3 ms·
Right. I'm not trying to make an anti-vaccine point or anything like that here. I'm simply saying that 29 payouts in a decade, even with ridiculously low odds o
by gjsman-1000 4y ago
Right. I'm not trying to make an anti-vaccine point or anything like that here. I'm simply saying that 29 payouts in a decade, even with ridiculously low odds of injury, is still way, way, way too low and it lacks justice. Showing it really isn't about patients - if you get hurt, you'll never be compensated, too bad. Just like Theranos. You got hurt - too bad.
- shagmin 4y agoThis seems like apples and oranges to me. Theranos was lying about having a working product and I don't think there were many patients actually hurt, since they still used other products that were already available to have the appearance of something working, but I digress. In the case of vaccines, there is a product that thousands or millions of people take, and some small minority of people have some anomalous reactions. If you are one person that has a serious reaction to a vaccine that millions of people have had just fine, should you be compensated? I can see if it affected a large percentage of people, but where to draw that line I don't know, but then it shouldn't have made it past enough red tape with the FDA to be so widely available.