A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Chief Justice John Roberts cashes in Pfizer stocks to participate in landmark vaccine case



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 9th 10, 06:20 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med
john[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 822
Default Chief Justice John Roberts cashes in Pfizer stocks to participate in landmark vaccine case

http://vactruth.com/2010/10/09/chief...-vaccine-case/

It has been revealed that Chief Justice John Roberts Jr has recently sold
his stock holdings in Pfizer Inc. He did this to enable him to participate
in two up and coming vaccine cases, one of which is to be held on Tuesday
12th October 2010.
This landmark case could change history on how future vaccine court cases
are viewed. This is because the outcome of this case will render important
implications as to whether anyone suffering a vaccine injury can ever -
under any circumstances - sue a pharmaceutical company.

Originally, in March when the court announced it would hear the case,
Justice Roberts was NOT participating. However, a recent docket sent in this
month now indicates that he is.

The case on Tuesday centers around a Pennsylvania lawsuit in which parents
alleged that their 6 month old baby daughter developed a seizure disorder
after receiving a vaccine manufactured by Wyeth, which is now a unit of
Pfizer.

In March, an article appeared in the Age of Autism 'The Supreme Court Takes
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth: Is There Justice for Vaccine Injury Victims?'
(http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/03/the-supreme-court.)

The article by Mary Holland Esq. states the following:

"On March 8, the Supreme Court voted to hear Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, an
appeal from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court will
decide whether a vaccine-injured child has the right to pursue a traditional
"design defect" claim under state tort law when "Vaccine Court" refuses
compensation. The Supreme Court must interpret the 1986 National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act and decide whether Congress intended to "preempt" all
industry tort liability when it wrote, "No vaccine manufacturer shall be
liable.if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were
unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was
accompanied by proper directions and warnings.

Did Congress intend to extinguish the right to sue for all defective
vaccine designs in civil court?



While the statutory language is awkward and thus somewhat opaque, Congress's
legislative intent was not - the statute as a whole shows clearly that
Congress intended to leave civil courthouse doors open for petitioners who
elect to leave Vaccine Court to sue for design defects. Lower courts,
nonetheless, have decided the question both ways. So the Supreme Court must
step in and resolve the conflict. The stakes are high: whether a person
injured by a vaccine can challenge the safety of the design in any court in
the United States.

A three judge panel of the Third Circuit unanimously decided in March 2009
that petitioner Hannah Bruesewitz did not have the right to sue vaccine
manufacturer Wyeth, Inc. to assert that its vaccine design was unsafe. [See
Bruesewitz-Decision] Hannah was born in October, 1991, and received her
third DPT shot on schedule on April 1, 1992. Shortly thereafter she
developed "residual seizure disorder," recognized as a Table Injury at the
time, meaning that causation was presumed. "Residual seizure disorder" was
deleted from the Table just one month before she filed her case. Finally,
on December 20, 2002, more than ten years later, Vaccine Court categorically
rejected her claim. This hardly complies with Congress' promise in the 1986
NCVIA that awards be "made to vaccine-injured persons quickly, easily, and
with certainty and generosity." The Bruesewitz family argues that the safer
acellular DTaP vaccine was long available by the time Hannah received the
DPT and suffered seizures, and that her vaccine injury was avoidable had the
manufacturer used this demonstrably safer vaccine design."

However, it was discovered yesterday that on September 28th 2010, an article
appeared in The Wall Street Journal entitled 'Chief Justice Roberts Sells
Pfizer Shares' (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB.) which said:

"When the court announced in March that it would hear the case, it
indicated that Justice Roberts was not participating. However, a recent
docket entry this month no longer indicates that Justice Roberts is sitting
out. The Sept. 3 entry notes only that Justice Kagan is recused."

Now here comes the interesting bit which really shows up the justice system
for what it is,



"Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. recently sold his stock holdings in Pfizer
Inc., which clears him to participate in two cases involving the drug maker
that are pending on the Supreme Court's docket.


Justice Roberts, through a court spokeswoman, confirmed that he sold his
Pfizer holdings on Aug. 31.


Justice Roberts's participation means the court will not be as
short-handed in the coming Pfizer cases, in which the court's newest
justice, Elena Kagan, is recused. Justice Kagan is sitting out several cases
this term because she was involved in them previously when she served as
U.S. solicitor general.


The chief justice's involvement, however, means eight justices will hear
the two cases, raising the possibility that one or both could result in a
4-4 tie."


Not only this but the Wall Street Journal says the following, "Federal
judges are required to recuse themselves in cases in which they hold a
personal financial interest." Do you remember what the article had said
earlier about the lovely Justice Kagan ?

"Elena Kagan, is recused. Justice Kagan is sitting out several cases this
term because she was involved in them previously when she served as U.S.
solicitor general."


This reveals that the judges we rely on as parents in courts ARE
PROFITEERING FROM BIG PHARMA! Is this an unbiased justice system??? I don't
think so! I tell you what I think - I think this all stinks! This is
basically saying to parents, "if your children are unfortunate enough to
suffer a vaccine injury, don't expect us to help because we are backing the
pharmaceutical industry."

In my opinion, parents face a system that is corrupt from the onset. I
believe parents of a vaccine injured child face the following challenges:

1. A corrupt medical profession funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

2. A corrupt child protection system, that works with the corrupt medical
profession, funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

3. A corrupt justice system who profit from the pharmaceutical industry.
And, the biggest evil of them all.

4. A corrupt government who backs the whole damn lot of them.


It is a no win situation. Why should parents of vaccine-injured children
have to negotiate with a corrupt system that will not help them find the
justice they deserve? This situation has got to change and it has to change
now.

*Note: I would like to thank Leslie Botha from SANE Vax.org for bringing
this to my attention.

Related Articles:

1.. Pfizer Demands DNA from Vaccine Injured Beneficiaries
2.. US Court of Appeals denies vaccine court case
3.. Pfizer sells China swine vaccine unit to Harbin Pharma
4.. Ex-Pfizer scientist wins $1.37 million in federal lawsuit
5.. Judi Roberts, Wife of Polk GOP Chairman, Dies
6.. Federal Circuit Reverses Denial of Vaccine Injury Claim
7.. Novartis chief warns states over cancelled vaccine orders


  #2  
Old October 12th 10, 11:03 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med
john[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 822
Default Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. has history of selling shares in drug companies

http://whale.to/vaccine/chief_justic...oberts_jr.html


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Former Chief Justice of Georgia's Supreme Court says: Let's end disposable marriage Dusty Child Support 0 July 5th 09 11:19 PM
Supreme Court Chief Justice Kathleeen Blatz, who has stated that,"ninetypercent of the children in our juvenile justice system have come, throughchild protection." fx Spanking 0 August 9th 07 05:13 AM
Supreme Court Chief Justice Kathleeen Blatz, who has stated that,"ninetypercent of the children in our juvenile justice system have come, throughchild protection." fx Foster Parents 0 August 9th 07 05:13 AM
Canada's Supreme Court Chief Justice faces Human Rights Complaints - Please Circulate Widely [email protected] Child Support 0 July 14th 07 08:15 PM
State Supreme Court Sides with Triplets’ Birth Mother In Landmark Egg Donor Case JayR Child Support 0 October 6th 05 11:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.