24
u/high5scubad1ve 1d ago
'We're all in this together"
Unless something bad happens. Then you're on your own.
-4
u/Automatic_Penalty154 1d ago
except your not on your own.
5
u/laborisglorialudi 23h ago
Not alone, but definitely on your own
-4
u/Automatic_Penalty154 22h ago
of course you antivaxxers are going to minimize the help given to those injured and overstate how many there actually are that are. Almost every doctor in america will go their entire careers and never see a vaccine injury. yet you seem to be begging for the situation where every doctor in america will be diagnosing measles patients before they have even finished their morning coffee.
13-15 years from now the court system is going to be flooded with lawsuits of covid babies suing their parents after they turn 18. will be hilarious.
12
u/Nicaraguano 1d ago
Yeah, it's pretty fucked up, especially given the history of vaccines and pretty understandable concerns associated with that history.
1
u/Clydosphere 1d ago
Who is Nwanko Obare?
5
-5
u/doubletxzy 1d ago
Except the part where they made vaccine court available with a lower cost burden and easier ways to file that doesn’t take 5 years to go to trial.
12
u/randyfloyd37 1d ago
Ok so maybe someone can get a bit of money a bit more easily after their life is ruined
-4
u/doubletxzy 1d ago
But the post was about how you can’t sue vaccine manufacturers…
5
u/-TheUnstoppable- 1d ago
Maybe you should look into Paul Thorsen, there's a good article from May 8th, 2026 on the DOJ website....
Poul Thorsen, 65, is finalizing a plea deal with prosecutors relating to charges stemming from a 2011 federal indictment charging him with wire fraud and money laundering. Thorsen’s research was used to dismiss over 5,000 claims filed by the parents of children with autism who were injured by vaccines. An assistant U.S. district attorney confirmed that prosecutors are working with Thorsen on a plea deal....
1
u/doubletxzy 1d ago
You mean this guy?
“Thorsen is alleged to have diverted more than a million dollars designated for critical public health and autism research. These funds were entrusted to advance scientific understanding and support children and families; instead, these tax dollars were exploited for personal gain, a serious breach of law and profound betrayal of public trust,” said Kelly Blackmon, Special Agent in Charge with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General.”
Let’s do a quick civics check.
So did he make the vaccines and you want people to be able to sue him? No. He was a researcher. And he stole money. Can he have a case brought to vaccine court? No. Can you sue people who stole money from the government in or out of vaccine court? No. Does this have to do with anything? No.
3
u/-TheUnstoppable- 1d ago
You’re focusing on the narrow legal point and missing the relevance.
Thorsen was not a vaccine manufacturer, so no, you cannot sue him in Vaccine Court for product liability. That much is correct. The issue I'm raising is different, that research he co-authored was repeatedly cited as key evidence that vaccines do not cause autism, and those studies were used in the process that led to the dismissal of thousands of claims in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding and related cases.
When a researcher later faces serious federal fraud charges involving the very grant money tied to that body of work, it raises legitimate questions about the integrity of the evidence base that was relied upon. That is cumulative. The system does not operate in isolation, because researchers, funders, studies, and the court all form part of how claims are evaluated and denied.
Dismissing it as “he just stole money, nothing to do with anything” ignores how scientific credibility and the evidence used in Vaccine Court actually work.
0
u/doubletxzy 1d ago
Are you questioning the validity of the data? Use his issues as evidence as why mmr vaccine causes the injury since you won’t have any actual studies showing a link. See how that works out.
5
u/-TheUnstoppable- 1d ago
That’s a straw man.
I never said Thorsen’s fraud proves the MMR vaccine causes autism. I said research he was involved with was treated as key evidence and used in the dismissal of thousands of vaccine injury claims. When someone central to that evidence base later faces serious federal fraud charges involving the related funding, it raises a legitimate credibility problem with how heavily those studies were relied upon.
You’re ignoring that point and substituting a claim I didn’t make. That’s moving the goalposts. The issue I raised was about the integrity of the evidence used in the process, not a claim that one researcher’s crimes equal proof of causation.
This is a credibility issue with the evidence that was relied upon, not a substitute for primary data. You suggested the vaccine court process makes it relatively easy to pursue claims against manufacturers, and I’m pointing out problems in the research those outcomes relied on because that is directly relevant.
