Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Lawsuits make us less safe
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Imagine if an evil business routinely deprived us of products that would help us live longer with less pain and more comfort. We'd be outraged, and lawyers would line up to sue. Yet something similar happens today, thanks to lawsuit abuse. Makers of all kinds of products are afraid to sell them to us because one lawsuit could ruin them.

Personal-injury lawyers claim they make America safer, but that's a myth. It's easy to see who benefits from those big damage awards we read about. Less obvious -- but just as real -- are the things we'd all like to have but never will get because of this climate of fear. Here are a few examples.

Monsanto once developed a substitute for asbestos -- a new fire-resistant form of insulation that might save thousands of lives. But Monsanto decided not to sell it for fear of liability. Richard F. Mahoney, the CEO at the time, said, "There may well have been a safe, effective asbestos replacement on the market, and now there isn't."

Why do we have to worry about shortages of flu vaccine? Because only a handful of companies still make it. And why is that? Because when you vaccinate millions of people, some get sick and sue. Between 1980 and 1986, personal-injury lawyers demanded billions of dollars from vaccine manufacturers. That scared many American drug companies out of the business.

In 1986, Congress stepped in. To help curb the lawsuits that discouraged vaccine production, the government established a fund called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It would pay victims' families directly so they wouldn't have to hire lawyers and suffer the delays of litigation. This was supposed to entice vaccine makers back into production, but drug companies were still leery, fearing that plaintiffs' lawyers would sue them anyway.

They were right to worry. Eli Lilly developed a mercury-based preservative called Thimerosal that was used in many children's vaccines. Plaintiffs' lawyers jumped on scaremongers' claims that mercury causes autism in children. Although a government-issued review found no such link, more than 100 autism lawsuits have been filed against vaccine makers since the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act passed. No wonder most drug manufacturers still steer clear of vaccine research.

Even when new vaccines are discovered, drug companies are sometimes afraid to sell them. The FDA has approved a vaccine against Lyme disease. Want some? Forget about it. No company wants to take the risk.

Fear of being sued reduced the number of American companies researching contraceptives from 13 to two.

After scientifically groundless lawsuits against breast-implant makers bankrupted Dow Corning, Japanese silicone makers stopped producing a pain-reducing silicone coating for hypodermic needles. A company director said, "We're sure our product is safe, but we don't want to risk a lawsuit."

Union Carbide has invented a small portable kidney dialysis machine. It would make life much easier for people with kidney disease, but Union Carbide won't sell it. With legal sharks circling, the risk of expensive lawsuits outweighs the possible profit.

Are you pregnant and nauseous? Bendectin would probably cure your morning sickness. For 27 years doctors prescribed the drug to 33 million women because it was so good at stopping nausea and vomiting. But you can't buy Bendectin today because lawyers kept suing the manufacturer, Merrell Dow, claiming the drug caused birth defects.

Studies did not show that Bendectin caused birth defects, and Merrell Dow won most of the lawsuits. But after spending $100 million in legal fees and awards, the company gave up selling the drug. Bendectin has never been effectively replaced, and morning sickness is now a major contributor to dehydration during pregnancy.

Dr. Paul Offit, professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, says, "Within two years of discontinuing Bendectin, the incidence of hospitalization for dehydration during early pregnancy doubled; the incidence of birth defects was unchanged."

Those are just some of the life-enhancing products we know we must do without because America's peculiar legal system makes it profitable for trial lawyers to pursue extortion -- like litigation. What wonderful products will we never even hear about because the lawyers have created a climate of fear?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
autism and doctors
It occured to me that the replies that I seemed to have the most disagreement with were those that came from doctors. I knew they were doctors because they said they were. Doctors always tell you that they are doctors. I think we are supposed to feel that they are experts or at the very least that they are better informed than the rest of society. But in the case of autism, I don't think most of them deserve any extra measure of respect. Wasn't it the "experts" who said for 30 years that autism was caused by poor parenting? Are we to assume that every parent just said "yeah your right doc. I suck as a parent". I doubt that it happened that way. I'm fairly certain some parents must have protested saying " but were pretty good". But the highly educated priests of medicine refused to listen. They refused to listen for 30 DAMN YEARS. Now as parents start to put the pieces of the puzzle together. A new generation of arrogant doctors refuses to listen again. They do more to hinder research than to advance it. They present themselves as well learned, but I think they missed a very important lesson. They are either unteachable or dishonest. If this hurts someones feelings, I really don't give a damn. It's time we put kids first.

