The Department of Health and Human Services have published their findings linking severe intestinal problems to a popular vaccine manufactured by Glaxo Smith Kline.
The studies clearly show a correlation with intussusceptions, the invagination of a segment of intestine into the next segment of intestine, resulting in bowel obstruction, diminished arterial blood supply, and blockage of the venous blood flow.
In 2007 the US tax payers were told that they were responsible for the negligent actions of several large banking institutions. They were told that in order to prevent “complete and utter chaos” from a banking collapse they must give the banking cartels hundreds of billions of dollars to “bail them out.” Despite a large majority of the public opposing TARP, it was passed with bipartisan support in a matter of hours.
The problem with alleviating the negative consequences associated with poor decision making through implementing a tax-payer based safety net, is that it encourages lackadaisical and reckless behavior. If a corporation does not have to assess the risks associated with negligence, then the corporation will be incentivized to ultimately foster such carelessness; this cause and effect of negative incentive is basic economics.
Knowing the undesirable effects of such “safety nets” provided through extortion of the populace to large corporations, one should avoid such scenarios. This is especially true in relation to the medical industry. Imagine, if you will, the disturbing scenario that would be possible if doctors were not held responsible for malpractice. The very threat of litigation for one’s negligence creates the incentive to act responsibly. This is known as free market checks and balances; in which there are real consequences for one’s actions. The threat of litigation, or potential for monetary loss, is what keeps a doctor from accidentally removing your spleen when you are there for a tonsillectomy, not government regulation.
Fortunately most of the medical industry must take responsibility for their own actions. All sectors of the medical industry are liable for damages caused to others except for the vaccine industry. Prior to October 1, 1988, if you or your child were injured by a childhood vaccine you were allowed to file a lawsuit against a vaccine manufacturer to receive compensation. However, the increased number of the lawsuits associated with vaccine injury became so great that the manufacturers started to pull out of the business altogether.
The rule in DC is if you have enough money, you can write a law that will insulate you from risk. You can be declared “too big to fail” and pass your liability onto the tax payers. This is exactly what the vaccine manufacturers did in 1988 with the passage of The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), the so-called “vaccine court.” This program has boosted vaccine sales growth immensely since its induction, largely because manufacturers now have zero liability for the products they produce.
You can actually prove that you or your child were harmed from a vaccine yet the vaccine maker is completely shielded from liability. Even if you are awarded monetary compensation through the NVICP, the tax payers are put on the line, NOT the vaccine makers. This removal of liability has created the incentive to turn out new vaccines for profit with very little testing, which in turn has shaped the situation that we find ourselves in today. In the last 2 decades, we’ve witnessed a near 300% increase in the number of CDC recommended vaccines.
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) receives around 30,000 reports annually, with 13% classified as serious (e.g., associated with disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness or death) (CDC VAERS Master Search Tool, April 2, 2008). The NVICP has paid out $2,532,574,480.33 in awards to those injured by vaccines since its inception. That’s a relatively large amount of money that the vaccine makers have managed to pass on to the tax payer.
The total payouts could however, be much larger. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) states, “VAERS data are limited by underreporting and unknown sensitivity of the reporting system, making it difficult to compare adverse event rates following vaccination reported to VAERS with those from complications following natural disease. Nevertheless, the magnitude of these differences makes it likely that serious adverse events following vaccination occur at a substantially lower rate than following natural disease.” Since follow-up is not conducted, it may be argued that some reports may not be attributed to or associated with vaccination and therefore the true rate of adverse events is essentially unknown. Nevertheless, adverse reactions reported in VAERS have typically been shown to be only 5% or 10% of the true rates.
Despite nearly the entire system being rigged for the benefit of the vaccine makers there have been enough injuries to force the CDC to concede that vaccines actually do cause damage. On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 the Department of Health and Human Services issued Notice of proposed rulemaking that deals specifically with the injuries associated with rotavirus vaccines.
The report states, “The Secretary has made findings as to intussusceptions that can reasonably be determined in some circumstances to be caused or significantly aggravated by rotavirus vaccines. Based on these findings, the Secretary proposes to amend the Vaccine Injury Table (Table) by regulation. These proposed regulations will apply only for petitions for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) filed after the final regulations become effective.”
The studies clearly show a correlation with intussusceptions, the invagination of a segment of intestine into the next segment of intestine, resulting in bowel obstruction, diminished arterial blood supply, and blockage of the venous blood flow, and GlaxoSmithKline’s Rotarix vaccine. Instead of GSK removing the product for further study and paying out damages, they remain protected at the tax payer’s expense and their vaccine continues to be used.
The only way a vaccine maker can be held liable is if willful misconduct can be shown to have caused injury. This actually provides negative incentive to test a vaccine for safety, because if they are aware of problems, then they could potentially be held liable. This is absolute madness! Here we see the manufacturer of a vaccine knowingly causing damage, yet they are removed from responsibility.
Where are the supposed checks and balances? How can this possibly be in the best interests of the public? Very simple, it cannot be.