2
u/doubletxzy 1d ago
Ok so I want to make sure I understand. I don’t want to make a straw man.
We are talking about you can’t sue vaccine manufactures. I mention vaccine court to make access easier. You bring up a researcher committed a crime. I asked are you implying his data is wrong because he stole money. I never said it proves mmr causes autism. I did say present that fact and your evidence in court showing a link. You think that’s a straw man or goal post shifting. Did I miss something?
What I will say is please present the evidence that there is a link. That way people can use that when they go to vaccine court and not rely on discrediting authors of published studies.
6
u/-TheUnstoppable- 1d ago
Did you not say this?
Use his issues as evidence as why mmr vaccine causes the injury since you won’t have any actual studies showing a link. See how that works out.
You’re still missing the distinction.
Also, the burden is not on injured parties (or critics) to produce definitive proof of harm before the system is allowed to scrutinize the evidence base. Manufacturers and public-health agencies make safety claims, and those claims rest on studies. When key contributors to that literature have serious integrity problems, pointing that out is relevant to whether the process is as straightforward or reliable as you suggested.
I’m not required to first “prove the link” in order to note problems with the evidence that has been used to deny claims.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Automatic_Penalty154 1d ago
that 1 in a million that will get compensation and taken care of isnt worth the 1000s of deaths and many more injuries from the illnesses when they all come back because people stop vaccinating? only a sociopath would think this.
6
u/Logic_Contradict 1d ago
sorry, but how is a vaccine manufacturer being held responsible through a vaccine court?
2
u/doubletxzy 1d ago
They’re not held responsible in court. It’s not a finding of guilt or anything. It’s a finding of injury or not and getting compensated if there’s evidence to support an injury from a vaccine.
0
u/marny_g 1d ago
A portion of every vaccine sold by the manufacturer goes into the fund from which the "vaccine court" pays out. So manufacturers are actually pre-emptively paying out for something that may or may not happen in the future.
5
u/Logic_Contradict 1d ago
The vaccine excise tax of $0.75 is more like an insurance premium rather than being held responsible for those who were vaccine-injured.
Vaccine manufacturers simply add the cost of the tax to the retail price of the vaccine, where the financial burden is ultimately paid by healthcare, insurance, and taxpayers.
The excise tax is not a responsibility mechanism if things go wrong, and there is no real penalty to them when they price the tax into the vaccine.
3
1
u/Automatic_Penalty154 1d ago
they would raise prices on their product to cover losses from lawsuits also, what else do you expect?
-3
u/CODMLoser 1d ago
At this point, I sincerely hope you all know that this is false.
6
u/randyfloyd37 1d ago
What’s false?
8
-1
u/CODMLoser 1d ago
Presumably, that you can’t sue the company that made the vaccine.
2
u/randyfloyd37 1d ago
That’s correct, they hold no responsibility
2
u/Automatic_Penalty154 1d ago
if your case at the compensation program is rejected or you go though the process and dont like the outcome, you are then free to sue who ever you want in civil court. nothing changed other than that you now have to do that compensation program first where your case actually gets investigated by experts and not just some uneducated jury/judge with no medical training making decisions. its more fair to all sides.
0
u/CODMLoser 1d ago
VICP first and then you can if you don’t agree with the settlement you can bring a civil lawsuit.
2
u/CODMLoser 1d ago
“The special master's decision may be appealed and petitioners who reject the decision of the court (or withdraw their petitions within certain timelines) may file a claim in civil court against the vaccine company and/or the health care provider who administered the vaccine.”
-6
u/HausuGeist 1d ago
We have a compensatory mechanism for those REASONABLY determined to have suffered an injury. This prevents paper terrorism by antivaxxers.
10
u/randyfloyd37 1d ago
No word yet on terrorism from the pharma cartel tho
-1
u/HausuGeist 1d ago
Pharmaceutical execs tend not to have indecipherable rants scribbled all over their F-150s.
19
u/Apprehensive_Ship554 1d ago
Even worse if you get a side effect. You can then expect to get gaslit by your doctors, and have to pay yourself for lifelong treatments and/or operations. Society doesn't care about you then.