ADVERTISEMENT

RFK: "FDA's war on public health is about to end"

Why no marijuana?

Also he’s going to be out of the Administration as soon as the evangelicals see the tweet about stem cells.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
The revolving door between the FDA, Big Pharma and congress/lobbyists.

The liability-free environment the vaccine manufacturers are allowed to exploit.

Not holding my breath. As much as I’d like to see RFK curb stomp Big Pharma I don’t trust Trump to see it through.
I'd agree on item 1. I'd support that being cleaned up all across government. If they want to set new rules there, more power to them.

On item 2... are vaccine manufactures really immune(!) to consequences in the scenario of a significantly faulty product? I have my doubts. And if so, does this sort of thing exist across other medicine?
 
Not holding my breath. As much as I’d like to see RFK curb stomp Big Pharma I don’t trust Trump to see it through.
Yes you're right, I'm a little more hopeful this time around.

ABC was reporting last night that one of the big Trump donors was not happy about RFK. Probably has money tied up in it. We'll see I guess. Trump did say in his speech last night that RFK had free reign over everything but the oil. 😊
 
  • Like
Reactions: MichaelKeller99
Yes you're right, I'm a little more hopeful this time around.

ABC was reporting last night that one of the big Trump donors was not happy about RFK. Probably has money tied up in it. We'll see I guess. Trump did say in his speech last night that RFK had free reign over everything but the oil. 😊
And if we know anything about Trump, it’s that he’s a man of his word.
 
Yeah, they are.
Well you think they'd be protected against the inherent reasonable risk associated with the vaccine. You know beforehand there is *some* risk involved.

Are you sure they're protected in case of some negligent action, say in manufacturing of said vaccine?

What about nutritional supplements? Other items?
 
I'd agree on item 1. I'd support that being cleaned up all across government. If they want to set new rules there, more power to them.

On item 2... are vaccine manufactures really immune(!) to consequences in the scenario of a significantly faulty product? I have my doubts. And if so, does this sort of thing exist across other medicine?
The odds are further stacked against victims judicially on three more fronts by The Vaccine Injury Act.
The Act limited the venue for a vaccine claim strictly to the geography of Washington DC. By making anyone injured by a vaccine forced to argue before a section of the US Supreme Court, victims could not address a claim with a trial of their peers. Nor could Erin Brokovich gather them together as a Class Action suit should say, a batch of vaccine caused meningitis or HIV/AIDS.
Vaccine victims could no longer sue the manufacturer, the doctor or anyone else if they got hurt by a faulty or misleading vaccine. They could not subpoena or cross examine the parties either. Those hurt by a vaccine would now rely upon a hearing before one of the twelve lawyers at the Office of Special Master within the US Supreme Court. Vaccine victims would be judged from a table of injuries.

Even worse, the statute of the claim was limited in time and scope. The claim would have to be made within two of death or three years of symptom discovery.

 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalbornhawk
The odds are further stacked against victims judicially on three more fronts by The Vaccine Injury Act.
The Act limited the venue for a vaccine claim strictly to the geography of Washington DC. By making anyone injured by a vaccine forced to argue before a section of the US Supreme Court, victims could not address a claim with a trial of their peers. Nor could Erin Brokovich gather them together as a Class Action suit should say, a batch of vaccine caused meningitis or HIV/AIDS.
Vaccine victims could no longer sue the manufacturer, the doctor or anyone else if they got hurt by a faulty or misleading vaccine. They could not subpoena or cross examine the parties either. Those hurt by a vaccine would now rely upon a hearing before one of the twelve lawyers at the Office of Special Master within the US Supreme Court. Vaccine victims would be judged from a table of injuries.

Even worse, the statute of the claim was limited in time and scope. The claim would have to be made within two of death or three years of symptom discovery.

It doesn't seem right if you couldn't sue for some situation where gross negligence is involved. (say, something related to the production of vaccines that results in them being contaminated)

Although I'd have to actually read a bit about the law and why it might be useful to come to a strong opinion. (it probably fits a broader pattern of law, too... not that this would necessarily excuse it, but it probably isn't just a "vaccine thing")
 
  • Like
Reactions: MichaelKeller99
The odds are further stacked against victims judicially on three more fronts by The Vaccine Injury Act.
The Act limited the venue for a vaccine claim strictly to the geography of Washington DC. By making anyone injured by a vaccine forced to argue before a section of the US Supreme Court, victims could not address a claim with a trial of their peers. Nor could Erin Brokovich gather them together as a Class Action suit should say, a batch of vaccine caused meningitis or HIV/AIDS.
Vaccine victims could no longer sue the manufacturer, the doctor or anyone else if they got hurt by a faulty or misleading vaccine. They could not subpoena or cross examine the parties either. Those hurt by a vaccine would now rely upon a hearing before one of the twelve lawyers at the Office of Special Master within the US Supreme Court. Vaccine victims would be judged from a table of injuries.

Even worse, the statute of the claim was limited in time and scope. The claim would have to be made within two of death or three years of symptom discovery.

Wonder how Dr. William Thomspon feels about the election. :cool:
 
Last edited:
It doesn't seem right if you couldn't sue for some situation where gross negligence is involved. (say, something related to the production of vaccines that results in them being contaminated)

Although I'd have to actually read a bit about the law and why it might be useful to come to a strong opinion. (it probably fits a broader pattern of law, too... not that this would necessarily excuse it, but it probably isn't just a "vaccine thing")
They're all contaminated.
 
They're all contaminated.
Burnie Burns Conspiracy GIF by Rooster Teeth
 
It doesn't seem right if you couldn't sue for some situation where gross negligence is involved. (say, something related to the production of vaccines that results in them being contaminated)

Although I'd have to actually read a bit about the law and why it might be useful to come to a strong opinion. (it probably fits a broader pattern of law, too... not that this would necessarily excuse it, but it probably isn't just a "vaccine thing")
I recommend spending some time with Aaron Siri on X.
 
Nobody's stopping anyone from getting vaccinated. How many times do you have to be told?
It your kids will get it, then you’ll want us to pay for their treatment.

Is there any part of you that thinks eliminating these afflictions (measles, polio, etc.) was actually good public policy?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT