Vaccine Makers Blackmail Congress

[Blackmail straight from the vaccine makers - "Full liability protection is
a requirement for our participation in the development and production of a
pandemic vaccine," said Len Lavenda, spokesman for Sanofi Pasteur, the
vaccine-making unit of Sanofi-Aventis Group.

Honestly folks, AN INDUSTRY WOULD NOT BE FIGHTING THIS HARD IF THEY KNEW
THEIR PRODUCTS WERE SAFE! ]


-----Original Message-----
From: NVICNews ]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 12:27 PM
To:
Subject: [NVIC] Vaccine Makers Blackmail Congress

E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER
Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org

==============
BL Fisher Note:
Drug companies making vaccines have used blackmail tactics before to try to
bully Congress into letting them off the hook for vaccine injuries and
deaths. They did it in the 1970's with the bogus swine flu scare that
convinced Congress to immunize companies from all liability for the hastily
prepared swine flu vaccine that ended up brain damaging many Americans, few
of whom ever got the promised "government compensation" they were supposed
to get.

Vaccine makers blackmailed Congress in the 1980's, threatning to leave the
nation without any childhood vaccines if they were not given protection from
lawsuits on behalf of children brain damaged from the highly reactive whole
cell DPT vaccine. Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
of 1986 that eliiminated almost all liability for doctors and vaccine
manufacturers. It worked: there were four drug companies marketing vaccines
in the U.S. in 1982 (Wyeth, Lederle, Merck, Connaught) and today that number
has doubled to eight (Wyeth, Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline,
Medimmune, Chiron, Bioport, Vaxgen).

Now big Pharma wants to cut off citizen access to the judicial system if
they are harmed by experimental or licensed vaccines potentially mandated to
be used whenever the Secretary of Health and Human Services declares a
public health emergency and Governors follow suit (see NVIC letter to Senate
staffer Kadlec at www.nvic.org). The Pharma bail-out by Congress will result
in vaccine casualties who will be left to fend for themselves for the rest
of their lives long after the "emergency" is over.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...6/AR2005111602
238.html
The Washington Post
Thursday, November 17, 2005; Page D01

Vaccine Funding Tied to Liability
Trial Lawyers Say Move Would Hurt Consumers

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer


Legislation that would pour billions of dollars into the production of
vaccines against avian flu and other pandemic diseases is threatened by the
trial lawyers' lobby, which objects to proposed limits onlawsuits against
drug manufacturers.

Republican congressional leaders, acting at the urging of President Bush,
hope to approve a measure soon that would appropriate about $7 billion to
pay for vaccines that would combat a flu epidemic and biological attacks by
terrorists. The bill could begin moving on Capitol Hill this week.

But the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and some of its Democratic
allies in Congress are working to scuttle or drastically transform the
effort, asserting that anti-lawsuit language in the bill would so broadly
indemnify pharmaceutical companies against suits that consumers' rights
would be denied.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the Senate's chief advocate for strict liability
protections, asserted that the companies need to be thoroughly indemnified
against suits to provide enough of an incentive for them to make vaccines,
which tend to be low-profit products.

The conflict will almost certainly lead to fireworks during debate on the
floor of the House and the Senate and could delay the legislation itself,
which is a Bush priority, lobbyists and congressional aides said.

"A slowdown is possible," said Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority
Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who supports strict lawsuit limitations.
"That's the way the place works."

Neither side appears willing to bend, and negotiations about the provision
lately have been among Republicans only. Democrats are complaining bitterly
about being cut out of the process and are working hard to stop the measure.

"The Republican leadership in Congress is trying to do another special favor
for drug companies by slipping a provision into a massive spending bill to
absolve the pharmaceutical industry of any responsibility to patients
injured by dangerous drugs or vaccines," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)
said. "It's cynical to claim that this is what's needed to deal with avian
flu."

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said: "We all share the goal of
protecting the American people. But I'm alarmed that such a critical
question . . . is being handled with a backroom deal."

He and Kennedy also said people might refuse to take a vaccine without an
effective compensation program for people who get injured. They asserted
that the Republican provision does not contain an adequate plan to
compensate such people.

ATLA and its Democratic supporters believe that the pending provision,
drafts of which have been circulating informally on Capitol Hill, would stop
a wide variety of lawsuits against drugmakers, including those that target
drugs other than vaccines. The lobby has long fought such broad
restrictions.

