Disclaimer for Shirley's Wellness Cafe

Criminal Consequence of Vaccine Injury

Vaccine injuries can have both civil and criminal ramifications. This paper explores civil management of vaccine injury for victims seeking compensation through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and discusses the potentially devastating consequences that can befall a family when injuries caused by vaccines are mistakenly attributed to physical abuse inflicted by a caretaker.

Civil Management and Criminal consequences of Vaccine Injury

by Allan Phillips, Director of Citizens for Healthcare Freedom
(The article was written for a law school class)

Disclainer: Alan Phillips is not attempting to provide medical or legal advice. His articles are researched and presented for the educational and free exchange of ideas and speech in relation to health and wellness only.

Vaccine injuries can have both civil and criminal ramifications. This paper explores civil management of vaccine injury for victims seeking compensation through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Part I), and discusses the potentially devastating consequences that can befall a family when injuries caused by vaccines are mistakenly attributed to physical abuse inflicted by care takers.

Part I : The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

A. Introduction and Program Purposes

In 1986 Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act establishing a National Vaccine Program, the purpose of which was "…to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines." Program components included the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP or VICP), to compensate victims of vaccine injury and death, and the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System ( VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] ), a passive reporting system for the statistical monitoring of vaccine reactions. The utility of the VAERS remains questionable, as private and public sources estimate serious adverse events reporting at between 1 and 10% of the actual occurrence of such events. VAERS reports are not automatically submitted to the VICP; injured parties or their representatives must file a petition in a separate process. Therefore, VICP adjudication is even less a measure of the quantity of serious events actually occurring.

The NVICP’s primary two purposes were "to keep manufacturers from leaving the vaccine market [many in fact did], while at the same time compensating those individuals injured by vaccines." Liability insurance costs for vaccine manufacturers grew rapidly in the years preceding the Act, causing prices for some vaccines to rise by over 300% between 1980 and 1986. The objective was to have the federal government, under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), assume liability for vaccine-related injuries, to simplify causation issues for those seeking recovery.

Figure 1 shows both rising DTP suits in the first half of the 1980’s and post-Act declines; the program apparently succeeded in diminishing lawsuits against manufacturers. But has protecting manufacturers from liability provided a disincentive for manufacturers to improve product safety? Some vaccine victims and informed-choice advocates have expressed this concern.

If one balances vaccine harm and benefits using VAERS figures and health authorities’ assertions about vaccine effectiveness respectively, it seems prudent to take steps to keep manufacturers in the market first, and to worry about product safety second (the risk of return of deadly diseases from a lack of vaccines being presumably greater than the risk of injury occurring to a tiny percentage of vaccine recipients).

But factor in under-reporting of adverse vaccine events and the growing body of evidence suggesting that vaccines are not nearly as effective as health authorities would have us believe, and a compelling argument can be made that risking manufacturers’ withdrawal from the market may actually have been the safer course of action. In any event, Congress’ actions were, predictably, consistent with the former of these two views.

 In addition to keeping manufacturers in the market, the VICP was designed to provide an efficient and cost-effective adjudication process for vaccine injuries not available through the traditional tort system. At present the VICP appears to be running smoothly, though a substantial backlog of pre-1986 cases severely curtailed timeliness of proceedings during the program’s first several years.

Since the program’s implementation in October of 1988, the top award has been $8.4 million, and the per-award average is $833,000. Death awards are capped at $250,000 (greater awards address the life-long needs of the permanently disabled), which I must admit I find somewhat unsettling. While caring for a permanently disabled child is far more costly than burying a dead one, and with all due respect for the fact that no amount of money can bring back a deceased child, a dead one is arguably a far greater loss, and thus worthy of greater compensation.

The VICP has also served as a model system potentially applicable to other mass tort litigation. However, such applicability may be limited due to the unique nature of vaccination programs. Vaccines are government mandated and supposed to benefit society as a whole; these qualities are not present with other products potentially subject to mass tort suits.

