Big Pharm Will Lose Blanket Immunity
Segment #608
On November 14, 1986 Ronald Regan signed the Childhood Vaccine Act that was meant to enable Big Pharm to create and improve vaccines without the burden of being bankrupted by law suits. Over the years Big Pharm and the federal government have abused this protection. This abuse will finally be stopped by lawyers like Aaron Siri.
Aaron Siri: "Look, if vaccines are so safe, why are they the only consumer product where you cannot sue the manufacturer for injuries to claim it was made safe there? It's been over 30 years, they're telling you hep B safe, Hib safe, these are safe. You still need immunity?"
"Okay, let me tell you my definition of vaccine, Senator. It's a product that causes so much injury that it has to have liability for the injuries that it's caused, immunity for the injuries that it's causing." "That's what a vaccine is. You know, we sued the CDC for the studies that support that the vaccines given in the first month of life do not cause autism. We sued them because they wouldn't give it to us." "We said, give us a set to just show the meningococcal vaccine, the polio vaccine, the hep B vaccine, the hip vaccine, and the hep B vaccine. Those five vaccines don't cause autism. You know what they provided? None. " "We sued them in federal court. They ended up in stipulated order. They gave us 20 studies. Not one of them has to do with those vaccines. They're all MMR or they're all thimerosal.
This notion that there's a mountain of studies out there that show vaccines of autism is ridiculous. " "And I've heard the measles death in Texas bandied about. We represent one of those families. We've seen the medical records. One of those kids, I can tell you for certain did not die from measles. He died from hospital malfeasance."
Ronald Regan signed the Childhood Vaccine Act of 1986 that was meant to enable Big Pharm to create and improve vaccines without the burden of being bankrupted by law suits. Over the years Big Pharm and the federal government have abused this protection
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA).
This law was enacted in response to a growing number of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers in the 1970s and 1980s, which were threatening to cause vaccine shortages and increase prices. The NCVIA had two main goals:
To ensure a stable and adequate supply of vaccines: By providing a legal shield for pharmaceutical companies, the act aimed to protect them from costly litigation and encourage them to continue manufacturing vaccines.
To provide a system for compensating people injured by vaccines: The act created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a "no-fault" federal program that offers an alternative to traditional personal injury lawsuits.
The effectiveness of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) is a subject of significant debate, with critics from various groups—including lawyers, patient advocates, and some members of Congress—providing data to support their arguments.
While both programs aim to provide compensation for vaccine injuries in a "no-fault" system, they operate under different legal frameworks and have vastly different track records, particularly concerning the volume of claims and the success rate for petitioners.
Here is a comparison of the effectiveness of the two programs, highlighting the main criticisms and the data used to support them:
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)
The VICP, created by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, is the more established and robust of the two programs.
Points of Effectiveness & Criticisms:
Established Process and "Vaccine Court": The VICP is a formal legal process overseen by "special masters" in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.1 While critics argue this process can be slow and complex, proponents point out that it provides a structured, judicial setting where petitioners can be represented by legal counsel (with fees paid by the program).
Compensation and Payout Rate: The VICP has paid out billions of dollars in compensation.2 Since its inception, it has awarded over $5 billion to petitioners.3 While the success rate is not 100%, a significant portion of claims are compensated, often through negotiated settlements.4 A common criticism, however, is that while it has paid out a large sum, the process can still be lengthy and many claims are denied.
Scope of Compensation: The VICP provides compensation for a wide range of damages, including medical expenses, lost wages, and compensation for pain and suffering (capped at $250,000).5 The amount for medical expenses and lost wages is uncapped, which can lead to substantial lifetime payouts for severely injured individuals.6
"Vaccine Injury Table": The VICP uses a "Vaccine Injury Table" that lists specific injuries presumed to be caused by certain vaccines if they occur within a certain timeframe.7 This simplifies the process for some claimants, who don't have to prove causation "in fact."8 However, critics point out that this table is not always up-to-date and may not include all possible vaccine-related injuries, making it harder for those with "off-table" injuries to get compensated.
Funding: The VICP is funded by a 75-cent excise tax on each dose of a covered vaccine.9 This creates a dedicated, self-sustaining trust fund, which has grown to be quite large.
Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP)
The CICP, created under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, is designed for public health emergencies and covers injuries from "covered countermeasures" like the H1N1 and COVID-19 vaccines.10 It is widely criticized as being far less effective than the VICP.
Points of Effectiveness & Criticisms:
Administrative vs. Judicial Process: The CICP is a purely administrative program run by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).11 This is a primary source of criticism. Petitioners do not have a right to legal counsel (and the program does not pay attorneys' fees), a formal court hearing, or an appeals process beyond an internal review.
