3 ms·

> You are very misinformed if you think vaccine manufacturers are not liable for their products. They are exempt from normal civil suits because of their mandat

> You are very misinformed if you think vaccine manufacturers are not liable for their products. They are exempt from normal civil suits because of their mandatory nature (nobody would make a mandatory medical product at the usual rate of medical malpractice suits), but the FDA is authorized to withdraw products and levy fines for defective/harmful vaccines, and has done so many times in the past. I must be severely misinformed as well, because I remember signing a waiver that prevents me from filing a civil suit. I don’t see how such things as negligence and/or willful misrepresentation of benefits and risks can be remedied simply by having the FDA say “whoops, actually you can’t inject this in people anymore.” That’s wildly different from being a able to provide restitution, let alone punish bad behavior.

shadowgovt 3y ago
> I don’t see how such things as negligence and/or willful misrepresentation of benefits and risks can be remedied simply by having the FDA say “whoops, actually you can’t inject this in people anymore. ... because making things to inject in people is their whole business model and if the FDA says that enough they cease to exist as a company? Pretty solid deterrence.
- omginternets 3y ago
  >... because making things to inject in people is their whole business model and if the FDA says that enough they cease to exist as a company? 1. That's a stretch. These companies sell more than just COVID vaccines. 2. How does a patient that was injured by the vaccine, through manufacturer negligence, say, obtain restitution? I'm glad the FDA is still regulating the vaccine. I wish my constitutional right to bringing civil suit were similarly preserved before I was coerced by my employer into taking the vaccine.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    IIUC restitution comes via the vaccine injury compensation program (https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation) and is divorced from any preventative or punitive process applied to the manufacturer. > my constitutional right to bringing civil suit Um... Is that a Constitutional right? I don't see "civil suit" mentioned anywhere. You could, perhaps, claim it should be considered an always-on right as per common law in due process, except there's already a whole host of possible injuries one can sustain where there is no right to civil suit resulting, so I'm guessing SCOTUS has already at some point ruled that no such universal right exists, or that it's well within the purview of Congress to pass laws modifying / constraining / shaping said right. Hell, you can't even sue the US government for misinforming you about geospatial data (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/456 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/456).
    - omginternets 3y ago
      Yes, it absolutely is a constitutional right [0] and yes, we agree that some of the limitations imposed by the federal tort act are counterproductive. The latter is also irrelevant to the current discussion, which is about filing suit against a private pharmaceutical company. > and is divorced from any preventative or punitive process applied to the manufacturer. Yes, this is precisely what feels outrageous to me. I am constitutionally entitled to petitioning for restitution from the private actor, directly, and in a manner that does not a priori exclude punitive damages. I am rather concerned that many of us were coerced into waiving this right. Aren’t you? [0] see “right to petition” under first amendment, which includes the right to sue for the redress of grievances. I am surprised someone accusing others of being misinformed would overlook this.
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        The right to petition for redress of grievances is not abridged by the creation of methods other than a civil suit to redress a grievance. If it were, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/456 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/456 would be Unconstitutional on its face, and it does not seem to be (unless you can find evidence to the contrary in Court interpretation). And in general: no, it doesn't feel outrageous to me. The law seems to have wide leeway to shape civil suit (statutes of limitations, bars to suit, no ability to sue agents of the government acting in the line of duty for burning one's house down to flush a criminal suspect), and the remedy would therefore be to elect better Congresspeople and state legislators if one is concerned about how civil law has been shaped.
        omginternets 3y ago
        > The right to petition for redress of grievances is not abridged by the creation of methods other than a civil suit to redress a grievance. What a strange comment. Of course they aren’t. They’re abridged by the de facto obligation to get vaccinated (unless you want to lose your job) and — crucially - the total waiver of liability on the part of pharmaceutical companies. It’s telling how you went from “you don’t have that right” to “okay, you have that right, but some particular thing isn’t violating it”. Im guessing the next stop is “okay, it was violated, but it’s not a big deal”.

shadowgovt 3y ago

> I don’t see how such things as negligence and/or willful misrepresentation of benefits and risks can be remedied simply by having the FDA say “whoops, actually you can’t inject this in people anymore. ... because making things to inject in people is their whole business model and if the FDA says that enough they cease to exist as a company? Pretty solid deterrence.

omginternets 3y ago
>... because making things to inject in people is their whole business model and if the FDA says that enough they cease to exist as a company? 1. That's a stretch. These companies sell more than just COVID vaccines. 2. How does a patient that was injured by the vaccine, through manufacturer negligence, say, obtain restitution? I'm glad the FDA is still regulating the vaccine. I wish my constitutional right to bringing civil suit were similarly preserved before I was coerced by my employer into taking the vaccine.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  IIUC restitution comes via the vaccine injury compensation program (https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation) and is divorced from any preventative or punitive process applied to the manufacturer. > my constitutional right to bringing civil suit Um... Is that a Constitutional right? I don't see "civil suit" mentioned anywhere. You could, perhaps, claim it should be considered an always-on right as per common law in due process, except there's already a whole host of possible injuries one can sustain where there is no right to civil suit resulting, so I'm guessing SCOTUS has already at some point ruled that no such universal right exists, or that it's well within the purview of Congress to pass laws modifying / constraining / shaping said right. Hell, you can't even sue the US government for misinforming you about geospatial data (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/456 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/456).
  - omginternets 3y ago
    Yes, it absolutely is a constitutional right [0] and yes, we agree that some of the limitations imposed by the federal tort act are counterproductive. The latter is also irrelevant to the current discussion, which is about filing suit against a private pharmaceutical company. > and is divorced from any preventative or punitive process applied to the manufacturer. Yes, this is precisely what feels outrageous to me. I am constitutionally entitled to petitioning for restitution from the private actor, directly, and in a manner that does not a priori exclude punitive damages. I am rather concerned that many of us were coerced into waiving this right. Aren’t you? [0] see “right to petition” under first amendment, which includes the right to sue for the redress of grievances. I am surprised someone accusing others of being misinformed would overlook this.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      The right to petition for redress of grievances is not abridged by the creation of methods other than a civil suit to redress a grievance. If it were, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/456 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/456 would be Unconstitutional on its face, and it does not seem to be (unless you can find evidence to the contrary in Court interpretation). And in general: no, it doesn't feel outrageous to me. The law seems to have wide leeway to shape civil suit (statutes of limitations, bars to suit, no ability to sue agents of the government acting in the line of duty for burning one's house down to flush a criminal suspect), and the remedy would therefore be to elect better Congresspeople and state legislators if one is concerned about how civil law has been shaped.
      - omginternets 3y ago
        > The right to petition for redress of grievances is not abridged by the creation of methods other than a civil suit to redress a grievance. What a strange comment. Of course they aren’t. They’re abridged by the de facto obligation to get vaccinated (unless you want to lose your job) and — crucially - the total waiver of liability on the part of pharmaceutical companies. It’s telling how you went from “you don’t have that right” to “okay, you have that right, but some particular thing isn’t violating it”. Im guessing the next stop is “okay, it was violated, but it’s not a big deal”.