top of page

There Is No Liability For Injuries.

With most products on the market consumers have the ability to bring litigation against the manufacturer if that product causes injuries.  If your seatbelt is faulty and you are injured in a crash because of it, you can sue the car manufacturer for those injuries  This is true for any of the products that we as consumers buy and use.  Despite Bidens claim that gun manufacturers are the only industry in America that can't be sued, even they can and have been sued.

According to an article in Forbes, "Plaintiffs do not need to prove that the defendant acted negligently or intentionally in product liability cases. That’s because a legal doctrine called “strict liability” applies in these types of claims. Under strict liability rules, plaintiffs can prove their case and prevail in court if they simply show that the problem with the product was the direct cause of unexpected harm."


In the medical industry you can sue if you are injured due to physician negligence, or faulty medical devices.  For example, thousands of lawsuits have been filed against manufacturers who made metal on metal hip replacements.  More than $7 Billion has been paid out in settlements for these lawsuits.  If you are injured due to taking a medication you can sue the pharmacuetical companies.  Currently there are over 13,000 open lawsuits in New Jersey for those injured by proton pump inhibiters such as prilosec.  Claims allege that companies failed to warn consumers about the drugs potential risks  of kidney failure, kidney disease, and other injuries.  

Having the ability to file a lawsuit for injuries is important for a number of reasons.  The thing that usually comes to mind for people is the financial compensation that those who are injured may need for medical bills, missed work, and compensation for pain and suffering. 

Another important part of litigation is that it creates a system in which manufacturers must search for and produce products that are safe for their own survival. It gives them an incentive to invest into the safety of their products or face litigation that could potentially bankrupt the company.  The incentive to invest money into safety is reduced greatly when a company understands that they do not have to be accountable for damages.  However, a company may still consider safety testing important if they want consumers to purchase their products.  With vaccines, consumers are required to take this product to enter schools and daycares.  Often they must continue to get vaccines as adults to work in certain career fields. 

By removing liability and then making the products mandatory for every person in the country we have created an extremely lucrative business model for manufacturers.  There is no longer an incentive for manufacturers to invest in making their products safe.   

Why Is There No Liability For Vaccine Manufactureres?

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) 

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) was establised by congress in 1986 as a no-fault alternative to the traditional legal system.  Prior to this there were concerns that potential liablity for injuries caused by vaccines threatened the vaccination program and acted as a deterrant to vaccine manufacturing.  The United States was facing a vaccine shortage that was thought to threaten public health.  These concerns led to the establishment of The Committee on Public-Private Sector Relations in Vaccine Innovation by the Institute of Medicine in 1983.  The committee was asked to do a comprehensive study of vaccine research and development, production and supply, and utilization. 

Their report and reccommendations were published in 1985.  You can find that full report HERE.  In their report they state that, "A manufacturer is not liable for harm caused by a nondefective product due to its inherent or unavoidable dangerousness. Thus, if a properly manufactured vaccine will cause harmful side effects in some portion of the recipient population, the manufacturer of the vaccine is not liable for those side effects."  They go on to state that some products are " Unavoidably unsafe products. There are some products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use. "


The report notes that those injured by vaccines should recieve compensation and that the traditional legal system can be complex, expensive and time consuming.  Therefore, the committee recommends the development of a compensation program where claims should be processed without regard to "fault".  They recommend the establishment of a schedule of events for which scientific evidence indicates a plausible association with vaccination.

The goal of the NVICP was to encourage investment in vaccine development and manufacturing and to compensate those who are injured in a timely mannor.  The program seems to have been effective at encouraging vaccine development.  With the threat of liability off the table the vaccination program has exploded.  In 1986 children recieved 12 doses of 8 vaccines.  In 2023 we are up to 58 doses of 18 vaccines from birth-18 years, plus 2 injections for 4 vaccines in-utero.

Screenshot (292).png

This chart from Children's Health Defense shows vaccine schedules from 1986 compared to 2019.  We have since added 3 doses of Covid-19 vaccinations to the schedule.

However, the program has not been as successful when it comes to making sure those who are injured are compensated for their injuries.  The program has a table of covered vaccines and injuries that will qualify for compensation if they fall within a certain time frame of being vaccinated.  For injuries that are not listed on the table the burden of proof lies with the petitioner.  The program also has a very strict time limit of 3 years from the time of injury to file a claim.  Since 1988 there have been  25,961 claims filed and 9,664 of those were compensated. 

Considering there have been 2,439,553 reports of injury to VAERS following vaccination, and that a report by Harvard Pilgrim Health noted, "fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported" to VAERS, there seems to be a very small number of individuals with injuries actually filing a claim with the NVICP.

(See What Is VAERS?)

The program has also not been a timely process for petitioners.  A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office looked at the data for claims filed between 1999-2014 and found that most claims took multiple years to process.

Screenshot (293).png

"Every year, a number of children are seriously injured by adverse reactions to vaccines. When such a tragedy befalls a family, they are faced with devastating emotional and financial consequences. As the devastation of adverse reactions can lead to paralysis, permanent disability and death, families without adequate insurance can face enormous expenses, including residential care, therapy, medical equipment, and drugs."


Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA)

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (Prep Act or PREPA) was enacted by Congress in 2005.  Health & Human Services describes the PREP Act on their website

"The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to issue a PREP Act declaration. The declaration provides immunity from liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims:

  • of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions

  • determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency

  • to entities and individuals involved in the development, manufacture, testing, distribution, administration, and use of such countermeasures

A PREP Act declaration is specifically for the purpose of providing immunity from liability, and is different from, and not dependent on, other emergency declarations."