Republicans deny that the provision is that far-reaching. But they are also
determined to press on with a tough liability provision that the trial
lawyers would almost certainly reject. Republican lawmakers and
pharmaceutical representatives contend that without strong limits on
lawsuits, drug companies will not produce the vaccines.

"You're not going to get vaccine production in the U.S. unless you have
liability protection," Gregg said in a telephone interview. "The risk of a
major liability suit far outweighs the potential rate of return that you'd
get on the investment."

The drug companies, some of which have been working closely with Gregg on
the legislation, agreed. "Full liability protection is a requirement for our
participation in the development and production of a pandemic vaccine," said
Len Lavenda, spokesman for Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccine-making unit of
Sanofi-Aventis Group.

Republicans, who are still devising the legislation's liability section,
also accuse Democrats of playing politics with public health. "Democrats in
the past have always stood up with the trial lawyers," said Call, Frist's
spokeswoman. "We'll see if they stand up for them or for the American
people."

Contrary to ATLA's assertions, Call said the wording under discussion would
affect only companies that manufacture vaccines that counter pandemics
officially declared national emergencies.

If the secretary of health and human services certifies such a disaster, she
said, patient lawsuits would be restricted to those that claim the companies
willfully engaged in misconduct. Lesser allegations would be disallowed as a
reason to sue, she said.

ATLA and Republican lawmakers have been sparring for months over how best to
deal with lawsuits against vaccine producers. ATLA and its Democratic
backers have wanted the language to be narrowly drawn; Republican leaders
and pharmaceutical firms have been pushing for wider restrictions.

Republican leaders are considering attaching the latest pandemic provision
to any of a several appropriations bills that constitute "must pass"
legislation this year. Their options include bills that fund the Department
of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense, staffers said.

================================

GOP pushes vaccine liability shield

Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
Los Angeles Times
Nov. 17, 2005 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON - Republican lawmakers are moving swiftly to enact one part of
President Bush's flu plan, a liability shield for vaccine manufacturers,
while issues such as compensation for people injured by adverse reactions
and even funding for the proposal remain unresolved.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., wants to attach the liability
protections to a must-pass spending bill slated for quick action,
spokeswoman Amy Call said Wednesday. That would bypass the cumbersome
process of committee hearings and floor deliberations in each chamber.

But Frist's proposal does not include a compensation program for victims,
and the House and the Senate disagree over how to pay for Bush's plan.

The president has asked for $7 billion in emergency funding to increase
vaccine production and stockpile anti-viral drugs against the threat of a
worldwide pandemic. Influential Republicans in the House want the funds to
come from cuts in other programs.

The legislative maneuvering over liability protections has enraged
Democrats, who have managed to block limits on jury awards in medical
malpractice cases - a cornerstone of the GOP agenda at the beginning of this
year.

And it has raised concerns among public health advocates, who fear that
national preparations for a possible flu pandemic could be set back by
partisan warfare over the perennially contentious issue of liability.

"To have the liability protections sitting out there without the funds to
enhance vaccine production capacity is just not acceptable in this country,"
said Kim Elliott, deputy director of the Trust for America's Health, a
non-profit advocacy group.

The liability protections would only apply to vaccines and other medicines
against pandemic flu or to a pathogen that might be used in a bio-terror
attack, Call said.

"john" wrote in message
...
[Blackmail straight from the vaccine makers - "Full liability protection
is a requirement for our participation in the development and production
of a pandemic vaccine," said Len Lavenda, spokesman for Sanofi Pasteur,
the vaccine-making unit of Sanofi-Aventis Group.

Honestly folks, AN INDUSTRY WOULD NOT BE FIGHTING THIS HARD IF THEY KNEW
THEIR PRODUCTS WERE SAFE! ]

Actually, full liability protection is totally appropriate. Otherwise,
vaccine makers would be sued left and right for damages that did not occur.
And juries see vaccine makers as having deep pockets and find in favor or
the sick kids, even though the vaccines did not cause the illness.

Full liability protection for the vaccine makers is the way to ensure that
our kids get safe and effective vaccines.

Jeff

"john" wrote in message
...
[Blackmail straight from the vaccine makers - "Full liability protection
is
a requirement for our participation in the development and production of a
pandemic vaccine," said Len Lavenda, spokesman for Sanofi Pasteur, the
vaccine-making unit of Sanofi-Aventis Group.