autism
Stossell ignores the fact that Thimerisol is not needed in vaccines. They added it so that they could make it in multidose vials and be more profitable. So the whole idea that vaccines are unavailable because of parents opposition to thimerisol doesn't hold water.
And the same genius who developed thimerisol also created a similarly toxic fungicide that was used by either the forestry service or the Dept of Agriculture. It was spread around widely in rural areas. This means that even in regions where the vaccination rate was low, there could still be a high incidence of autism. So epidemiological studies comparing vaccination rates to ASD rates are useless. Also, as a parent, I'm not trying to get rich. I just want honest research done to find out how to help my kid. When the CDC puts out a studies that are so obviously flawed, it takes away their credibility. When doctors refuse to admit that thimerisol is bad, they lose their credibility. When Stossell (a normally very good investigative reporter) does PR for the drug companies, he loses his credibility. I've never tried to sue a drug company. I never got a penny from the NVIC program. I just would like safer vaccines and good research. And I'm just like the millions of other parents who just want to help their kids.

UNC Doc
UNC Doc, Go to "Pubmed" and type in Thimerosal. You will get over 1100 hits. Start reading and stop believing everything you are told without substantiating it. These are not obscure medical articles, this is the mainstream. Who's fault is it if you are too lazy or incapable of doing this?

Nice finish Fletch
I guess Fletch will find his outraeous highway contractor case (of which he knows all the details) around when OJ finds the "real killer."

BTW, William Buckly, George Will and Pat Buchanan all disagree more vehenmently with policies I criticized than I do. Is that because they too are "closet liberals" ?

You're correct though, my research skills are lacking when it comes to finding your imaginary cases.

grrr -- I *think* I posted Twice!!
Sorry about that.

The two versions aren't exactly alike. Given my druthers, I'd druther the second one be read and the first one ignored. But, I don't suppose there's anything really horribly bad in the first one (even though I decided to take out a lot of "nasty" stuff).

I liked it better when there was a "Preview" button. The Townhall programmers really messed this thing up.

I know, let's sue 'em!!

To J.D., with Love
Hi, J.D., I can see we've finally gotten under your skin. You're actually arguing from the heart here, and (mostly) sticking to the subject instead of trying to give us another lesson in American History.

Sorry about that. I'm sure you doing your level best at your job. That doesn't let all of your cohorts off the hook, though.

J.D.: "I am not sure if any of you missed it, but apparently UNCAALBY has. I folks, am a lawyer."

Well DUH!!!

The thing that suddenly clicked with me is that you generally post like you're trying to sway a jury. I.e., you talk about everything EXCEPT the subject at hand. "If you have neither [facts or law], hit the table."

J.D.: "Make fun of me, make fun of my profession,"

Thanks, but we don't need your permission! :-)

J.D.: "but don’t knock the United States of America."

Look, when I see something wrong with the good ol' U.S. of A., I feel it's my patriotic duty to POINT IT OUT.

The first thing in making something better is admitting where something is wrong.

J.D.: "You all seem to think that what ever is good for business, the drug companies and doctors is good for everyone? How naive."

When we say that lawyers are getting rich by making the rest of us poor is not to say that there is no such thing as legitimate litigation.

Nobody is arguing against legitimate litigation.

We're arguing against frivolous litigation and litigation with overly huge awards. We're arguing against today's situation where litigation is like buying a Lottery ticket. If you win, you win big. If you lose, you lose very little. So there is little disincentive in the system to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

No one ever said that every mistake made by a doctor, every negligent act by a corporation, every poorly tested drug from a pharmaceutical company, is to go unpunished.

The topic at hand is that these people are being OVER-PUNISHED WITH FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION. The system has created atmosphere so rife with the risk of litigation until it overwhelms all other risks of doing business.

The result of all this excess frivolous litigation is that COMPANIES ARE NOT TAKING AS MANY RISKS. Instead of measuring the real risk of product failure or product liability, companies are simply NOT PRODUCING items that CAN SAVE LIVES. They're doing this because it's easier and cheaper than adding the ADDITIONAL risk of FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION.

If a drug company makes a product that might save 1000 lives, but 1 person might become horribly ill, then, despite all the disclaimers and warnings and explanations, that one person will sue. And win. And win BIG. That's the problem. So the drug company chooses not market the product, to not to take that risk, and so therefore one person will never become horribly ill.

The problem is, as Stossel said, lawyers are no longer after justice. They're after huge monetary awards in the Litigation Lottery.

J.D.: "My job and that of any attorney is to hold people accountable for their actions."

Do you hold attorneys accountable for frivolous lawsuits?

J.D.: "Your postings demonstrate a desire to let those responsible for death, destruction and dismemberment off the hook because they produce some economic benefit and make us more competitive."

Again, you're making the logical error of unreasonable extremes. You're building a strawman then knocking it down. Just because I want you to stop driving 120mph in the school zone doesn't imply that I advocate a 5mph speed limit on the highway.

And again, this kind of "reasoning" probably works very well with the kind of juries that lawyers like to get if they can. But that dog don't hunt in *this* townhall.

J.D.: "Next you argue that if the government approves it, then no one should be sued for it."

Strawman. No one ever made that argument. People simply looked and found studies that supported their position, and they happened to be government studies. Whether they deserve it or not, government studies tend to be trusted. Rightly or wrongly, they're presumed to be competent and impartial.

You're a lawyer. You know that. Don't try to tell us you never use government studies yourself when they happen to bolster your case, and EMPHASIZED the fact that it was a GOVERNMENT study.

J.D.: "In stead of worrying about drug companies and doctors profits – do something constructive – serve on a jury."
-- and -- "But we will ask you now…do you ever read John Stossel? We would like to thank and excuse Mr. Unicaby..."

Hmmm. I'm "biased" because I have an informed opinion about the process itself? Nevermind the case in question, just knowing a little something about the *process* means I'm too smar--eh--biased to serve on the jury?

Well, good. I've got better things to do anyway.

To J.D., with Love
Hi, J.D., I can see we've finally gotten under your skin. You're actually arguing from the heart here, and (mostly) sticking to the subject instead of trying to give us a lesson in American History.

Sorry about that. I'm sure you doing your level best at your job. That doesn't let all of your cohorts off the hook, though.

J.D.: "I am not sure if any of you missed it, but apparently UNCAALBY has. I folks, am a lawyer."

DUH!!! I think that's been painfully obvious for several posts now.

The thing that suddenly clicked with me is that you generally post like you're trying to sway a jury. I.e., you talk about everything EXCEPT the subject at hand.

J.D.: "Make fun of me, make fun of my profession,"

Thanks, but we don't need your permission. :-)

J.D.: "but don’t knock the United States of America."

Look, when I see something wrong with the good ol' U.S. of A., I feel it's my patriotic duty to POINT IT OUT.

The first thing in making something better is admitting where something is wrong.

J.D.: "You all seem to think that what ever is good for business, the drug companies and doctors is good for everyone? How naive."

You're making the classic logic error that "If you ain't With us, you're Against us."

(There is actually a name for this falacy, but I never memorized all the names. I remember "ad homenim" because that's the most prevalent.)

