To: Brumar89 who wrote (1310888 ) 8/2/2021 8:29:01 PM From: Broken_Clock 1 RecommendationRecommended By
Read Replies (1) | Respond to what does that have to do with people becoming guinea pigs for greedy Big Pharma?The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, pits individual citizens against the US Executive Branch of Government – arguably the most powerful institution in the entire world – by forcing them to sue the Department of Health and Human Services for compensation. The program utilizes a tiered system in which Special Masters decide cases with power equal to full rulings; classically, Special Masters make recommendations on individual cases and a Federal judge would issue a ruling. In 2020, we in the US live in a nation in which we have inherited a program by which victims of vaccine injury can attempt to seek financial remedy for the harm to themselves and their families. Dr. Salk’s words echo in time as a warning unheeded. Dr. Salk’s message from the May 1984 hearing is reproduced below for current considerations. Sadly, the HHS (Executive Branch) adminisers the NVICP (Judiciary Branch), as clear a violation of the separation of powers doctrine as imaginable. STATEMENT OF JONAS SALK, M.D., THE SALK INSTITUTE FOR Madam Chairman, I have been listening very carefully to testimony that has been given thus far, and I wish to offer for the record what I have prepared in writing. I would like to emphasize the point that one of the available poliomyelitis vaccines [oral live virus vaccine] causes paralysis in a small number of instances and that an alternative vaccine exists [injected killed virus vaccine] that does not cause such injury. Another vaccine that is the cause of injury is the pertussis component of DTP (Diptheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine). To make my point I would like to put the following question to the committee: If two pertussis vaccines existed, one of which causes injury and the other does not, would the latter not be the one that would be used to avoid such injury? I want, therefore, to bring to your attention the fact that the live poliovirus vaccine now in general use, causes more than the two cases per year of vaccine-associated paralysis , as has just been stated by Dr. Smith. Such cases occur to the extent of about 6 to 10 cases per year and not only in children who are vaccinated but in adults who are contacts of vaccinated children and also in community contacts. Accumulated over the period of time since the live poliovirus vaccine has been in use, more than 200 cases have accumulated over the period of the last 20 years. In view of the fact that a killed poliovirus vaccine exists which does not cause vaccine-associated paralysis, I would suggest that the way to deal with polio-vaccine-associated injuries would be to exclude indemnification for polio-vaccine-associated injuries from the legislation so as to create an incentive to avoid such injury since the killed virus vaccine is equally effective in protecting the vaccinated individual and the community from the development of outbreaks of poliomyelitis. This issue has been a subject of considerable discussion for quite some time. These facts were brought prominently to attention more than a decade ago. The conditions that have prevailed in the past as far as questions of equivalence of effectiveness of the killed virus vaccine which is safe as compared with the live virus vaccine that does cause injury, have now, in 1984, been resolved because of advances in the science and the technology of killed virus vaccine manufacture. If the science and the technology of pertussis vaccine manufacture was similarly advanced then the use of an improved vaccine would he introduced rather than indemnification. My simple plea is that indemnification is not necessary for solving the problem of polio-vaccine-associated injuries. I am here to offer my views on legislation now being considered to provide compensation by the United States to victims of vaccine-related injuries. I believe that such victims should receive fair and adequate compensation without the necessity to engage in uncertain lawsuits with producers of biologics, and their insurers, who understandably will use their power to defend their interests which differ from that of the victim. One is the removal of the incentive for manufacturers and the scientific community to improve existing vaccines — for example, the pertussis component of the DPT vaccine. The other is the removal of the incentive to change policy when equally effective but safer vaccines already exist– for example, poliomyelitis vaccine. Therefore, such legislation should provide for: -Encouragement of research and development of vaccines free of the untoward side effects for which indemnification is to be provided. With regard to pertussis, further research and development is underway. However, in the case of poliomyelitis two vaccines exist, one of which has the property of causing a small but definite number of cases of paralytic poliomyelitis each year and the other of which is free of this property. Figure 1 shows the effect of vaccination on the incidence of poliomyelitis in the United States, and Figure 2 shows that since 1973 more cases have been caused by the live virus vaccine as compared to the number caused by the naturally occurring wild virus. The issue surrounding these observations has been discussed many times and will, in due course, be resolved by appropriate changes in policy or by legislation. In summary: I am of the opinion that such legislation as is being proposed in necessary but should be written in such as (a) way as to provide the kinds of safeguards that would avoid the need for indemnification as a remedy for vaccine-associated injuries.” childrenshealthdefense.org