Finally, while not a goal of the program per se, the VICP has helped to validate thousands of previously unacknowledged cries of anguished parents who endured not only vaccine deaths and disabilities in their children, but also vehement denials from authorities about the possibility of a vaccine connection. While healthcare authorities continue to downplay and deny the existence of serious vaccine reactions, the federal government, at least, has begun to formally acknowledge the hard reality.

B. Program Overview

The NVICP is located in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Vaccine injury cases are adjudicated by special masters who hear only vaccine cases. Petitioners (claimants) are virtually always represented by attorneys, who must be members of the bar of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, though pro se representation is technically allowed.

The respondent is the Secretary of Health and Human Services, represented by 18 attorneys in the Vaccine Litigation Group of the Office of Constitutional and Specialized Torts at the Department of Justice (DoJ). Claims are decided within statutory time limits and are subject to limitations on compensation amounts and attorney’s fees (an attorney may be compensated whether or not his client receives compensation). The program incorporates innovative case-management procedures, including "(1) a requirement that virtually all documentation supporting claims and defenses accompany the initial pleadings; (2) use of expert reports; (3) information status conferences; (4) bifurcation of causation and damage issues; (5) telephonic hearings; (6) hearings limited to expert testimony; and (7) direct examination of expert witnesses by the special master."

The VICP provides a statutory scheme for handling causation. If the petitioner can show by a preponderance of the evidence that her injury or death occurred within parameters specified by the program’s Vaccine Injury Table (see Appendix A, p. 21), the petitioner is entitled to a presumption of causation. Respondent then carries the burden of proving an alternative cause for the petitioner’s injury to defeat the award of compensation. A petitioner may also allege causation-in-fact for a non-table injury, but in so doing carries the burden of proving causation by a preponderance of the evidence utilizing traditional tort standards. Petitioners frequently allege both a table and a non-table injury in the alternative to preserve both causes of action. Congress mandated that the table be updated as new scientific information becomes available, presuming that some petitioners would be compensated erroneously through the use of the table in its initial form.

Cases Cases under the Act as originally passed required a final judgment within a year of filing; subsequent amendments reduced the time period to 240 days. The substantial backlog of pre-Act cases resulted in the exercise of optional suspension times that extended pre-Act cases up to three and a half years.

There are seven special masters appointed by the Court of Federal Claims to adjudicate VICP cases. They serve four-year terms and may be reappointed by a majority of Claims Court judges. They determine both entitlement to and amount of compensation. Following a special master’s decision, parties have 30 days in which they may appeal the decision by filing a motion for review by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. An appeal is assigned to and heard before an individual judge of the Court of Federal Claims.

This judge has 120 days to:

"(A) uphold the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the special master and sustain the special master's decision,

(B) set aside any findings of fact or conclusion of law of the special master found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law and issue its own findings of fact and conclusions of law, or

(C) remand the petition to the special master for further action in accordance with the court's direction."

The next level of appeal is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit where a three-judge panel hears the case and reviews the legal issues de novo. Parties may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court from the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court has heard at least one VICP case, Shalala v. Whitecotten, 514 U.S. 268 (1995). The issue was whether or not the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. She met the table requirement for post-vaccine encephalopathy, but her microcephalic condition (abnormally small head) prior to receiving the vaccine was evidence of encephalopathy that existed before the vaccination.

The Special Master denied compensation, and the Court of Federal Claims affirmed, but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded, holding that a claimant who relies on the Vaccine Injury Table in order to establish a prima facie case for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act does not make out such a case where the claimant's evidence, although indicating that the claimant experienced symptoms of an injury after receiving a vaccination, failed to indicate that the claimant had no symptoms of that injury before the vaccination.

Victims of vaccine damage cannot file a civil suit without first seeking compensation through the VICP. However, the petitioner need not go through the appeals process before filing a civil suit. If within 90 days of a special master’s judgment the petitioner elects to reject the special master’s judgment, the petitioner may file a civil action for damages against the vaccine manufacturer in state or federal court. Failure to file an election results in a default acceptance of the special master’s judgment.

