Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Assassin said:
Vaccine schedule is absolutely absurd. But with the passage of limited immunity following the 1986 Act (ever asked yourself why a vaccine maker would need immunity?), it became a very lucrative business.
We know why they needed immunity. There was such a proliferation of baseless lawsuits that Congress was worried about vaccine shortages.
Indeed, you have successfully parroted the proffered reason for the Act. There is of course no evidence the lawsuits were in general baseless, but that is the stated reason.
And thus began the most lucrative industry in the history of the United States (and the corresponding astronomical rise in disorders in children).
The evidence that they were baseless is rather straightforward. It's the fact that they were largely unsuccessful.
Most lawsuits are, especially med mal, which is often times VERY difficult to prove. Doesn't make them baseless.
And again, there was a mechanism already in place for dealing with same.
They had a poor record of success. There was a mechanism for dealing with individual cases, but not with the cumulative effect.
Again, so do most med mal cases.
So change the rules for this multi-billion dollar industry because they injure a lot of people and get sued too often? Nah.
I'd prefer to allow the judicial process play out - you know, kind of how you feel about Trump and deporting Venezuelan gang members - rather than provide special treatment for a multi-billion dollar industry that is the number one lobbiest of Congress. It's why we have FRCP 11.
My recollection is that they had a poor rate of success even for that type of claim, but I could be wrong. I do know that more and more of the anti-vax theories, especially the most sensational ones, were disproven by long-term studies. Of course those take time, by definition. Meanwhile the shortage problem had to be dealt with.
I'm generally against interference with the courts by the other branches, especially with criminal cases, where the stakes of due process are at their highest, and most especially when it's done in a flagrantly illegal and unconstitutional manner, as with the alleged gang members. But the vax court was originally proposed by victim advocates. The pharmacy companies opposed it because plaintiffs could still bring lawsuits if their claims were denied. Otherwise there was strict liability for products that aren't even unreasonably dangerous. And it was all done legitimately, as opposed to the practice of disappearing people and sending them off to be tortured with no trial. It may not be perfect, but it seems like a decent compromise.
