By: Mark Bello
20 October 2010
Some diseases are becoming rarer; immunization is the probable reason and we continue to immunize, even after incidents of disease become minimal. There seems to be no question that this immunization policy has reduced and, in some cases, virtually eliminated, disease. If we stop immunizing, it is presumed that more people will be infected and the preventable disease will return and spread. However, how do we determine whether a vaccine does more harm then good. What should be the test? And, should there be liability for harm done?
The public, especially the legal community, has been wary about pharmaceutical companies over the last several years. Despite a targeted, U S Chamber led, industry campaign demonetizing trial lawyers for filing “frivolous lawsuits”, the truth is that this “blame the trial lawyers” campaign is really an attempt to create a dangerous market place where members of the public can do little to punish a negligent drug company or get reasonable compensation when a drug does bad things to one (or many) of its users. Simply put, the US Chamber and the drug companies do not want to be responsible when a bad drug injures or kills one of our citizens. Yet, they are guilty of consistent deception over dangerous and defective prescription drugs such as Bextra, Crestor, Accutane, Fen Phen, Avandia, Reglan, Vioxx, and, recently, even a hip replacement product. Further, after much controversy over mercury-containing vaccines, the CDC removed it from the market.