by Jon Rappoport<\/p>\n
Major media aren\u2019t giving this story the coverage it deserves. I certainly am.<\/p>\n
Short question: Can a person sue a US vaccine manufacturer?<\/p>\n
Short answer: Under certain conditions, yes.<\/p>\n
Note: I\u2019m not framing this article as professional legal advice. I\u2019m reporting what I\u2019ve been able to dig up on a very explosive issue so far. I\u2019ve communicated with two lawyers and a law professor. I\u2019ve been pointed to an important passage on a federal web page.<\/p>\n
Right now, lawyers and their clients are suing Merck, the manufacturer, for injuries incurred from Merck\u2019s shingles vaccine, Zostavax.<\/p>\n
Among the claimed injuries: contracting shingles; blindness in one eye; partial paralysis; brain damage; death.<\/p>\n
One of the plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys told me he has already filed two cases in California. Each case has 50 plaintiffs. He states he has 5000 clients waiting in the wings. There are other attorneys with other plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
But wait. Isn\u2019t there a federal law that bars people from suing vaccine manufacturers?<\/p>\n
Isn\u2019t that law the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act? Doesn\u2019t it demand that people go to a special federal \u201cvaccine tribunal\/court\u201d and plead for compensation from the government?<\/p>\n
Aren\u2019t vaccine manufacturers shielded from liability for causing injury?<\/p>\n
Well, it turns out there are exceptions to the rule.<\/p>\n
Adult vaccines are not part of the 1986 federal law.<\/p>\n
The law shielding vaccine companies only applies to childhood vaccines.<\/p>\n
The Merck shingles vaccine is only for adults.<\/p>\n
The special federal \u201cvaccine tribunal\/court\u201d is established as part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). This is where parents who claim their children were injured by vaccines must go, to ask for compensation from the government\u2014not from vaccine manufacturers.<\/p>\n
But on a web page of the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, under \u201cHealth Resources and Services Administration,\u201d we see \u201cFrequently Asked Questions.\u201d<\/a> And we read this rather opaque statement:<\/p>\n \u201cIn order for a category of vaccines to be covered, the category of vaccines must be recommended for routine administration to children by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention\u2026\u201d<\/em> [Note: On this clumsy FAQ web page, you have to click on \u201cView Answer\u201d under the following question to see it: \u201cIf a new vaccine product is licensed, what needs to occur before the vaccine will be covered by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)?\u201d]<\/p>\n What does \u201ccovered\u201d mean? It means \u201ccovered exclusively by the federal compensation program.\u201d It means a parent who believes her child has been injured by a vaccine goes to the special federal \u201ccourt.\u201d The vaccine must be FOR CHILDREN. However, an adult seeking compensation for vaccine injury, FROM AN ADULT VACCCINE, would, with a lawyer, argue his case in ordinary state or federal court. That adult would sue the vaccine manufacturer.<\/p>\n This message from the federal government is clear. The ban against suing vaccine manufacturers only applies to vaccines recommended for children (and pregnant women). The ban does not apply to adult vaccines.<\/p>\n Naturally, adults are going to be interested in seeing a list of adult vaccines, because in the case of vaccine-injury, these people can and must go to ordinary state or federal courts and sue the vaccine manufacturer. And they can sue for punitive damages. This is what scares vaccine manufacturers. Punitive-damage money can soar into the stratosphere.<\/p>\n