Honestly folks, AN INDUSTRY WOULD NOT BE FIGHTING THIS HARD IF THEY KNEW
THEIR PRODUCTS WERE SAFE! ]


Don't know what you mean by fighting this hard. They are not making vaccines
because of clowns like you and contrary to what clowns like you say there is
no money in it.
The person takes one shot for the rest of his life or maybe two or as in the
case of flu one a year. Where's the money making in that compared to taking
a pill a day for 365 days a year?

"Jeff" wrote in message
news

Full liability protection for the vaccine makers is the way to ensure that
our kids get safe and effective vaccines.

Jeff


LOL. http://www.vaccination.org.uk/vaccines/profits.html

"Robert" wrote in message
...

"john" wrote in message
...
[Blackmail straight from the vaccine makers - "Full liability protection
is
a requirement for our participation in the development and production of
a
pandemic vaccine," said Len Lavenda, spokesman for Sanofi Pasteur, the
vaccine-making unit of Sanofi-Aventis Group.

Honestly folks, AN INDUSTRY WOULD NOT BE FIGHTING THIS HARD IF THEY KNEW
THEIR PRODUCTS WERE SAFE! ]


Don't know what you mean by fighting this hard. They are not making
vaccines
because of clowns like you and contrary to what clowns like you say there
is
no money in it.
The person takes one shot for the rest of his life or maybe two or as in
the
case of flu one a year. Where's the money making in that compared to
taking
a pill a day for 365 days a year?

Besides the unfavorable dosing frequency, the manufacture of vaccines
involves culturing viruses in vivo or in tissue cultures. This is an
expensive proposition compared to the straight-forward chemical synthesis
used for pill making. After the viruses are cultured, they must be
attenuated in some way, another expensive step, and one that must be 100%
effective lest the resultant vaccine cause the very disease it is designed
to prevent. No, there's no real profit in vaccines.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

"Robert" wrote in message
...

Don't know what you mean by fighting this hard. They are not making
vaccines
because of clowns like you and contrary to what clowns like you say there
is
no money in it.
The person takes one shot for the rest of his life or maybe two or as in
the
case of flu one a year. Where's the money making in that compared to
taking
a pill a day for 365 days a year?



they don't work.

"The flu vaccine gets the most-useless-vaccine-of-all-time award. Now the
CDC is recommending the vaccine for children under two years old and all
adults over 50. Don't fall for it."---Randall Neustaedter OMD
http://www.whale.to/v/quotes3.html

and $8Billion a year isn't chicken feed in my reality, plus the billions
from treating vax disease
http://www.vaccination.org.uk/vaccines/diseases.html

"john" wrote in message
...

"Robert" wrote in message
...

Don't know what you mean by fighting this hard. They are not making
vaccines
because of clowns like you and contrary to what clowns like you say there
is
no money in it.
The person takes one shot for the rest of his life or maybe two or as in
the
case of flu one a year. Where's the money making in that compared to
taking
a pill a day for 365 days a year?



they don't work.

"The flu vaccine gets the most-useless-vaccine-of-all-time award. Now the
CDC is recommending the vaccine for children under two years old and all
adults over 50. Don't fall for it."---Randall Neustaedter OMD
http://www.whale.to/v/quotes3.html

and $8Billion a year isn't chicken feed in my reality, plus the billions
from treating vax disease
http://www.vaccination.org.uk/vaccines/diseases.html

Yeah, so where did you get the "8billion a year" figure? Just made it up,
probably. And the list of "diseases caused by vaccines" is a hoot. Smallpox?
Shaken baby syndrome? Dyslexia? Give me a break!
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

"john" wrote in message
...

"Robert" wrote in message
...

Don't know what you mean by fighting this hard. They are not making
vaccines
because of clowns like you and contrary to what clowns like you say
there
is
no money in it.
The person takes one shot for the rest of his life or maybe two or as in
the
case of flu one a year. Where's the money making in that compared to
taking
a pill a day for 365 days a year?



they don't work.