When we say that lawyers are getting rich by making the rest of us poor is not to say that there is no such thing as legitimate litigation. We're not arguing against legitimate litigation.

We're arguing against frivolous litigation and litigation with overly huge awards. We're arguing against today's situation where litigation is like buying a Lotto ticket. If you win, you win big. If you lose, you lose very little. So there is little disincentive in the system to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

No one ever said that every mistake made by a doctor, every negligent act by a corporation, every poorly tested drug from a pharmaceutical company, is to go unpunished.

The topic at hand is that these people are being OVER-PUNISHED WITH FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION. The system has created atmosphere so rife with the risk of litigation until it overwhelms all other risks of doing business.

The result of all this excess frivolous litigation is that COMPANIES ARE NOT TAKING AS MANY RISKS. Instead measuring the real risk of product failure or product liability, companies are simply NOT PRODUCING items that CAN SAVE LIVES. They're doing this because it's easier and cheaper than adding the ADDITIONAL risk of FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION.

J.D.: "My firms motto is: ... TO SERVE AS A PROTECTOR OF THE PUBLIC GOOD."

Whoa, BACK UP a bit -- weren't you just a few posts ago acusing ME of being a "Communist?"

What concept is more communistic that the so-called "public good"?

J.D.: "My job and that of any attorney is to hold people accountable for their actions."

Do you hold attorneys accountable for frivolous lawsuits?

J.D.: "Your postings demonstrate a desire to let those responsible for death, destruction and dismemberment off the hook because they produce some economic benefit and make us more competitive."

Again, you're making the logical error of unreasonable extremes. You're building a strawman then knocking it down. Just because I want you to stop driving 120mph in the school zone doesn't imply that I advocate a 5mph speed limit on the highways.

And again, this kind of "reasoning" probably works very well with the kind of moron juries that lawyers like to get if they can. But that dog don't hunt in *this* townhall.

Just because the jury is selected by both the prosecution and defense does *not* raise their IQ.

J.D.: "Next you argue that if the government approves it, then no one should be sued for it."

Strawman. No one ever made that argument. People simply looked and found studies that supported their position, and they happened to be government studies. Whether they deserve it or not, government studies tend to be trusted. Rightly or wrongly, they're presumed to be competent and impartial.

You're a lawyer. You know that. Don't try to tell us you never use government studies yourself when they happen to bolster your case, and EMPHASIZED

J.D.: "Next you argue that the jury verdicts are just too high? I bet you ask the jury after a verdict comes in if they felt it was too high. Those citizens were chosen by both sides. They had the facts. They listened to the evidence."

"They are the experts."

This statement is so ridiculous as to be laughable.

Some soccer mom is going to be an "expert" in forensics after a few hours in a courtroom? I don't think so.

Again, just because both the prosecution and defense play the same games with jury selection doesn't mean that either side wants a jurist with the ability to reason.

J.D.: "Yet you want to arm chair quarterback their decision without even having considered the actual evidence under the rules of evidence that were selected by both sides to put before the jury."

Hey, I can do strawman arguments too. Clearly J.D. is saying that WE DON'T HAVE THE 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ARMCHAIR QUARTERBACK!

Har har har!!

J.D.: "In stead of worrying about drug companies and doctors profits – do something constructive – serve on a jury."
-- and -- "But we will ask you now…do you ever read John Stossel? We would like to thank and excuse Mr. Unicaby..."

Hmmm. I'm "biased" because I have an informed opinion about the process itself? Nevermind the case in question, just knowing a little something about the *process* means I'm too smar--eh--biased to serve on the jury?

Well, good. I've got better things to do anyway.

Autism
1 in 6 American children falls into the Attention Behavioral Continuum spectrum (add, autism, speech disorders, etc) There's also been a huge increase in type 2 diabetes, allergies, depression and asthma. I suppose it's all due to better diagnosing as well. How bad does it have to get before people wake up?

unicaby..of course they are lawyerly..
I am not sure if any of you missed it, but apparently UNCAALBY has. I folks, am a lawyer. I am also a Member of the Orange County Lincoln Club. Since 9/11/2001 I have am also a reserve Deputy Sheriff and for over 10 years I have been the treasurer to a Republican member of Congress. On my wall is a picture of Richard Nixon and I. Another with Ronald Reagan, George Bush I, George Bush II. One of me under the wing of AirForce 1 at El Toro Air Base. The list goes on. Make fun of me, make fun of my profession, but don’t knock the United States of America.

All I have done on this site is hold a mirror up to you all. You all seem to think that what ever is good for business, the drug companies and doctors is good for everyone? How naive. Folks all I am about and in fact everything I stand for is (1) individual responsibility and (2) less government.

My firms motto is:

TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS;
TO CHAMPION THE AMERICAN CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM; AND TO SERVE AS A PROTECTOR OF THE PUBLIC GOOD. ©

My job and that of any attorney is to hold people accountable for their actions. Your postings demonstrate a desire to let those responsible for death, destruction and dismemberment off the hook because they produce some economic benefit and make us more competitive. Hell Slavery did that. But it was wrong. Letting any company, doctor, business off the hook is not what we stand for. We put people to death when they step outside the bounds of our societal norms. Yet when a company does it - you would allow the company to continue.

Next you argue that if the government approves it, then no one should be sued for it.

Do you have any idea how incompetent our government is? Go to the DMV? The same people there work for the FDA and DHS and any other regulatory agency. Yet you would think that the FDA, if it gives a drug company approval that the drug company should be getting off free if in a generation kids are born with extra arms or missing hearts, deformed gentiles, or brain injury.

How many millions of dollars of tax payer money has been spent on the ailing health from Monsanto or other producers of asbestos? Yet WE THE PEOPLE should pay for it rather than the company that produced it? Why? Why let people off and not hold them accountable.

Next you argue that the jury verdicts are just too high? I bet you ask the jury after a verdict comes in if they felt it was too high. Those citizens were chosen by both sides. They had the facts. They listened to the evidence. They are the experts. Yet you want to arm chair quarterback their decision without even having considered the actual evidence under the rules of evidence that were selected by both sides to put before the jury.

In stead of worrying about drug companies and doctors profits – do something constructive – serve on a jury. We need people to be the voice and conscience of the community.

Someone said that smart people are tossed off. This is not the case. Only people who are biased are tossed off. If you think you cannot award x amount of money going into a trial then you are biased as to the issues. Biased is a preconceived idea without the facts before you. So check your bias at the door and educated or uneducated you will get on. But we will ask you now…do you ever read John Stossel? We would like to thank and excuse Mr. Unicaby...

J.D. writes: Thursday, August, 10, 2006 11:15 PM No one answered...$250,000... The answer to the question on what the value of the case I told you about was... actually the most it can be worth is $250,000. This is the limit in California. Guy looses his kidney and suffers scar and potential for dialysis...250K. Great system hey?
=====================

J.D. I am not sure what your are talking about. The limit is not on what it takes to care for the person or for economic compensation.

Quote:
There is, however, a way to ease the crisis: placing reasonable caps on lawsuit awards for non-economic damages (such as punitive damages and pain and suffering). Texas recently capped lawsuit awards for pain and suffering at $250,000 for physicians, $250,000 for hospitals and $250,000 for nursing homes and other institutions for a maximum of $750,000 per claimant.7
California enacted similar caps years ago and now has some of the lowest malpractice insurance premium rates in the U.S.8
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA483.html
=======================================

There is no limit on the actual damage. However, think about what it takes to care for somebody for the rest of their life and/or replace their income. It is nowhere near what some of the awards for “punitive” damages have been, much of which goes into the lawyers pockets. What it actually takes for the victim’s care is not limited

Ooops ... wrong link
Here's the one I meant to post:

http://www.BreastImplantAwareess.org/coverup.htm

Breast Implants Destroy Lives
Sorry Fletch ... you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Over a quarter of a million women have reported their implant related illnesses and injuries to the FDA ...

