You Can Sue Cigarette Companies But Not Vaccine Companies for Causing Harm
by Barbara Loe Fisher
National Vaccine Information
Do you know the difference between companies that sell cigarettes and companies that sell vaccines in America?
When cigarettes injure or kill people, tobacco companies are financially liable in civil court. But when vaccines injure or kill people, drug companies are not.
That’s right.
If you get lung cancer from smoking cigarettes, you can sue the tobacco company. [1] But if you or your child suffers brain damage or dies after getting a vaccine, the drug company cannot be sued. [2]
And you can’t hold any person who licensed, recommended, gave or voted to mandate the vaccine accountable in a court of law, either. [3, 4]
Here is why:
In 1986, Congress gave drug companies a partial civil liability shield for vaccine injuries and deaths. [5]
In 2011, the US Supreme Court effectively banned all vaccine injury lawsuits, ruling that vaccines are – quote – “unavoidably unsafe.” [6]
Then, in 2016, Congress lowered licensing standards for experimental vaccines so that drug companies can fast track them to market without conducting large clinical trials. [7]
Now, drug companies and their friends in medical trade are lobbying state legislatures to strip vaccine exemptions from state public health laws. [8, 9]
That’s right.
Even though drug companies and doctors have been given an unprecedented liability shield removing all responsibility for vaccine injuries and deaths, [10] they want more.
They want “no exceptions” vaccine laws forcing you and your children to use every dose of every government endorsed vaccine without your voluntary, informed consent. [11]
What’s the difference between companies that make cigarettes and companies that make vaccines?
When cigarettes injure and kill people, Big Tobacco is legally accountable in a civil court in front of a jury of your peers. But when vaccines injure and kill people, Big Pharma is not.
At NVIC.org, learn more about vaccines, diseases and the human right to informed consent to medical risk taking.
Empower yourself today with well-referenced information that can help you make educated decisions about vaccination.
It’s your health. Your family. Your choice.
Read the full article at NVIC.org.
Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com.
References
1 Sifferlin A. $23.6 Billion Lawsuit Winner to Big Tobacco: “Are You Awake Now?” Time Magazine July 22, 2014.
2 Leibowitz B. Supreme Court vaccine ruling: parents can’t sue drug makers for kids’ health problems. CBS News Feb 23, 2011.
3 Khoury G. Can You Sue Government Officials? FindLaw Feb. 8, 2017.
4 Meyers PH. Fixing the Flaws in the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Administrative Law Review 2011; 63(4).
5 Pear R. Reagan Signs Bill on Drug Exports and Payment for Vaccine Injuries. New York Times Nov. 15, 1986.
6 NVIC. National Vaccine Information Center Cites “Betrayal” of Consumers by U.S. Supreme Court Giving Total Liability Shield to Big Pharma. Business Wire Feb. 23, 2011.
7 NVIC. National Vaccine Information Center Calls 21st Century Cures Act “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” and Urges Presidential Veto to Protect Public Health. Business Wire Feb. 8, 2016.
8 Fisher BL. Defending the Religious Exemption to Vaccination. NVIC Newsletter June 28, 2016.
9 National Vaccine Information Center. NVIC Now Monitoring 134 Vaccine Bills in 35 States: 31 More Vaccine Bills Introduced in Past Two Weeks. NVIC Newsletter Feb. 26, 2017.
10 Fisher BL. Vaccine Injury Compensation: Government’s Broken Social Contract with Parents. NVIC Newsletter Nov. 2, 2015.
11 Fisher BL. The Vaccine Culture War in America: Are You Ready? NVIC Newsletter Mar. 8, 2015.
Say NO to Mandatory Vaccines T-Shirt
100% Pre-shrunk Cotton
Order here!
Make a Statement for Health Freedom!
Big Pharma and government health authorities are trying to pass laws mandating vaccines for all children, and even adults.
Show your opposition to forced vaccinations and support the cause of Vaccine Impact, part of the Health Impact News network.
Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.
In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.
One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.
Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?
One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”
However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.
The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.
Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.
In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.
Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.
These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.
In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.