"The flu vaccine gets the most-useless-vaccine-of-all-time award. Now the
CDC is recommending the vaccine for children under two years old and all
adults over 50. Don't fall for it."---Randall Neustaedter OMD
http://www.whale.to/v/quotes3.html

and $8Billion a year isn't chicken feed in my reality, plus the billions
from treating vax disease
http://www.vaccination.org.uk/vaccines/diseases.html



Explain to me how the companies can blackmail the government when they are
making $8 billion?
They aren't making money which is why they are out of the vaccine business
and stalkers like you have chased them away.
Do you even read your own posts?
Blackmail, meaning we will get back into the vaccine business if they are
protected from frivolous lawsuits?
Your posts don't make sense like usual.

"john" wrote in message
...
[Blackmail straight from the vaccine makers - "Full liability protection
is
a requirement for our participation in the development and production of a
pandemic vaccine," said Len Lavenda, spokesman for Sanofi Pasteur, the
vaccine-making unit of Sanofi-Aventis Group.

Honestly folks, AN INDUSTRY WOULD NOT BE FIGHTING THIS HARD IF THEY KNEW
THEIR PRODUCTS WERE SAFE! ]

How do you propose they ensure the vaccine is safe? They can't start making
the vaccine until the virus mutates into a form that can spread human to
human. Are you suggesting they should then spend a few years testing it to
make 100% safe? A lot of people will die in the meanwhile.

Personally I'd rather they release it untested with a nice label on the
bottle that reads "use at your own risk". Then I can take it and you John
can have the oxyginated water (or whatever you think is best).

"Robert" wrote in message
...

"john" wrote in message
...
[Blackmail straight from the vaccine makers - "Full liability protection
is
a requirement for our participation in the development and production of
a
pandemic vaccine," said Len Lavenda, spokesman for Sanofi Pasteur, the
vaccine-making unit of Sanofi-Aventis Group.

Honestly folks, AN INDUSTRY WOULD NOT BE FIGHTING THIS HARD IF THEY KNEW
THEIR PRODUCTS WERE SAFE! ]


Don't know what you mean by fighting this hard. They are not making
vaccines
because of clowns like you and contrary to what clowns like you say there
is
no money in it.
The person takes one shot for the rest of his life or maybe two or as in
the
case of flu one a year. Where's the money making in that compared to
taking
a pill a day for 365 days a year?

I wonder why this lie keeps being told?

http://www.wellbeingjournal.com/vaccine.htm

Consider this "governmental" condition in determining the need for a
mandated hepatitis B vaccine. Vaccine manufacturers, since Congress passed a
liability limiting bill into law in 1986, have reaped huge profits on
vaccines.


At Rep. Mica's Congressional hearing, Burton Waisbren, M.D. voiced his
concern that a nationwide experiment on universal hepatitis B immunization
was implemented without congressional approval. He credited the joint
efforts of an agency that stood to gain influence and power, and a drug
company that expected to make billions of dollars.

The Wall Street Journal (2-25-98, p. B1): "The climate slowly began to
change [after passage of the law] that shields vaccine producers from all
liability not related to manufacturing error.... The law `turned the
industry around' and encouraged biotech companies to jump into the vaccine
field... SmithKline predicts that in 10 years the world-wide vaccine market
will triple from the current $3 billion," unless the rules are changed.

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/profits.html

"For decades, American pharmaceutical companies have known how to produce
the safer DPT vaccine but decided not to bring it to market because it would
increase production costs and lower the drug's 50% or higher profit
margins."--Money Magazine

http://www.whale.to/m/quotes9.html

About six times a year, Merck and Co. pays Dr. Lawrence Frenkel as much as
$750 to give talks on vaccines, including the chickenpox vaccine that Merck
makes. Frenkel is one of five members of the state Immunization Advisory
Committee who have disclosed on reporting forms that they have financial
interests in Merck."--Media

"Today we have a system in which vaccine production by the pharmaceutical
companies is largely self-regulated. Of course these companies are
interested in profits from their products which, in itself, is not wrong.
However, when arbitrary decisions in the mandating of vaccines are made by
the government bureaucracies, which are highly partisan to the
pharmaceuticals, with no recourse open to parents, we have all the potential
ingredients for a tragedy of historical proportions."--Harold Buttram MD