Studies have linked fibromyalgia and ruptured breast implants ...

Lung cancer and reproductive cancers and brain cancers have been found in a disproportionate number of women with breast implants.

The epi studies you rave about were funded by the manufacturers and specifically designed to miss the diseases the women have.

Recent so called 'studies' done by the manufacturers had follow up on less than 5% of the patients ... and all patients with problems or who removed their implants were excluded from further study.

I hear from women daily who went from healthy to suffering from a full range of neurological and immunological problems ... sometimes within months, sometimes years of being implanted.

You use silly reasons to deny that the breast implant industry covers up the harm ... they do it to protect themselves from paying on the lawsuits Stossel shills for them for ... and because they want to get FDA approval for their dangerous products.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12452.htm

Hey Fletch
Maybe if you spent as much time trying to locate your famous highway contractor case as you do reading my every post on every available column, we would take you more seriously.
Facsinating how you recall every extravagant detail of your imaginary case, but can't remember its name or citation or any way to find it. Maybe you could check and see if Lew Rockwell has any valuable information on it.

Fletch Forgot to use KONSPIRACY
Usually, the Junk Science propagandists, when denying the vast resources spent call multi-billion dollar PR campaigns ... "konspiracies."

Do I believe Dow and other manufacturers funded studies designed to miss the very illnesses the women with breast implants suffer from?

Absolutely.

Do I believe the silicone / tobacco / oil / cell phone / vaccination industries have spent untold millions funding front groups like Milloy's junkscience.com / quackwatch.com / ACSH.org etc. etc. to spread their industry disinformation?

Absolutely. There is not one doubt.

Do I believe "Fletch" is an unbiased reader here?

Absolutely not. He is playing the same "reasonable doubt" games, denying the enormous evidence on the harm of vaccinations, breast implants, etc., while hiding behind a disguise, to buoy up $to$$el's Junk Science Propaganda.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/



Fletch -- Interesting McDonald's Trivia
Fletch, you brought up the McDonald's hot coffee case.

I remember reading an interesting tid-bit about that case. This case was not the first suit brought against McDonald's. Generally, they would either settle or take it to court and win.

That's why big companies keep a staff of lawyers. They're getting sued all the time.

In this particular case, the plaintiff's attorney brought up the fact that McDonald's had been sued numerous times over hot coffee burns. Therefore, OBVIOUSLY it was McDonald's fault.

The moral of the story being, that it's probably one of the few cases where the company's previous successes worked against them! They lost this case *because* they'd won all the others!

J.D.'s postings are Lawyerly
And his long rambling posts about Democracy and Mom's Apple Pie that stray so ridiculously far from the point is exactly his modis operandi.

Read them again -- now imagine yourself in a jury box listening to this, as the lawyer walks back and forth, punctuating his words with his hands, making the sincerest eye contact. How can you *possibly* find for the defense in these circumstances??

I think it's a habit acquired from trying to sway juries with a collective IQ somewhere around my belt-size. (It's not that bad, I'm pretty fat.)

What J.D. has failed to notice is that quite a few posters here actually have the ability to THINK, plus have access to large amounts of research. And so he may be surprised that his talking about the Gettysburg Address and the Founding Fathers and the Crucible of Democracy isn't going to "win his case" this time.

No offense. Just re-stating my original point, that lawyers do NOT want juries with any brains.

"If you have law, hit the law. If you have facts, hit the facts. If you have neither, hit the table."

Stoessel's Schtick
Stoessel's use of ridiculous exxageration and fear is amusing. (Big companies are spending good money to protect you, but those greedy trial lawyers won't let them!) So is his so called reasoning.