NC. He is one of only a handful of attorneys in the U.S. with a focus on vaccine legal exemptions.

Virtually every thimerosal containing vaccine which was administered during the 1990's (a large number of the total mandatory vaccine protocol) contained levels of mercury which were hundreds of times more toxic than hazardous waste according to the EPA's own website

C. Case-Management Procedures

The VICP is unique by virtue of its special rules and procedures for case management. VICP case proceedings are conducted in accordance with Vaccine Rules of the Office of Special Masters, Appendix J of the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence do not apply; formal discovery as a matter of right is prohibited. Due to these and other unique characteristics of this system, the Office of Special Masters has issued practice guidelines for attorneys.

Petitions are filed with the Clerk of the United States Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., after which the case is assigned by the chief special master to a special master. Most of the information necessary to a ruling must be provided when a petition is filed. This "front-end loading," as it is known among participants, includes documentation supporting the allegations and all relevant medical records including maternal prenatal and delivery records; newborn hospital records with physicians’ and nurses’ notes and test results; vaccination records; pre- and post-injury physician or clinic records with growth charts and test results; all post-injury inpatient and outpatient records with provider notes, test results, and medication records; and if applicable, a death certificate and autopsy results.

Similarly, the respondent’s first response must be a report with a medical analysis of the petitioner’s claims. These requirements are intended to speed up the processing of claims; they allow getting to the heart of the problem much more quickly than traditional tort litigation, enabling the special masters to identify all of the issues in the case before meeting with the parties.

Cases that survive early dismissal require expert witnesses on both sides. The parties must present the substance of their experts’ proposed testimony in affidavits which set forth the experts’ opinions and reasoning. Special masters report that they place widely varying levels of weight on these initial reports. In some cases special masters require opinions from medical experts with a particular specialty, such as pediatric neurology.

Special masters are required to schedule an initial status conference, an off-the-record equivalent to the pre-trial conference of traditional civil litigation, within 30 days of receiving a respondent’s initial report. Special masters use this conference to evaluate the case and devise a plan to resolve outstanding issues; they also orally present tentative findings and conclusions. At this point one of three things will happen: a case may be dismissed, a second status conference may be scheduled with requests for more information if the record is incomplete, or a date may be set for the first hearing if the record is substantially complete. Petitioners have found this conference useful in their subsequent preparation of witnesses, as it enables them to get a feel for the special master’s view of the case. Special masters may conduct additional informal status conferences by telephone conference call from time to time to expedite processing of the case. In addition, either party may request a status conference at any time.

Entitlement and damages are addressed in separate hearings. The most common issues concern the strength of the medical evidence supporting the petitioner’s claims and the respondent’s theories for alternative causes for the petitioner’s injuries; thus, management of expert testimony is critical. For this reason, some special masters further bifurcate entitlement hearings, hearing fact witnesses before hearing expert medical testimony on causation.

To obtain expert witnesses, petitioners’ attorneys frequently use the petitioner’s treating physician, retain experts who have testified for them previously in vaccine cases, or rely on referrals from other attorneys who have litigated in the vaccine program. Respondents rely on referrals from the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC), use the doctor from that agency who helped them prepare their initial expert report, or occasionally use outside experts obtained by traditional methods—e.g., talking to other witnesses or calling hospitals for referrals. Some respondents have expressed concern about the credibility of DVIC experts, and rely exclusively on outside experts. The most common experts at entitlement hearings are pediatric neurologists, though to a lesser extent experts have included general pediatric doctors, pediatric pathologists, pediatric immunologists, and treating physicians. The most common experts testifying at hearings on damage issues are life-care planners and rehabilitation consultants.

Special masters are permitted to appoint their own experts, though none had done so by the publication of the Federal Judicial Center’s review of the NVICP in 1998. This is most likely due to a Special Masters’ Office policy against exercising this option as well as general resistance to it by most parties. Special masters do consult information sources other than the evidence presented by the parties, including medical texts and literature.

Hearings may be held in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims building or the Special Master’s Office in Washington, D.C. In some instances, such as when the petitioner and their witnesses can’t afford to travel to D.C. or a special master needs to assess the credibility of a witness directly, a special master may travel outside of D.C. Some parties or witnesses (especially expert witnesses) participate in hearings by telephone. Video conferencing has been used as a compromise between the need to view witnesses and the
logistical complications of coordinating and funding travel by the parties and witnesses.

D. Program Problems and the Need for Reform

In the fall of 1999, the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice held a hearing to determine if the VICP was in need of reform. Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and President of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), presented a statement on behalf of the NVIC. Ms. Fisher’s statement conveys a clear sense of betrayal felt by parents and NVIC members at the VICP’s failure to live up to the Congress’ expressed intentions. In particular, the VICP was enacted to provide parents an expeditious and fair, non-adversarial alternative to lawsuits, "which, in the words of Dr. Martin Smith of the AAP [American Association of Pediatrics], would give ‘simple justice to children.’" More than ten years after the act was passed, Ms. Fisher states that parents’ "faith in the justice, equity, efficacy and basic integrity of this legislative remedy was seriously misplaced."

The NVThe NVIC statement makes it clear that Congress’ intentions have not been honored. Referring to a 1989 House and Senate Conferee Report expressing Congress’ dissatisfaction, the NVIC statement noted "the fact that proceedings had become complicated, time-consuming and emotionally draining for petitioners," and implied that VICP proceedings had fallen victim to "re-invention of the adversarial process [that serves] neither to compensate injured children nor [to] maintain the stability of the immunization program in the U.S."

Ms. Fisher explained that both the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Department of Justice (DoJ) were on record as opposing the Act; yet, DHHS was given authority to change rules after the law was passed, and did so to the detriment of petitioners seeking compensation. "The net result has been the creation of an uneven playing field that has often turned what was supposed to be a fairer, expedited, less traumatic, less expensive, no-fault alternative to a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers and administering physicians into a highly adversarial, lengthy, traumatic and unfair imitation of a lawsuit conducted in front of a Special Master instead of a judge and jury."

Ms. Fisher argues that the presumption of causation is an integral part of the VICP system, given the lack of scientific data and understanding of the biological mech-anism for most vaccine-induced injuries. In brief, where absolute proof is not possible, justice requires that the petitioner (meeting the requirements of the scientifically-support-ed Vaccine Injury Table) be given the benefit of a presumption that the vaccine is the cause of injury, especially when there is no convincing alternative explanation for a child’s injury.

However, the DHHS and DoJ have modified the Vaccine Injury Table to eliminate many injuries, requiring a substantial number of petitioners to file for compensation with a presumption against them, despite decades of published medical studies supporting a presumption in their favor. Parents participating in the program’s development agreed to give DHHS discretionary authority to modify the table for precisely the opposite reason—to expand the list of compensable events to make it more inclusive (to date, three out of four petitioners have received no compensation).

Yet DHHS has removed compensable events sanctioned by Congress, and "redefine[d] permanent injuries in the Aids to Interpretation long recognized by the medical community as being associated with vaccine reactions. In the words of one attorney for vaccine injured children, the Secretary’s arbitrary redefinition of the medically recognized definition of ‘encephalopathy’ "is so restrictive that it is believed by petitioners’ counsels across this country that they will never again see an injury to a child that falls within the definition’s narrow confines." In fact, when the Institutes of Medicine provided new scientific evidence for DTP vaccine-induced brain inflammation in 1994, DHHS removed signs and symptoms of brain inflammation and ecephalopathy from the Table. DHHS has demonstrated that it has little intention of fulfilling the intended spirit of the law.

The NVIC statement also criticizes DHHS’ draft legislation, Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Amendments of 1999, finding the DHHS’ proposals "lacking in the kinds of substantive improvements required to restore the guiding spirit and intent of the law: to provide a ‘fair, quick and generous’ federal compensation system alternative to a lawsuit for children who suffer catastrophic vaccine injury or death." Declaring that resolving the problems "will require strong and decisive measures from Congress," the NVIC made proposals for VICP revisions, important components of which are summarized below.

E. NVIC Recommended Revisions for the VICP

  1. Return "residual seizure disorder" to the Vaccine Injury Table, and amend the "Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation" section of the Table to replace the current definition of "encephalopathy" with the medically recognized definition, "any acute or chronic significant acquired abnormality of, or injury to, or impairment of function of, the brain." 1995 Amendments to the Table and Aids to Interpretation have made it all but impossible to establish a case for injury following DPT, yet 68% of cases filed with the VICP claim injury following DPT, and 60 years of medical studies acknowledge DPT vaccine injuries.
  2. Add "death" to the Vaccine Injury Table. Currently, unreasonable burdens are placed on petitioners. A death within 72 hours following vaccination should be presumed to be causally related unless an obvious alternative cause of death exists.
  3. "Add to the language of the statute a requirement that plaintiff’s lawyers receive interim payments for fees and costs during the entire compensation process." Salaried government physicians, administrators, lawyers, and Court officials have a substantial advantage over petitioners’ lawyers who do not get any reimbursement until as much as three to seven years following the initial filing of a petition.
  4. "Toll the statute of limitations on all claims resulting from the administration of childhood vaccines to the age of majority." Significant vaccine injury may take years to fully manifest; current statutes of limitation are two or three years. Most state laws toll statutes of limitation until a child reaches the age of majority.
  5. Require the Secretary "to confer with the Advisory Committee on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) prior to amending the Vaccine Injury Table."
  6. Allow claimants turned down for compensation due to prior table changes to reapply to the system without prejudice.
  7. The NVIC supports independent research into adverse vaccine events, but does not feel that funds for such research should come from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund (which presently has a billion dollar surplus). This would be the "ultimate betrayal of public trust" in the federal compensation program. Ms. Fisher anticipates that new research will connect many conditions not currently on the table with vaccines, and the current funds will be insufficient to compensate for these new additions. (Indeed, if recent and current independent research on diabetes and autism alone is acknowledged, thousands of new claimants could be added to the system each year.) VICP funds should be reserved exclusively for the children suffering chronic immune and brain dysfunction following vaccination.
  8. With regard to DHHS using portions of these funds to conduct studies, Ms. Fisher argues that "[i]t is illogical to expect the same federal agency responsible for developing, licensing, regulating, making policy for and promoting the mandatory use of vaccines, which is also a hostile defendant in the vaccine injury compensation process, to be an impartial investigator of vaccine risks." She suggests that DHHS would design studies to disprove vaccine damage where in fact damage does occur. This cynical viewpoint is substantiated by many decades of deceit and deception by health authorities as it pertains to vaccine failure and damage.
  9. NVIC opposes lowering the excise tax on vaccines, due to the projected increase in claimants explained above. Also, many of the three-fourths of claimants who have been denied compensation due to the above-mentioned table changes should be allowed to re-file their claims once the table is readjusted to allow for injuries substantiated by the medical literature. Upon doing so, the current surplus in the fund will diminish, so the current excise tax is not excessive.
    Add a reporting requirement for adverse vaccine events. According to a statement by former FDA Commissioner David Kessler in a 1993 issue of JAMA, if vaccine adverse event reporting mirrors that of events following the administration of prescription drugs, it is less than 1%.
F. HR 1287

On March 28, 2001, Congressman Dave Weldon (R-FL) and Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced The Vaccine Injured Children's Compensation Act of 2001, HR 1287, in the House of Representatives. This bill provides for changes in four areas:

