5 ms·

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 liabili

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?

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?