Buddy
The Living Force
On Tuesday of this week, the U. S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Bruesewitz v. Wyeth.
If the plaintiffs prevail, I'm thinking I'll likely celebrate!
------------------------------------------------
It seems author Michael Fumento is a vaccine advocate and is sounding the alarm indicated by the thread title.
He writes the following blog entry. When I discovered it, I traced the story and provided relevant links below. I think this case will be worth following. I'm rooting for plaintiffs. :)
Supreme Court Case May Wipe Out Vaccine Industry
By Michael Fumento
Back when Congress knew how to pass good legislation, in this case in the mid-1980s, it took most cases involving vaccine liability out of the normal court system and put them in a special vaccine court where science and medicine would rule instead of the whims of scientifically and medically ignorant juries.
That's because vaccine companies were going the way of the woolly mammoth, in part because it's just not a very profitable business and in great part because they were awash in over $3.5 billion of lawsuits claiming little more than the post hoc fallacy of "Before the person was vaccinated her or she was fine and since the vaccination he or she became sick." Seriously.
Even as it dramatically cut spurious claims, it helped persons who really had suffered from adverse reactions both by cutting litigation costs and by taking them outside of "roulette wheel" justice wherein a case might net a reward of millions while a virtually identical one would be rejected entirely.
But as I write at Forbes.com, this system itself is now endangered by a Supreme Court case in which the plaintiffs are claiming that having lost their case in Vaccine Court that rather than appeal within that system they should be able to try the case in state or federal court. And Congress did allow for some such exceptions.
But no, not this one. It's very clear from the history of what led up to the statute that Congress did not want cases such as these to bypass the system. Why? In part as one court found, it could to a great extent destroy that very system. I provide other arguments. If we lose this system many, many children will not get their vaccines until something else is instituted. And many will die.
October 27, 2010 10:53 AM
_http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2010/10/supreme_court_c.html
----------------------------------------------------
Fumento's full article as written for Forbes.com:
Vaccines And The Supremes
By Michael Fumento
Forbes Online, October 22, 2010
_http://www.fumento.com/vaccines/supremes.html
-----------------------------------------------------
Argument recap: Court considers vaccine design-defect liability
On Tuesday, the Court heard oral argument in the case of Bruesewitz v. Wyeth
_http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/10/argument-recap-court-considers-vaccine-design-defect-liability/
The Oral Argument Transcript:
_http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-152.pdf
------------------------------------------------------
The case as laid out at Cornell University Law School Website:
* Question presented
* Issue
* Facts
* Discussion
* Analysis
_http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/09-152
If the plaintiffs prevail, I'm thinking I'll likely celebrate!
------------------------------------------------
It seems author Michael Fumento is a vaccine advocate and is sounding the alarm indicated by the thread title.
He writes the following blog entry. When I discovered it, I traced the story and provided relevant links below. I think this case will be worth following. I'm rooting for plaintiffs. :)
Supreme Court Case May Wipe Out Vaccine Industry
By Michael Fumento
Back when Congress knew how to pass good legislation, in this case in the mid-1980s, it took most cases involving vaccine liability out of the normal court system and put them in a special vaccine court where science and medicine would rule instead of the whims of scientifically and medically ignorant juries.
That's because vaccine companies were going the way of the woolly mammoth, in part because it's just not a very profitable business and in great part because they were awash in over $3.5 billion of lawsuits claiming little more than the post hoc fallacy of "Before the person was vaccinated her or she was fine and since the vaccination he or she became sick." Seriously.
Even as it dramatically cut spurious claims, it helped persons who really had suffered from adverse reactions both by cutting litigation costs and by taking them outside of "roulette wheel" justice wherein a case might net a reward of millions while a virtually identical one would be rejected entirely.
But as I write at Forbes.com, this system itself is now endangered by a Supreme Court case in which the plaintiffs are claiming that having lost their case in Vaccine Court that rather than appeal within that system they should be able to try the case in state or federal court. And Congress did allow for some such exceptions.
But no, not this one. It's very clear from the history of what led up to the statute that Congress did not want cases such as these to bypass the system. Why? In part as one court found, it could to a great extent destroy that very system. I provide other arguments. If we lose this system many, many children will not get their vaccines until something else is instituted. And many will die.
October 27, 2010 10:53 AM
_http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2010/10/supreme_court_c.html
----------------------------------------------------
Fumento's full article as written for Forbes.com:
Vaccines And The Supremes
By Michael Fumento
Forbes Online, October 22, 2010
_http://www.fumento.com/vaccines/supremes.html
-----------------------------------------------------
Argument recap: Court considers vaccine design-defect liability
On Tuesday, the Court heard oral argument in the case of Bruesewitz v. Wyeth
_http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/10/argument-recap-court-considers-vaccine-design-defect-liability/
The Oral Argument Transcript:
_http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-152.pdf
------------------------------------------------------
The case as laid out at Cornell University Law School Website:
* Question presented
* Issue
* Facts
* Discussion
* Analysis
_http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/09-152
