4 ms·

> What's insufficient about the existing National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? Max compensation is $250k. Life insurance values my life far more. Docum

> What's insufficient about the existing National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? Max compensation is $250k. Life insurance values my life far more. Documents are under seal. Payouts are paid by the tax payer, not the manufacturers. Cases are heard by HHS and defended by DOJ (more taxes footing the bill). HHS has repeatedly refused to add certain injuries to their compensation tables even after CDC directed research indicates that such injuries have been proven to be causal (eg: motor tics in those that received thimerosol containing vaccines). Most cases now go years before any decision is made when the original stated purpose of the program was speedy settlements (6 months or less). The only expert witnesses that might be allowed to speak in secret vaccine court will likely be the scientists that were paid to design the vaccine in question by industry. Doctors that have testified against industry in this court (and others like it in other nations) have had their careers destroyed by retaliatory tactics. I find it quite funny and sad that you need to ask “what’s wrong with this special, secret court?” What’s NOT wrong with a special, secret court designed to protect a massive industry? NO PRODUCT CLASS should be protected in this manner.

handoflixue 5y ago
I'd heard others arguing for it and hadn't personally investigated it, so I appreciate the response! I do think that given my own evaluation of the risks and rewards, the NVICP is perfectly sufficient for my own needs, but I can certainly see how one would be opposed to this on a systemic level, or if you believe the risk-reward ratio skews differently
- slumdev 5y ago
  > the NVICP is perfectly sufficient for my own needs How do you reach this conclusion? At a max $250k per life, paid through a secret court with the deck stacked against the plaintiff, it doesn't appear to be sufficient for anyone's needs.
  - handoflixue 5y ago
    It's a simple risk-reward calculation: the vaccine protects me from Covid-19. The chance of side effects is very low. The chance of severe, long-term complications that cause me more than $250K in damages is even lower. Yeah, there's a tiny risk that I'll end up in a situation where I get screwed over, but I'm significantly more likely to suffer harm from Covid. Your own calculations will vary, of course - this is just the math given my own risk factors.
    - slumdev 5y ago
      It's actually the math that I'm questioning, not the subjective aspects. The quantity of money required to support my family in the event of my death is not affected by the odds of my death. Whether I'm the perfect image of health or an obese, chainsmoking, binge drinker, the mortgage bill is always the same amount.
      - handoflixue 5y ago
        Yeah, but if I have a 10% chance of dying to Covid and getting $0 for my family... or a 0.01% chance of dying to the vaccine and getting $250K... Well, I feel like the latter is a much better deal, even if it's still not ideal.

handoflixue 5y ago

I'd heard others arguing for it and hadn't personally investigated it, so I appreciate the response! I do think that given my own evaluation of the risks and rewards, the NVICP is perfectly sufficient for my own needs, but I can certainly see how one would be opposed to this on a systemic level, or if you believe the risk-reward ratio skews differently

slumdev 5y ago
> the NVICP is perfectly sufficient for my own needs How do you reach this conclusion? At a max $250k per life, paid through a secret court with the deck stacked against the plaintiff, it doesn't appear to be sufficient for anyone's needs.
- handoflixue 5y ago
  It's a simple risk-reward calculation: the vaccine protects me from Covid-19. The chance of side effects is very low. The chance of severe, long-term complications that cause me more than $250K in damages is even lower. Yeah, there's a tiny risk that I'll end up in a situation where I get screwed over, but I'm significantly more likely to suffer harm from Covid. Your own calculations will vary, of course - this is just the math given my own risk factors.
  - slumdev 5y ago
    It's actually the math that I'm questioning, not the subjective aspects. The quantity of money required to support my family in the event of my death is not affected by the odds of my death. Whether I'm the perfect image of health or an obese, chainsmoking, binge drinker, the mortgage bill is always the same amount.
    - handoflixue 5y ago
      Yeah, but if I have a 10% chance of dying to Covid and getting $0 for my family... or a 0.01% chance of dying to the vaccine and getting $250K... Well, I feel like the latter is a much better deal, even if it's still not ideal.