  1. The statute of limitations:
    (See E. 4 above);
  2. The burden of proof:
    To reduce the preponderance standard to that of Veterans’ Claims and Workers’ Compensation Claims, where the benefit of the doubt goes to the claimant. This would make the program more consistent with Congress’ original intention of erring on the side of over-compensating rather than under-compensating as arguably occurs under the present system;
  3. Interim fees and costs:
    To provide for claimants to petition not more than once every 90 days for payment of interim fees and costs. This would allow experts to be paid in a timely manner, and enable petitioners to conduct the testing and studies necessary to prove their claims. Attorneys for the government are paid every thirty days; attorneys for the children have to wait for years in many cases, which places the burden of financing the case on the shoulders of the family and the attorney. This provision will help level the playing field for the attorneys who are trying to help victims and their families; and
  4. The right to refile:
    Where the original claim did not meet the minimum $1,000 unreimbursed expense requirement (which is no longer a program requirement), or where petitioners missed the statute of limitations deadline that HR 1287 would extend.
According to NVIC Director and co-founder Kathi Williams, HR 1287 "does not go far enough, but all the doors have been closed in our faces in attempting to improve this legislation. Lawyers are leaving the field because they cannot compete with the
Department of Justice. Our lawyers get paid when the whole deal is over and the DoJ lawyers get paid every 30 days no matter how many years the case might take…It is only a step but if passed would help a lot."

F. Conclusion, Part I

There are serious shortcomings in the NVICP, underscored by the NVIC Statement and HR 1287. The spirit and intent of the program have clearly been violated. Yet, if injuries supported by present and future medical research are added to the Vaccine
Injury Table, and if adverse event reporting approaches that of events actually occurring, compensation awards could well exceed the system’s capacity to pay. But perhaps this could lead to a greater justice in the long term. If awards exceeded the government’s ability to pay, the government could be forced to prohibit vaccine mandates in an effort to relieve itself of responsibility for vaccine injuries.

This would mean shifting the responsibility to manufacturers and vaccine recipients, which would put pressure on manufacturers to develop safer products (or get out of the market, taking dangerous products with them), and on individuals to take personal responsibility for their families’ health through examination of more complete information on vaccine risks and benefits. This in turn could lead to a more responsible, open, honest and accurate assessment of the true costs and benefits of mass mandatory immunization programs and alternative healthcare systems and strategies. Ultimately, if we are to be free from conflicted authorities imposing health risks upon us without our consent (and which, in the case of vaccines, are questioned by disinterested experts), individuals must be willing to take responsibility for their own health; and we as a society must be willing to grant individuals the freedom to make their own informed healthcare choices.

The point is not so much that absolute power necessarily leads to corruption (though one could so argue), but rather that only the absence of such power can preclude such corruption.

Do you have a vaccine exemption legal issue or question or call 919-960-5172 NC. He is one of only a handful of attorneys in the U.S. with a focus on vaccine legal exemptions.

Dr. Smits MD - "Once the diagnosis of The Post-Vaccination Syndrome (PVS) is considered a simple and efficient treatment can restore health by giving the vaccinations that caused the disease in homeopathic potencies. Even severe damage as paralysis, epilepsy, general decline, etc. can partially or completely be restored."

Vaccine Reaction Images from the CDC Warning: these are horrific images of severe vaccine reactions in babies and children.

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)

Subject: Looking for parents of children injured by rotavirus vaccine, Rotashield
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 From: Melynda Slay <mhslay@aol.com>

Hi, my name is Melynda Slay. At 3 months of age my son, Harrison, was hospitalized with an intussusception(bowel obstruction) a few days after receiving the rotavirus vaccine, Rotashield. This vaccine was later removed from the market after more than 99 children sufferred the same life threatening injury. I am currently trying to find other parents of children who were harmed by this vaccine. I believe that if we stand together - maybe we can make a difference.

My son was used as a ginuea pig in a life-threatening vaccine experiment. This vaccine never should have made it to the market and my son never should have suffered from this experience. I am really upset with myself. Before Rotashield, I didn't take the time to research vaccines more before I allowed them to be given to Harrison. Before Harrison's vaccine injury, I always believed everything my pediatrician told me. If he said to give Harrison a vaccine - I was sure this was in my son's best interest. I know better now. Of the parents I have spoken with so far, 7 of the children sufferred intussusceptions while others suffered growth delays, constant diarrhea, severe constipation and in 1 case death - after receiving the Rotashield vaccination. There are many more families hurt by this vaccine that I have not yet been able to find. I want to be certain that all of these parents know about the Vaccine Injury Compensation progam before the 36 month deadline is reached for filing a claim. Once I receive my judgement from the Vaccine Injury Compensation program, I plan to deny it so I will be eligible to file a civil claim against American Home Products. I hope to convince other parents of children harmed by this vaccine into doing the same thing.

" Why are there no studies on the long-term effects of vaccination? Why are there so few studies that have examined what happens in the body at a cellular/molecular level after vaccination? Why are we vaccinating children in a vacuum of scientific knowledge? Why are there no long-term studies to assess illness and deaths related to vaccination? These are the kind of fundamental questions that anyone involved in vaccine policy should be addressing. Nicholas Regush

The chiIdren you will meet here suffered a severe reaction to a routine DPT (diphtheria. pertussis, tetanus), MMR (measles, mumps. rubella), or OPV (oral polio) vaccine. They are only a few of the thousands of children who have died or been left with medication resistant seizure disorders, mental retardation, physical handicaps, learning disabilities or other chronic illnesses after a reaction to a routine vaccination.

Any information obtained here is not to be construed as medical or legal advice. The decision to vaccinate or not vaccinate is yours alone.

There is a war raging over the control of our children. The cry of outrage is spreading across this nation, as increasing numbers of children are wrongfully ripped from their loving parent's arms and secreted away by the unscrupulous agents of the State. AMERICAN FAMILY ADVOCACY CENTER

Can a judge constitutionally order a controversial drug to be given to a child over the opposition of his parents? Some public schools are accusing parents of child abuse when they balk at giving their kids drugs such as Ritalin, (or AZT) and as judges begin to agree, some parents are medicating their children for fear of having them hauled away.

by Rev. Alan Phillips

Decades of studies published in the world’s leading medical journals have documented vaccine failure and serious adverse vaccine events, including death. Dozens of books written by doctors, researchers, and independent investigators reveal serious flaws in immunization theory and practice. Yet, incredibly, most pediatricians and parents are unaware of these findings.

My son was used as a ginuea pig in a life-threatening vaccine experiment. This vaccine never should have made it to the market and my son never should have suffered from this experience. I am really upset with myself. Before Rotashield, I didn't take the time to research vaccines more before I allowed them to be given to Harrison. Before Harrison's vaccine injury, I always believed everything my pediatrician told me. If he said to give Harrison a vaccine - I was sure this was in my son's best interest. I know better now. Of the parents I have spoken with so far, 7 of the children sufferred intussusceptions while others suffered growth delays, constant diarrhea, severe constipation and in 1 case death - after receiving the Rotashield vaccination. There are many more families hurt by this vaccine that I have not yet been able to find. I want to be certain that all of these parents know about the Vaccine Injury Compensation program before the 36 month deadline is reached for filing a claim. Once I receive my judgment from the Vaccine Injury Compensation program, I plan to deny it so I will be eligible to file a civil claim against American Home Products.I hope to convince other parents of children harmed by this vaccine into doing the same thing.

Vaccine manufacturers have paid out nearly $2B in damages to parents in America whose children were harmed by one of the childhood jabs such as the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) or DPT (diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus). In all, around 2,000 families have received compensation payments that have averaged $850,000 each. There are a further 700 claims that are going through the pipeline. None of the claims is for autism as medical researchers say they have failed to find a link between the disease and the MMR vaccine, despite the initial findings made by Dr Andrew Wakefield. Instead they are for a wide spectrum of physical and mental conditions that are likely to have been caused by one of the vaccinations. Around 7,000 parents have filed a claim of an adverse reaction with America's Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). To win an award, the claimant must prove a causal link to a vaccine. As the medical establishment has refused to recognise any link to autism, the VICP has so far rejected 300 claims for this outright. (Source: New England Journal of Medicine) Medicine, 2007; 357: 1275-9).

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)


Shirley's Wellness Cafe