Abysmal Payout Rate: This is the most significant criticism of the CICP. Data from HRSA and other sources show a very low rate of compensation for petitioners. For instance, as of recent data, the CICP has only compensated a tiny fraction of the thousands of claims filed, especially those related to COVID-19 vaccines.12 Some reports indicate that only a few dozen claims have been compensated out of over 10,000 filed, with many of the compensated claims receiving relatively small amounts.
Limited Scope of Compensation: The CICP's compensation is much more restrictive than the VICP.13 It does not compensate for pain and suffering, and it only covers unreimbursed medical expenses and lost wages. It also has a death benefit, which is capped.
Proof of Causation: The standard of proof is extremely high.14 Claimants must provide "compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence" that the countermeasure directly caused the injury.15 The program does not have an equivalent to the VICP's "Vaccine Injury Table" to streamline the process.
Filing Deadlines: The CICP has a very strict and short one-year statute of limitations from the date of vaccine administration, compared to the VICP's three years from the onset of symptoms.16 Critics argue this makes it difficult for individuals to even get their claims filed in time, especially if symptoms appear later.
Summary and Key Data Points
Conclusion:
While both programs were created to protect manufacturers and provide a no-fault path for injured individuals, data from critics and government reports show that the CICP is significantly less effective at compensating victims. The high burden of proof, lack of judicial oversight, and limited compensation have led to an extremely low success rate for claimants, especially for those injured by COVID-19 vaccines. The VICP, while not without its own criticisms, is a more established and comprehensive system that has demonstrated a greater capacity to provide financial relief to those who have suffered vaccine-related injuries.17
The Truth on VICP
You've raised a very important point that is at the heart of the debate surrounding the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). While the VICP is demonstrably more effective than the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), it is far from perfect and faces significant criticism regarding its slowness and its high rate of claim dismissals.
Critics, including patient advocates, legal experts, and even members of Congress, use data to support these claims. Here's a breakdown of the common arguments:
1. The Process is Abysmally Slow
Long Delays: The program was intended to be a quick and efficient alternative to civil litigation. However, many petitioners face years-long waits for a resolution.1 The average case can take several years, and complex or contested cases can take even longer. This is often described as "justice delayed is justice denied."
Case Backlogs: The number of Special Masters who preside over these cases is statutorily limited, and with an increase in claims (particularly for flu vaccine injuries), the workload has created a significant backlog.
Government-Driven Delays: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), who represent the government in these cases, are often criticized for their part in prolonging the process. They can be slow to respond to requests or provide necessary information, adding to the overall delay.
2. High Rate of Non-Compensation
Claims Dismissed: While it's true that over 12,000 claims have been compensated, a significant number—over 13,000 as of recent data—have been dismissed. This means a majority of claims filed do not result in a payout for the petitioner.
Burden of Proof: While the VICP is a "no-fault" system, the burden of proof is still on the petitioner to demonstrate that the vaccine caused the injury.2 For "off-table" injuries (those not listed on the Vaccine Injury Table), this can be an incredibly difficult standard to meet, often requiring complex and expensive expert medical testimony. Even for "on-table" injuries, the government can argue for a different cause, leading to a long and contentious legal battle.
Negotiated Settlements: A large percentage of the "compensated" claims are the result of negotiated settlements.3 Critics argue that these settlements are not an admission of fault and that many individuals accept them to avoid the risk and prolonged nature of litigation, even if the settlement amount is not what they feel they deserve. In these cases, HHS has not concluded that the vaccine was the cause of the injury, but has agreed to a settlement to minimize litigation time and expense.4
3. Limited and Capped Compensation
No Pain and Suffering: While the VICP does offer compensation for pain and suffering, it is capped at $250,000. Critics argue this cap is too low, especially for individuals who suffer severe, life-altering injuries.
Outdated Caps: The cap for pain and suffering has not been updated for inflation since the program was established in 1986, which significantly diminishes the real value of the award over time.
No Punitive Damages: The VICP is a no-fault program and does not allow for punitive damages, which are a cornerstone of traditional civil lawsuits and are meant to punish egregious negligence.5
In summary, while the VICP stands out as a better-structured program than the CICP, it is still a target for significant criticism. The data on dismissed claims and the long duration of the legal process highlight that for many injured individuals, the promise of a swift and fair resolution has not been met.6 This has led some to question whether the program has strayed from its original intent of being a generous and accessible alternative to civil litigation.