By Robert J. Krakow of Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, P.C.
advertisement - learn more
To the Daily Kos Blog:
In response to the article you published: Robert F Kennedy, Jr and vaccines – why real journalists don’t interview him”
Dorit Reiss misses the point on vaccine manufacturer immunity.
While Dorit Reiss may be technically
correct in pointing out that vaccine manufacturers don’t have “blanket
immunity” from liability to vaccine-injured individuals, her criticism
of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s statements to Fox’s Tucker Carlson on these
issues misses the point. Vaccine manufacturers do enjoy unprecedented
legal protection against design defect claims brought by vaccine injury
claimants. Manufacturers also are shielded from discovery by the
requirement that vaccine injury claimants must first file their claims
with a government compensation program, the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program. The NVICP applies the strictest statute of
limitations against claimants who are under the age of majority – 3
years, whereas in most state minors can file claims until they turn 21
years of age. These protections blunt the utility of the legal system
for people who are vaccine injured.
The liability protection enjoyed by the
vaccine manufacturers has served to allow dismissal of large class
actions filed by the vaccine injured.Thus, the most powerful legal tool
that allows claimants who individually lack legal firepower, to bring
claims as a group, thus mustering the resources to conduct sophisticated
investigations, hire the best qualified expert witnesses, and survive
onerous legal processes while they extract critical secreted information
from the manufacturers. Without class actions, only the wealthiest
individual claimants can afford to sue a pharmaceutical giant and take
on their high-powered well-financed law firms.
advertisement - learn more
Thus, while it may not technically be
“blanket”, Mr. Kennedy’s substantive point about vaccine manufacturer
legal protections is powerfully correct: vaccine manufacturers enjoy the
greatest legal protection against lawsuits in the history of American
jurisprudence.
The examples provided by Ms. Reiss are
unavailing. While the vaccine-injured can, technicallly, claim for
manufacturing defects, these are almost impossible to pursue unless
claimants are privy to the details of the production process. Vaccine
manufacturers do not disclose this kind of proprietary information, nor
can individual claimants afford to bring claims to investigate
manufacturing problems. Unless there is independent monitoring of
manufacturing processes that alerts consumers to defects – something
that in reality does not exist, the availability of such claims is all
but meaningless.
Related CE Articles:
The shingles vaccine (trade name:
Zostavax) claims Reiss cites that are not required to go through the
NVICP represent the exception that proves the rule, and reveal the
fundamental truth of Mr. Kennedy’s point. Zostavax, a vaccine for adults
over 50 years of age is one of the very few vaccines that are widely
distributed to the U.S. population that is not covered under the NVICP.
Most vaccines that are given to adults and that are mandatory for most
children are covered by the NVICP and are governed by the broad legal
protection given to vaccine manufacturers. These include flu vaccines,
the MMR, DTaP and more than 15 other routinely given vaccines - the
overwhelming majority – which are covered under the NVICP. The lawsuit
involving the mumps component of the MMR vaccine, cited by Ms. Reiss,
does not involve a person claiming injury, but rather is a fraud claim
by former Merck scientists alleging that Merck manufactured efficacy
data for the mumps vaccine, covering up for the vaccine’s lack of
efficacy. This example is completely inapposite and in no way undermines
Mr. Kennedy’s claim.
Thus, while somewhat hyperbolic – a
forgivable sin for a zealous advocate when discussing truly
unprecedented legal protections for an industry that promotes the most
sensitive medical interventions that exist given to healthy people, Ms.
Reiss’s points are far more misleading than Mr. Kennedy’s points that
she complains about.
Rather than try to smear Mr. Kennedy
with hyper technical or misleading points, wouldn’t it be more helpful
for the American consumer if we had a real debate about vaccine safety?
As a lawyer who represent many victims of vaccine injury, I see Tucker
Carlson’s interview of Mr. Kennedy as a public service encouraging a
healthy debate. After all, we are considering the health of our people,
mostly children. In protecting children’s health, a vigorous and open
debate is always beneficial. Hollow debating points do not help.
New York, New York
Robert J. Krakow, Attorney At Law
Reprinted with permission in its entirety. Originally published on April 26, 2017 in the blog from the Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, P.C.
Please visit: The World Mercury Project to learn more about Robert F. Kennedy and what he is doing about these issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment