3 ms·

You do know that vaccines makers have legal immunity, right? One of the little quirks of the Patriot Act was to make it impossible to sue vaccine makers -- whi

by _red 12y ago

You do know that vaccines makers have legal immunity, right? One of the little quirks of the Patriot Act was to make it impossible to sue vaccine makers -- which is exactly why since 2001 you've seen a proliferation of every grocery store offering vaccines. Presumably you are a start-up minded person. Imagine the legal challenges you would face in trying to come up with a business plan where you could inject biological material into people....think your lawyer would permit? As for if 23% effeciancy is "worth it", well the protection you are getting must be offset by the negative effects caused by vaccines, if you doubt there are negative effects see Legal Immunity above.

Fomite 12y ago
What you're looking for is the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, not the PATRIOT Act for limiting tort liability for vaccine manufacturers. Which is pretty much a precondition for doing business developing vaccines to address emergency vaccines. Presumably you are a start-up minded person. Would you do business if someone said "We need you to implement some very complex code, rush it into production on our timetable, and if there's a hiccup, your users will sue you into oblivion."
- jeangenie 12y ago
  Curious how OP got this idea. USA PATRIOT Act Sec. 1013 (a)(10), (b)(5,6) mentions research, distribution and stockpiling of vaccines but nothing about liability. There was a decision in 2011 that might be of interest: http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/2011/02/cant-sue-drug-companies-for-vaccine-defects-rules-supreme-court.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/2011/02/cant-sue-drug-compa... http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/22/us.scotus.vaccines/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/22/us.scotus.vaccines/index...
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    It's called "Believing the first thing you hear or read on the Internet, and automatically rejecting everything you hear or read on the subject after that." It just means that some loony anti-vaxxer got to him/her first. There ought to be a formal name for the fallacy of assigning greater credibility to earlier information, but I'm not sure what it would be.
    - Fomite 12y ago
      It's essentially confirmation bias.
    - _red 12y ago
      No, its called I got the name of the Act wrong. Do you deny the primary point? That its illegal for you to sue vaccine makers?
      - jeangenie 12y ago
        Makes sense. Thanks for responding.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        You also got the year wrong by a decade and a half, which would seem to render nonsensical the part of your post where you talk about "since 2001."
      - CamperBob2 12y ago
        No, and I understand why it's necessary to make it difficult to sue vaccine makers. Vaccines are not 100% safe or effective. Nobody ever said they were. The battle against disease cannot be fought with weapons that are 100% safe or effective, because such weapons don't exist. Unfortunately it's true that a very small number of vaccine recipients are going to experience some very severe side effects. Life goes on for the rest of us. Meanwhile, as long as we rely on private industry to supply the vaccines we need, we have to protect the manufacturers from obviously-frivolous lawsuits that nevertheless require decades of research and millions of dollars in pointless, unproductive studies to prove that they're frivolous. For some reason this field attracts kooks... or haven't you noticed?
- _red 12y ago
  Yes, the difference what year it was passed completely invalidates the point. Moreover, this is not about "can't sue in case of national emergency". You can't sue period. Other countries don't do this, why the US? Those poor uncivilized europeans with no vaccines. Do you also drive cars where you can't sue Ford if it explodes?
  - Fomite 12y ago
    The difference in what year and what act does cast doubt on the authority of your information. And it does limit your tort liability because, after a number of suits prior to the act, built on flimsy evidence, the vaccine manufacturing business in the U.S. became unpalatable. Beyond that, other countries can and sometimes do do this. There's been discussions of limiting liability for Ebola vaccine manufacturers in the UK, because of the rush to market for them.
    - _red 12y ago
      >after a number of suits prior to the act, built on flimsy evidence, the vaccine manufacturing business in the U.S. became unpalatable Thats a funny way to say "big pharma bribed politicians". Its amazing that the US was able to develop any technology, I mean imagine what state we would be in if you could sue car and plane manufacturers. Or if we could sue doctors?
      - Fomite 12y ago
        You keep using Ford, when we do effectively limit the downside of domestic auto production via bailouts, or doctors, where tort liability is a major issue of discussion.

by _red 12y ago

Fomite 12y ago

What you're looking for is the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, not the PATRIOT Act for limiting tort liability for vaccine manufacturers. Which is pretty much a precondition for doing business developing vaccines to address emergency vaccines. Presumably you are a start-up minded person. Would you do business if someone said "We need you to implement some very complex code, rush it into production on our timetable, and if there's a hiccup, your users will sue you into oblivion."

jeangenie 12y ago
Curious how OP got this idea. USA PATRIOT Act Sec. 1013 (a)(10), (b)(5,6) mentions research, distribution and stockpiling of vaccines but nothing about liability. There was a decision in 2011 that might be of interest: http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/2011/02/cant-sue-drug-companies-for-vaccine-defects-rules-supreme-court.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/2011/02/cant-sue-drug-compa... http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/22/us.scotus.vaccines/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/22/us.scotus.vaccines/index...
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  It's called "Believing the first thing you hear or read on the Internet, and automatically rejecting everything you hear or read on the subject after that." It just means that some loony anti-vaxxer got to him/her first. There ought to be a formal name for the fallacy of assigning greater credibility to earlier information, but I'm not sure what it would be.
  - Fomite 12y ago
    It's essentially confirmation bias.
  - _red 12y ago
    No, its called I got the name of the Act wrong. Do you deny the primary point? That its illegal for you to sue vaccine makers?
    - jeangenie 12y ago
      Makes sense. Thanks for responding.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      You also got the year wrong by a decade and a half, which would seem to render nonsensical the part of your post where you talk about "since 2001."
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      No, and I understand why it's necessary to make it difficult to sue vaccine makers. Vaccines are not 100% safe or effective. Nobody ever said they were. The battle against disease cannot be fought with weapons that are 100% safe or effective, because such weapons don't exist. Unfortunately it's true that a very small number of vaccine recipients are going to experience some very severe side effects. Life goes on for the rest of us. Meanwhile, as long as we rely on private industry to supply the vaccines we need, we have to protect the manufacturers from obviously-frivolous lawsuits that nevertheless require decades of research and millions of dollars in pointless, unproductive studies to prove that they're frivolous. For some reason this field attracts kooks... or haven't you noticed?
_red 12y ago
Yes, the difference what year it was passed completely invalidates the point. Moreover, this is not about "can't sue in case of national emergency". You can't sue period. Other countries don't do this, why the US? Those poor uncivilized europeans with no vaccines. Do you also drive cars where you can't sue Ford if it explodes?
- Fomite 12y ago
  The difference in what year and what act does cast doubt on the authority of your information. And it does limit your tort liability because, after a number of suits prior to the act, built on flimsy evidence, the vaccine manufacturing business in the U.S. became unpalatable. Beyond that, other countries can and sometimes do do this. There's been discussions of limiting liability for Ebola vaccine manufacturers in the UK, because of the rush to market for them.
  - _red 12y ago
    >after a number of suits prior to the act, built on flimsy evidence, the vaccine manufacturing business in the U.S. became unpalatable Thats a funny way to say "big pharma bribed politicians". Its amazing that the US was able to develop any technology, I mean imagine what state we would be in if you could sue car and plane manufacturers. Or if we could sue doctors?
    - Fomite 12y ago
      You keep using Ford, when we do effectively limit the downside of domestic auto production via bailouts, or doctors, where tort liability is a major issue of discussion.