PrisonPlanet Forum
May 18, 2013, 08:45:37 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Canada: Feds Mum about immunity for swine flu vaccine manufacturers (GRRR)  (Read 719 times)
sociostudent
Guest
« on: September 20, 2009, 03:58:09 PM »

I think we have friends in the Canadian Press:
Feds mum over legal protection for swine flu vaccine makers

By Steve Rennie (CP) – 1 hour ago

OTTAWA — The federal government won't say if Canadians who suffer harmful side effects from the new swine flu shot can take the vaccine maker to court.

The Public Health Agency of Canada will not reveal whether drug companies are shielded from H1N1 flu vaccine lawsuits in this country like they are in the United States.

"This is a complex issue which is currently being examined by the federal government," spokeswoman Nadia Mostafa said in an email.

"It raises legal questions involving federal/provincial and public/private sector jurisdictions. The federal government will provide additional details around this issue in due course, following appropriate discussions/deliberations."

That effectively throws a shroud over Ottawa's arrangement with pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, which has a contract to produce 50.4 million doses of pandemic vaccine at its facility in Ste-Foy, Que.

Conversely, the United States has been open about its decision to protect vaccine makers, government officials and others from lawsuits over the vaccine.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has granted legal immunity to "individuals and entities involved in all stages of 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine development, testing, manufacture, distribution, prescribing, administration, and use," says a U.S. Health Department website.

That protection doesn't extend to harm caused by wilful misconduct.

GlaxoSmithKline was as tight-lipped as the Public Health Agency when asked if it was protected from Canadian lawsuits over its vaccine.


"GSK is discussing issues relating to potential liability exposure associated with pandemic preparedness products, including vaccines, in the context of its pandemic planning negotiations with all governments, including the Canadian government," company spokeswoman Michelle Smolenaars Hunter said in an email.

"The details of the contract negotiations with the Canadian government are confidential and cannot be discussed further."


Vaccine makers in the U.S. have been protected from lawsuits over the use of childhood vaccines since the 1980s. Instead, a federal court handles claims and decides who will be paid from a special fund.

The decision to protect vaccine makers came after the 1976 swine flu outbreak, when 40 million Americans were vaccinated in a national campaign.

But that scare never morphed into the deadly pandemic officials feared.

Instead it touched off a flurry of injury claims from Americans who suffered side effects from the vaccine - including about 500 people who developed a paralysing condition called Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

However, that syndrome was never conclusively linked to the 1976 swine flu shot, and experts don't think a repeat is likely.

Paul Harte, a medical negligence trial lawyer in Toronto, said it's very rare pharmaceutical companies are sued in Canada over flu vaccines.

Vaccines always carry some risk, he said, and as long as the public knows the risks companies are generally not held liable.

"The reality is that both pharmaceutical and medical negligence cases are relatively rare in Canada," Harte said.


"They are a tiny proportion of civil actions in Canada, and appear with much less frequency than in the United States."


Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
Related articles

    * Swine Flu Deaths Down, Body Bags and FEMA Coffin Orders Up

      Canada Free Press - 2 hours ago
    * Redding hospitals report only slight increase in H1N1 flu symptoms
      Record-Searchlight - 14 hours ago
Logged
Freeski
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20,744


« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2009, 04:05:41 PM »

Quote
That protection doesn't extend to harm caused by wilful misconduct.

Sociostudent, wasn't it you on Corbett who mentioned that there already is "willful misconduct", just through their knowledge of the dangers? (the only reason they can be held liable seems to be a very obvious hole in their armour... too obvious in fact.) I don't like this one bit, unless some genius is neutralizing draconian laws from the inside.
Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.
Freeski
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20,744


« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2009, 04:07:41 PM »

PS - By not saying yes or no, they are saying yes. And the same immunity clauses will appear all over the world.
Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.
sociostudent
Guest
« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2009, 04:13:44 PM »

I know, this article means that the adjuvants definitely are in the shot, because otherwise, they wouldn't be trying so damn hard to cover their asses.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!