"Wyeth Lederle had paid Dr. Edwards $255,023 per year from 1996 to 1998 for
the study of pneumococcal vaccines (i.e. Prevnar). Edwards is also one of
fifteen full-time members of FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products
Advisory Committee, the committee that advises the FDA on the licensing of
new vaccines......Rennels was instrumental in getting RotaShield to market
and is now involved in Prevnar. Her university receives a total of over $2.5
million from various drug and vaccine companies including Wyeth Lederle,
Prevnar's manufacturer. She is also one of the twelve members of the
Committee on Infectious Diseases, the committee that makes vaccine
recommendations as part of the American Academy of Pediatrics.....This
doctor (Dr. Jerome Klein) has been employed by the major vaccine
manufacturers to testify against vaccine injured children. He is also chief
editor of pneumo.com the website paid for by Wyeth Lederle to sponsor
Prevnar. Furthermore, Klein holds a position on the National Vaccine
Advisory Committee, the committee that recommends products for universal
vaccination."--Michael Horwin, MA"

"I have minutes from a CDC Study Group Meeting on the Hepatitis B vaccine
held in March, 1997. ....It should be noted that the afternoon session of
this meeting was chaired by Dr. Robert Sharrar of Merck."--Betty D. Fluck

"The Committee's investigation has determined that conflict of interest
rules employed by the FDA and the CDC have been weak, enforcement has been
lax, and committee members with substantial ties to pharmaceutical companies
have been given waivers to participate in committee proceedings."--Committee
staff report

"5 out of 6 members of the (UK) Joint Committee on Vaccination and
Immunisation had interests with Glaxo Wellcome, 4 with SmithKline Beecham
(ref: May 1999 Secretary of State for Health)

"We suspect financial ties between vaccine manufacturers and medical groups
such as the American Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics
(AAP) which endorse the (hep B) vaccine," says Dr. Orient, pointing to a
substantial donation to AAP from Merck & Co. "And the federal government
pays the state a bonus up to $100 for every "fully" vaccinated child. What's
their motive -- money or medicine?" Jane Orient M.D.

"I have copies of letters to the AAP from three vaccine manufacturers
discussing the almost $1 million they donated to the AAP during a five-year
period alone!"--Sandy Mintz
http://www.alaskawellness.com/jul-aug01/evidence.htm

THE boss of Britain's biggest vaccines company made a £50,000 donation to
Labour two months after winning a £17m NHS contract.... Powderject, the
sixth largest vaccine company in the world, also produces the leading flu
vaccine, Fluvirin, vaccines against yellow fever and tetanus, and the
Diamorphine pain-killer. ..........Drayson also congratulated the Department
of Health on its vaccination programme during the flu epidemic last
winter........Ministers had been forced to halt the BCG schools immunisation
programme in 1999 after their supplier, Medeva, ran into production
problems. ........Powderject later took over the Merseyside-based company,
renaming it Evans Vaccines. The Department of Health then negotiated the new
BCG contract with Powderject, but at a price more than four times the
original £2m a year."--Media

In a May 8, 1991 letter to Secretary Sullivan, the National Vaccine
Information Center had asked Secretary Sullivan to remove two prominent
physicians from the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP), the
Department of Health and Human Services advisory committee which makes
national vaccine policy and is responsible for creating the new DPT
guidelines. NVIC asked for the resignations of Dr. James Cherry of UCLA, and
Dr. Edward Mortimer of Case Western University, citing their conflict of
interest for receiving MORE than $800,000 in expert witness, consulting
fees, and research grants from DPT vaccine manufacturers. In the Department
of Health and Human Services reply, Assistant Secretary Dr. James Mason gave
no indication that DHHS would consider removing Cherry or Mortimer or any
other doctor on the vaccine policy-making committee who has benefited
financially from vaccine manufacturers. If this is not a conflict of
interest, what is it?
There are only five doctors that reside on the policy-making
committee and two of those had received financial assistance from the
pharmaceutical companies. Is there something wrong with this picture?

"The vaccination lobby shamelessly takes all the children of this world as
hostages to still their greed for money and power. They relentlessly abuse
our compassion for the weaker and our concern about health to promote their
giga-business. No matter what. No matter how many more vaccine victims will
suffer death or side-effects. No matter how many financial resources this
strategy devours at the expense of essential social investments like housing
and employment. No matter what. Shocking! There is no excuse for this crime.
Just as shocking is the observation that (health) policy is no longer under
local, democratic control. Everything is set up and organised with scrutiny
at the highest, international level by those who take profit from it: the
pharmaceutical industry, the financial world, politicians."---Kris Gaublomme
MD