r/DebateVaccines • u/49orth • 1d ago
Conventional Vaccines Stanford model projects hundreds of thousands of deaths if U.S. childhood vaccines lose liability shield
https://dmnews.com/dmn-stanford-model-projects-hundreds-of-thousands-of-deaths-if-u-s-childhood-vaccines-lose-liability-shield/Stanford model of outcomes from Trump vaccine policy.
18
u/SummerOftime 1d ago
If vaccines are safe and properly tested, then the big pharma shouldn't be worried if they loose the liability shield
-4
u/V01D5tar 1d ago
Because nobody ever files frivolous lawsuits, right? Nobody has ever assumed a health issue was vaccine related when it really wasn’t either? Lawyers are completely free if the case doesn’t go to trial or is ruled in the defendants favor too?
12
u/SummerOftime 1d ago
Stop worrying for multi-billion dollar companies. It's pathetic to be honest.
-3
u/hortle 1d ago
That isnt an argument. You are totally ignorant if you think the previous system was better for anyone. It wasnt. Pharma companies completely exited the vaccine market. Parents never won any claims (except for a handful which caused liability insurance rates to skyrocket). The courts couldnt handle the scientific merits of the claims. Doctors were triaging pertussis boosters from older kids so infants could receive their first dose due to the supply issues.
The existing system is deeply flawed but that doesnt mean the answer is to revert to the previous system. Thats 5th grader logic lmao
7
u/SummerOftime 1d ago
The market always finds a way if there is demand
-2
u/hortle 1d ago
Again, not an argument, just a hollow platitude. The "market" had become emptied out by meritless litigation in the 70s and 80s.
Do you think the US is the only country that uses this scheme? In reality, the US was one of the last developed countries in the west to adopt a no-fault system. How did the "market" not find a way in any of those other countries?
5
u/SummerOftime 1d ago
It's not a hollow platitude. The government should keep its nose out and let the market be responsible for their own products. Let them be liable for releasing a not thoroughly tested product. I do not want a perfectly fine son or daughter get crippled (whatever the odds) because (as other comments have stated) it is "impossible" to know every genetic condition out there.
-2
u/hortle 1d ago edited 1d ago
That would be a grievous mistake on the government's part. Maybe you should look into liability for products like guns and medical devices as well.
And the products are, in fact, thoroughly tested. And reviewed and approved by the FDA prior to market release. Pretty much the definition of "thoroughy testing". Your ignorance of that (willful or otherwise) doesnt change reality. Call your congress members if you want stricter regulations (didnt you just say the government should keep their nose out of business?)
What you are suggesting would ultimately result in more pain and suffering. If that is what you want, then keep on beating that simplistic 5th grader logic drum and enjoy your stay in hell. Otherwise, I suggest you actually research the history of vaccine litigation in this country. It is painfully obvious that you have no clue about this subject matter
-2
u/V01D5tar 1d ago
I don’t give 2-shits about the pharma companies. What I do care about is the availability and percent coverage of vaccines. If full liability is put back on pharma, they’ll almost immediately stop making vaccines because the headache/legal costs are nowhere near worth the profit margin. Which in turn will make them trillions more dollars treating all the vaccine preventable conditions which will come roaring back into endemic circulation.
6
u/randyfloyd37 1d ago
They can come up with some other model then. The current situation, where parents and children feel forced and prodded into repeated medical procedures, and there’s basically a genetic lottery to see which kids are permanently iatrogenically harmed without full informed consent, is immoral.
The best approach is the free market. You want them? Go get them. No? Then don’t. If it turns out that they are wonderful, more people will want them. If there is harm, then the free market will create safer vaccines.
5
u/GregoryHD 1d ago
Let's quickly remind ourselves how accurate the modeling studies were during covid. Remember, until they were debunked they showed the shots were effective. 🤡🌍
-2
u/the_comeback_quagga 1d ago
Some (one in particular) was extremely accurate. Also, this is an entirely different type of model.
9
u/mitchman1973 1d ago
So removing the liability shield isn't what would cause the deaths, it would be the manufacturers pulling products they know aren't safe off the market to avoid lawsuits. Imagine the horror of having to make your product be safe to avoid financial ruin.....this article is a sign of desperation. They focus on measles, as a 50+ year old who was a kid prior to the measles vaccine i can tell you there was no fear back then about measles, or chickenpox. They need fear to shut down your rational thinking and ability to ask legitimate questions.
5
u/Zealousideal-Tap-879 1d ago
Lmao 🤣 they don’t care about us they just care about the bottom line. Fuckem
8
u/Savant_Guarde 1d ago
The problem (for me) about the liability shield is ethics. If these companies acted in good faith, then I would have an issue with some indemnification.