Immunity means that courts must dismiss claims brought against any entity or individual covered by the PREP Act.  Claims that courts must dismiss include claims for any loss that is related to any stage of design, development, testing, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, labeling, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, licensing or use of a countermeasure recommended in a Declaration.  This includes, but is not limited to, claims for:

  • death;

  • physical, mental, or emotional injury, illness, disability, or condition or fear of any such injury, illness, disability, or condition;

  • any need for medical monitoring; or

  • property damage or loss, including business interruption loss.

The only exception is for claims of willful misconduct.

From the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

A Declaration may provide liability immunity for covered persons.  Covered persons may include, at the Secretary’s discretion:

  • Manufacturers of countermeasures;

  • Distributors of countermeasures;

  • Program planners, i.e., individuals and entities involved in planning, administering, or supervising programs for distribution of a countermeasure (e.g., State or local governments, Indian tribes, or private sector employers or community groups that establish requirements or provide guidance, technical or scientific advice or assistance, or provide a facility);

  • Qualified persons, i.e., persons who prescribe, administer, or dispense countermeasures such as healthcare and other providers or other categories of persons named in a Declaration, e.g., volunteers;

  • Officials, agents, and employees of any of these entities or persons; and

  • The United States.

A “covered countermeasure” may be:

The PREP Act states that those who are seriously injured, described as an injury that warranted hospitalization (whether or not the person was actually hospitalized) or that led to a significant loss of function or disability, by a declared countermeasure may file a claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) within one year of the injury.

"If no funds have been appropriated to the compensation program, or the Secretary does not make a final determination on the individual’s request within 240 days, or the individual decides not to accept the compensation, the injured individual or his representative may pursue a tort claim in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, but only if the claim involves willful misconduct and meets the other requirements for suit under the PREP Act. If the individual accepts compensation from the CICP, or if there is no willful misconduct, the individual does not have a tort claim that can be filed in a United States Federal or a State court.

Any award is reduced by public or private insurance or worker’s compensation available to the injured individual.  Awards for non-economic damages, such as pain, suffering, physical impairment, mental anguish, and loss of consortium are also limited."

CICP may compensate for medical expenses, lost employment income, and survivors benefits.  However, it is a last resort and will only pay for expenses that are not compensated by other means such as health insurance and workmans comp.   Unlike the NVICP, the CICP will not cover lawyer fees.

Since 2010 there have been only 30 claims compensated through the CICP

CICP Data for Fiscal Years 2010 – 2023 (As of March 1, 2023)

Total CICP Claims Filed: 11,765

  • Pending Review or In Review: 10,629

  • Decisions: 1,136

    • Claims Found Eligible for Compensation: 61

      • Claims Compensated: 30

      • Claims Pending Benefits Determination: 21

      • Claims with No Eligible Reported Expenses: 10

    • Denied: 1,075

      • Requested Medical Records Not Submitted: 182

      • Standard of Proof Not Met and/or Covered Injury Not Sustained: 324

      • Missed Filing Deadline: 248

      • Not CICP Covered Product/Not Specified: 321



There Is Also No Mandated Reporting For Injuries

In a research project conducted by Harvard Pilgrem Health over a span of three years and funded by a grant from Health and Human Services, it was noted that "fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported."  The team at Harvard Pilgrem Health developed a way to electronically monitor medical records and notify physticians of possible adverse events following reciept of vaccinations.  This would prompt the physician to review the records and submit the event to the VAERS system, along with any optional notes or to note in the record reasons for not submitting to VAERS.  The team concludes that after three years of collecting data and development of the automated system they were unable to move forward with implementing the program, "Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation."

More information can be found HERE

One report describes VAERS as a spontaneous surveillance system and explains, "Spontaneous surveillance means that no active effort is made to search for, identify and collect information, but rather information is passively received from those who choose to voluntarily report their experience. Therefore, VAERS relies on the intuition and experience of healthcare professionals in particular, but likewise for patients, parents and caregivers, to recognize and report unusual or unexpected events following vaccination or suspected vaccine safety problems. "

This same report notes that, "During 2011-2014, VAERS averaged around 30,000 U.S. reports annually, with 7% classified as serious."

If VAERS is only representiong 1% of adverse events that would mean the number of actual adverse events during that 3 year period was closer to 3,000,000 annually with about 210,000 a year being serious.

Some might say that is a small number compared to the number of vaccine doses administered each year, but when its your child who is injured the number isn't small at all.  Another important point to consider is "Vaccines are generally given to healthy individuals to prevent disease, whereas drugs are primarily given for treatment of illness. Sick patients, or parents of sick children, might be more willing to accept safety risks of drugs used to treat illnesses compared to vaccines used to prevent possible future illnesses."  210,000 serious injuries a year starts to seem like a lot when you consider many of these injuries happened in perfectly healthy children.

Looking back on our own personal experience my son was seen in urgent care 3 times in the 30 days following his first round of vaccines.  None of these visits were reported to VAERS.  Not one of the doctors, nurses, or other medical professionals (such as those at the WIC office or our public healt
h nurse who came out to visit us weekly) ever mentioned that vaccines could have been related to the issues we were having.  Sadly, I was unaware that it was even possible for vaccines to cause these problems.  Then dealing with a sick baby who would not eat or sleep and screamed non-stop, I was sleep deprived and stressed out and not able to see clearly the connection that is so obvious to me when looking back.  Whether is was caused by the vaccine or not those urgent care visits should have been reported to VAERS so that it could be used to look for signals.  If there are a high number of urgent care visits with similar complaints following the same vaccinations that would raise a flag for our regulatory agencies to look at it further.  If things are not reported then they can't find possible connections.

bottom of page