By Jon Rappoport
SUPREME COURT DECISION UNDER THE RADAR IN A MEDICAL DICTATORSHIP
JUNE 9, 2011. It happened in February. The media gave it brief attention and moved on.
The US Supreme Court decided that parents whose children are severely damaged by vaccines can't sue the manufacturer.
The case was Bruesewitz v. Wyeth. In 1992, Hannah Bruesewitz, six months old, had a hundred seizures after receiving the DPT vaccine. She was never the same.
Her parents tried to sue the manufacturer, Wyeth, but there was already a federal law on the books which stated that the only recourse was through the government's labyrinthine Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
Appeals were lodged, and the case finally wound up the Supreme Court's lap. The Court essentially ruled that no suit can be brought against a manufacturer for "design flaws" in the vaccine, because the architecture of a vaccine implies there will be "unavoidable adverse effects." It's a fact of life.
This decision sets a new practical standard for crime without punishment. Unless the plaintiff can show that an alternative design of a vaccine would have eliminated the adverse effect, without diminishing the "positive benefit" of the vaccine, it's a no-go.
Aside from derailing all attempts to sue vaccine companies based on design shortcomings, this Supreme Court decision opens the door to a spillover in the entire arena of pharmaceutical drugs. Today, vaccines. Tomorrow, drugs.
It can now easily be argued that the design of any drug delivers inherent and unavoidable harm to some patients.
And clearly, the drug companies know they can make this case.
So what could they do? Copy the vaccine-compensation system created by the government. You apply for a hearing, you enter a wilderness of red tape, mostly you lose, and when you win, the payout is miniscule compared with the potential judgment a court could award. No punitive damages. The $$ paid out in government compensation are funded by a tax bump on the price of all drugs sold in the US.
The government protects the drug companies all the way down the line.
A fundamental right to justice is erased.
Years from now, people may remember Bruesewitz v. Wyeth as the watershed moment, when the whole system took a universally visible turn to into overt criminality.
"Yes, there were 50,000 heart attacks, but the drug has helped many people. And there was no way to design it in a way that would have avoided these unfortunate effects without destroying its benefits. If you think another design was possible, prove it."
"Well, I don't have the $50 million I'd need to prove it."
"Your problem, not ours."
As the federal government and state governments try to close the door on parents seeking to opt out of vaccinating their children, we may also be looking at the day when official policy and law render the following reality:
You are forced to accept a product (vaccine) manufactured by a company. If the product injures or kills you or your child, you can't take legal action against the company. You can only appeal to the government for compensation.
Finally, keep this in mind. The 1986 law which the Supreme Court upheld in its recent decision, the law that exempts vaccine companies from financial liability, made it possible then, and makes it even more possible now, since the Supremes have spoken with finality, to guarantee that epidemics will be profitable enterprises.
Did you get that?
All the phony epidemics that I've been documenting for some years now? West Nile, SARS, Bird Flu, Swine Flu? All those duds? They wouldn't have been possible to launch as PR fabrications, unless the vaccine companies could make and sell the vaccines that were touted as sure-fire prevention.
Well, in 1986, those companies went to the federal government and struck a deal, based on the threat that they (the companies) were going to get out of the vaccine manufacturing business, because the successful law suits (for harm, for injury, for death) were draining them of money.
The deal was inked. A law would be rammed through to protect these companies from major financial exposure. And thus the way was cleared for the ensuing wave of "epidemics."
Everybody would win, except the public. The vaccine companies would ring up huge profits, there would be no law suits, and the government would have another tool for frightening the population and increasing its level of control.
Based on nothing. Based on the invention of the idea of "killer germs on the loose everywhere"-which is what you see when you go to the movies and sit in the dark and eat popcorn.
Yes, I bring you news you won't find elsewhere.