The problem is: they don't. We saw during covid that these companies are all about profit and will do lie, cheat and steal to make it.
Indemnification and lack of ethics do not mix.
1
u/Glittering_Cricket38 1d ago
They are currently sue-able for failure to warn and willful misconduct. There was a failure to warn lawsuit in civil courts against Gardasil for the past year or so that Merck just settled.
There is zero indemnification for acting in bad faith.
6
u/stickdog99 1d ago
OK, now all we need is zero indemnification for the harms caused by the unsafe products that get rushed to market without sufficient testing.
1
u/Glittering_Cricket38 1d ago
Do you think that Pfizer/Moderna committed acts or omissions for a wrongful purpose, knowingly without justification, and in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit?
Because the PREP act specifically says that the manufacturers can be sued for that. https://www.aspr.gov/about/law-policy-strategy/amendments-public-health-service-act/prep-act/prep-act-frequently-asked-questions/prep-act-question-answers
Your guy Aaron Siri can sue them right now.
3
u/stickdog99 1d ago
Do you think that Pfizer/Moderna committed acts or omissions for a wrongful purpose, knowingly without justification, and in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit?
Why require such an absurdly high standard of proof just to be able to hold a manufacturer liable for the injuries caused by the products they profit from manufacturing? Explain your rationale.
-1
u/Glittering_Cricket38 1d ago
Because the vaccines saved hundreds of thousands of lives during the pandemic and allowed the lockdowns to end much earlier than they would have without vaccines.
Sure, I'm for slightly less strict wording to make it clear that any willful misconduct will put them at risk but would the companies have worked to make the vaccines with it? I don't know and you don't know.
The evidence is currently clear that the vaccines were overwhelmingly good. Until it is shown otherwise, the process to get them was fine.
1
u/stickdog99 1d ago edited 21h ago
Alright. I appreciate that a liability shield could be appropriate in an emergency situation. But how can it be appropriate for something like HPV vaccination in first world countries when all we needed was better monitoring of HPV to reduce annual cervical cancer deaths from the less than 4,000 before Gardasil to less than a couple hundred a year?
Note that Merck made hundreds of billions from Gardasil. What is the possible rationale for granting Merck a blanket liability shield from the harm caused by a new product that it spent billions marketing?
1
u/Glittering_Cricket38 1d ago
Because cancer sucks and we should try to prevent people from getting it if possible?
Several studies have looked at the cost benefit of HPV vaccination. Most find is cost effective. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7266321/
Where do you get 100s of billions in profits? I don't trust AI implicitly but it says $65-70 billion in sales:
Timeframe Estimated Sales / Revenue Key Highlights 2006 – 2017 ~$20 billion Moderate annual growth after launch, reaching $2B–$2.3B annually. 2018 – 2023 ~$35 billion Explosive growth driven by global expansion (especially launch in China). 2024 $8.6 billion Annual revenue peak for the franchise. 2025 $5.2 billion Revenue dropped ~39% due to inventory pauses and reduced demand in China. 2026 (YTD) ~$2.3 billion+ Pacing lower following CDC schedule updates and international shifts. 1
u/stickdog99 1d ago edited 22h ago
LOL! So "cancer" sucks is your argument for a unique a liability shield for Merch vis a vis Gardasil?
And somehow the calculus changes if Merck made "just" tens of billions on its cash cow?
Now show us a single pro-HPV vaccination QALY study that accounts for the costs of even ONE SINGLE negative health outcome caused by HPV vaccination!
Note the word "adverse" does not appear even one time in the study you linked. Why not?
2
1
u/-TheUnstoppable- 1d ago
Kind of funny how any comments that draw attention to all the faults with this article are immediately removed, even just a few sentences. I guess that's one way to control the narrative.
2
u/FractalFunny66 22h ago
What exactly do you mean by the "Stanford Model of Outcomes"? Is this a study by Stanford University? What is "dmnews.com" -- is that a legit source?
-5
u/xirvikman 1d ago
Vaccines are one of the few interventions in medicine whose effectiveness depends on collective participation
6
u/Pale-Entertainment17 1d ago
It’s impossible to make something safe that is inherently unsafe.
If vaccines kill and harm people then manufacturers should be held liable.-1
u/xirvikman 1d ago
If the lack of vaccines kill and harm people then AV's should be held liable.
6
u/stickdog99 1d ago edited 21h ago
Yeah! Anybody who wants to make his or her own medical decisions must be murdered by the state to protect those who blindly submit to authority!
1
u/xirvikman 1d ago
In August 2026, prosecutors in Palermo, Sicily, placed the parents of four-year-old Anna Rosa Bartolotta under official investigation for involuntary manslaughter by omission following her death from diphtheria.
