Civil Management and Criminal consequences of Vaccine Injury
by Allan Phillips, Director of
Citizens for Healthcare
(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.
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
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
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
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
"(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.
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
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.
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
F. HR 1287
- 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.
- 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.
- "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.
- "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.
- Require the Secretary "to confer with the Advisory Committee on Childhood
Vaccines (ACCV) prior to amending the Vaccine Injury Table."
- Allow claimants turned down for compensation due to prior table changes
to reapply to the system without prejudice.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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%.
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:
- The statute of limitations:
(See E. 4 above);
- 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;
- 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
- 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
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
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.
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."
Reaction Images from the CDC Warning: these are horrific images of severe
vaccine reactions in babies and children.
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Injury Compensation Program (VICP)
Subject: Looking for parents of children injured by rotavirus vaccine,
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 From: Melynda Slay <email@example.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
" 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
THE TRAGEDY OF
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
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.
DISPELLING VACCINATION MYTHS
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)