delay were caused by the vaccine, and that a safer alternative had been available but not made available. The DTP vaccine was eventually taken off the market in 1998 and replaced.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote tha that the ruling ?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? (here is the ruling ).

Sheri
iAt 07:29 AM 2/23/2011, you wrote:
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases
Next classes start Friday February 11 & March 4

In a vigorous dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the court majority of imposing ?its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress? depriving ?vaccine-injured children of a key remedy that Congress intended them to have.? ...

In a final footnote, Justice Sotomayor wrote that a concern about an asserted link ?between certain vaccines and autism spectrum disorders? appeared to ?underlie the majority and concurring opinions in this case.?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/busin ... tml?ref=us
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases
Next classes start Friday February 11 & March 4

Hello Tanya,
When you mix fact and hyperbole it is usually called propaganda.

The case was not structured to entertain the constitutionality of the law, therefore they made no judgement in that way.

And it is a mistake to think that bush or neo-cons are somehow specifically at the root of the politicking. Greed and vaccines have no political party. Remember that there has been 10 yrs. of democratic presidencies since 86' and they never once addressed the heinous actions of the vaccine manufacturers. It is very misleading to think that this subversion is born from 1 party or the other.
Rik

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "tamarque@..." wrote:

The fact is that it was bush who granted big pharma freedom from responsibility for
vaccine damae.
I agree that both parties are bought by corporate money and power, but it always seems
the repugs tend to push fascism forward faster thanb you can say the word. I do think
there is a difference between them. If the bush people were not dominating the supreme
court, i think the decision would have gone down differently. Look at who were the
strongly dissenting votes on this.
Sheri did a fine job of describing the essence of the case.
tanya