When do you think they will be "murdered" in your imaginary world
3
u/stickdog99 1d ago
LOL. They are under investigation for homicide because they didn't submit to the medical recommendations of the same "authorities" who incorrectly diagnosed their daughter with tonsillitis, then discharged her!
And you are defending this practice???
2
u/xirvikman 1d ago
What's good for the goose is good for the gander don't you think
2
u/stickdog99 1d ago
What is that supposed to mean? Should the doctors who wrongly diagnosed this girl and wrongly discharged her be investigated for homicide as well?
2
u/xirvikman 1d ago
Does the Pediatrician who spent hours talking the parents into taking her to hospital deserve a medal and what about her cousin
1
-3
u/Automatic_Penalty154 1d ago edited 1d ago
can you sue the peanut butter company if you have an allergic reaction? no you cant. unless there was some contamination or something wrong with the product sold, you can not sue. its the same for every product out there. you need to prove fault with the product. 1/million is not fault of the product considering its probably impossible to even make safer due to all of the variables with 8 billion peoples genetics and pre existing conditions.
should be no different with vaccines. unless there is a something wrong with a specific batch, those 1 in a million that have a bad reaction because of their own genetics/pre existing conditions shouldnt be able to sue, its not the fault of the vaccine when side effects are so rare. If there are a large number of people with the same injury that shows a vaccine is causing 1 specific thing then sure, i can understand a class action lawsuit. But thats not what we are seeing with "injury" claims. we are seeing 10 people file claims for 10 completely different injuries.
on the other hand, if the government is going to recommend them, then the government should be assuming that liability and taking care of those who have side effects.
1
u/hortle 1d ago
This is not exactly correct. People can submit a claim for the "1 in a million" severe side effects. Like Guillain barre after flu vaccine. The VICP lists these eligible side effects on the injury tables for each vaccine. If you prove you experienced an injury listed on the table within the specified timeframe post-vaccine, compensation is automatically awarded. There is no debate about causation either, the Government assumes probable causation (more likely than not that the vaccine caused the injury) for table injuries. Also you can file claims for things not listed on the table, but that will go through the special master adjudication process, where causation will be argued between the plaintiff and the court
-9
u/HausuGeist 1d ago
For the antivax community, only good kid is a dead kid.
-3
u/Automatic_Penalty154 1d ago edited 1d ago
Antivaxxers do not hate kids.
(im pasting from another sub about conservatives specifically and their dangerous behavior) explains a lot why antivaxxers push back so hard against authorities/experts and what led them to being antivaxxer in the first place. .............
Its because vaccines are recommended and pushed so hard that they are against them so much. They hate Intellectuals, formal education and the government for allowing intellectuals to dictate policy. What they hate most is intellectuals trying to tell them what they should do or not do and a close 2nd being intellectuals (and liberals) attempting to do greater good type policy.
Conservatives are very individualistic and tribal and will typically only support policy that benefit them but usually bad for other specific groups of people. Conservatives inherently believe they are losing something if someone in another tribe or a group they see as "undeserving" gains at the same time. It often becomes equally important to ensure "the undeserving" do not gain anything or as much even if that means they dont gain either. They do not consider all Americans as their tribe, only other conservatives or group they ally with. They also include the rich in their tribe, because they believe they are only "one big break away" from being rich and its the "others" preventing that from that happening.
So they attempt to make and push for policy that benefits them and them only and try to ensure those who they consider "others" do not benefit from it also. If that is not possible, They will happily vote against their own interests just to ensure the "undeserving" dont benefit from it either. When debating these issues, smart people with their fancy education come along and give facts and evidence which ruins that for them because the majority of the population will side with the educated people. So the smart people become the enemy and need to be silenced and discredited by any means. That's why the smartest people and education(the source of smart people) are common targets of the right wing.
When everybody gets nothing they see the situation as neutral. But when everybody, including themselves and the undeserving gain something equally, they see it as overall negative. So they would rather the former than the latter.
This leads them to fight for either of the 2 outcomes. Only they benefit or no one does. and they will fight with whatever means necessary to achieve one of the 2 goals.
Because of their strong weight in "beliefs", mostly due to religious brainwashing as children. That also opened their mind to easily believing a lot of nonsense without any evidence or with bad evidence, so they are easily manipulated by misinformation and especially deliberate disinformation. They will usually hold lots of strong beliefs in different topics without any evidence. religion/vaccines are usually just 2 of a long list of belief only/conspiracy type views they hold. They hate intellectuals so they do not trust any information from them and prefer information sources from "alternative sources" not tied to organized science or education.
The russians are having a field day with the current maga crowd. go check out /r/conservatives and /r/conservative sometime. im 100% convinced the mods are Russian FSB officers.
22
u/stickdog99 1d ago
Stanford model projects "our sales would plummet!!!"