Vaccine Times: US Supreme Court Uphold NCVIA

Another item that I have had on the Facts, not Fantasy page about vaccines is information on the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.  Again, information that has been there for quite a while, but bears repeating since we all know that a lie goes around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.  And the anti-vax pro-disease nutters sure as heck lie a lot.

• Pro-disease anti-vaxers claim that Hannah Poling and Bailey Banks are examples of successful Vaccine Court cases where vaccines caused autism. This is wrong.
• Hannah Poling was found to have a mitochondrial disorder, and that the vaccine worsened her condition. The court did not rule that a vaccine caused autism. Note, mitochondrial disorder is not autism, though some in the anti-vax camp claim it is.
• Bailey Banks was found to have suffered acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). This disease occurs in approximately 1 or 2 per million vaccine recipients, compared with 1 per 1,000 individuals infected with measles and 1 per 500 rubella infections. The court ruled that this is a type of pervasive developmental disorder, but made clear that it is not autism. Like the Poling case, anti-vaxers try to distort the truth to make their case. In the case of ADEM, vaccination helps reduce the risk of contracting the disease by reducing the likelihood of natural infection.
• Despite the low standards of proof in the vaccine court (more likely than not, or 50% + a hair), no one has been able to establish a causal relationship between vaccines and autism.
• In three of the best cases put forth by the anti-vax movement, the court ruled in all three that vaccines did not cause the individuals' autism.
• Before VICP, the media fueled fears about vaccines, leading to increases in law suits and many manufacturers halting production of vaccines altogether. The VICP was proposed by a coalition of government, health organization, and industry representatives, as well as physicians and ordinary citizens as a means to ensure a suitable supply of vaccines while allowing legal recourse to those injured by vaccines.
• Individuals may still seek damages through the tort system, if they choose, though they must then prove not only that the vaccine caused the injury, but also that the manufacturer was at fault.

Pro-disease anti-vaxers want vaccines that are 100% safe. This is never going to happen, as all medicines carry some risk. However, the relative risk of injury from vaccines is significantly lower than the risk of injury from getting the disease naturally. For more information, see the CDC website.  This is so important, I'll say it again: The only people that insist vaccines are (or could be) 100% safe are the anti-vax pro-disease advocates.  Not that we shouldn't strive for 100% safe, but to actually achieve that would be in the same fantasy realm these nutter live in.

From Vaccine Times:

As reported earlier, the US Supreme Court has been hearing a case in which the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz were trying to sue the vaccine maker, Wyeth, for Hannah’s alleged vaccine related injury.  Back then, I took exception to the way the media was reporting on the case, implying that the Supreme Court was hearing a case about the side effects, when in reality what the Supreme Court was trying to decide was the right of individuals to sue a vaccine manufacturer outside of vaccine court.

The US Supreme Court has reached a decision and it has decided to uphold the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, thus upholding the original purpose of that law to ensure that children that suffer from vaccine injuries are compensated,  while at the same time eliminating frivolous suits against vaccine manufacturers, thus preserving our vaccine supply.

The full text of the ruling on the case can be read here. Below are some excerpts of importance.

We consider whether a preemption provision enacted in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA)1 bars state-law design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers.

The above quote goes to prove my initial assertion that what was at stake in this suit was the parent’s right to sue the vaccine manufacturers directly, and specifically for “design-defect claims”. My understanding is that “design-defect claims” means defects, a.k.a. side effects, that are inherent to the design, and does not mean improper production of the vaccine.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE POST.