So he claims the reason only two American companies produce the flu vaccine is fear of lawsuits. That makes no sense whatsoever. Any company, foreign or American, can equally be sued for harm caused by it's products in America.

Let's assume a Swiss company makes the flu vaccine for America. That Swiss company is exactly as liable as an American company. So clearly, other countries companies see a profit to be made by making the flu vaccine for America.

That Fletch guy is also amusing. One look at the CDC page, and he is now an expert on the mercury content of Thimerasol in 7 pound infants. Do you folks realize infants and toddlers get 20 to 25 shots these days? That is a lot of rolling of the dice when serious debate exists on the safety of Thimerasol.

No one answered...$250,000...
The answer to the question on what the value of the case I told you about was... actually the most it can be worth is $250,000. This is the limit in California. Guy looses his kidney and suffers scar and potential for dialysis...250K. Great system hey?

After participating in this discussion I came to realize that as to this series of columns by the author. They appear to be funded or underwritten by Pharma. There is a Vioxx trial going on right now in Florida. Merck has 70 attorneys training on that trial to go out and try and win. These "articles" are placed there to influence the jury pool as some on it may read or follow Stossel. So this is a planted story - designed by focus groups to influence a trial that this article supposedly has nothing to do with...except it does.



All of this misses the point of the article in that we are discouraging research that could save more lives, we are driving the industry from our shores, and we are driving up our costs of healthcare since the lawsuits don't really punish the corporation as much as the consumer.

Also, no caps on rehab, treatments, long term care, etc were set. The caps that have helped some states keep doctors and healthcare costs and insurance premiums lower were on the "punitive damages" that most of which often went to the lawyers more than the victim. There wasn't a cap on what it took to care for the actual problem.

Fair? Probably not. What is more fair? What we have and a loss of good health care at a reasonable cost, or our ability to have good care at a reasonable cost? You can't have it both ways and compete in the world we have to compete in. "We the people" will suffer if we don't change how we compete in the world. China and other nations will grow and prosper and we will slide into 2nd or even 3rd world status.

We are looking for "fairness" and the world isn't ready to let us have it. There are too many "hungry" nations in the world that are rising out of poverty and competing with us for it to be fair. This month the U.S. trade defict dropped with most nations but not China. It went up almost another 20 billion for June.

Whether we like it or not, fair or not, we have to compete or we will bury ourselves and healthcare costs are a huge part. A GM car assembled in the U.S. costs $1,400 more due to healthcare costs than a car assembled in Canada.

GM's last profitable year here was on $145 a car profit for North American operations. That same year, GM made $2,200 a car profit in their Chinese car plant selling cars they made in China to Chinese. Now we are losing money here, but still making profits in China. That is what is going on in every industry, not just because of healthcare costs but they play a big role.

How Could Fletch & Stossel be so wrong?
Yes indeed, Stossel is certainly a high paid corporate apologist ... and if Fletch isn't on the payroll ... he's volunteering to do exactly what industry pays untold numbers of other flacks.

Advertising pays ... as does PR.

Here's the plan Burson & Marsteller (world's largest PR company) put out in the early 90's to disinform the public on silicone & breast implants ...

http://www.prwatch.org/?q=prwissues/1996Q1/silicone10.html


Confidence Game: Burson-Marsteller's PR Plan for Silicone Breast Implants

Soon thereafter they merged Tobacco, Vaccination, Oil, Cell Phone & other Pharmaceutical $$$$$ in what is now known as the Junk Science Propaganda Team.

Here's an example: In 1995, they kept recycling the lies that "only" 5% of implants ruptured ... it's now known that approximately 75% will break during the first 15 years.

So "Fletch" ... are you claiming all your industry denials here are uncompensated???

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

Thank You to Mum and Trust Us
I wondered what I had done to get such a venomous response from UNC Doc, especially considering his/her refusal to aknowledge any evidence offered in my post. The department chair of a major university is not just some unknown hack. Easier to attack me than address other qualified scientists. Once I finish my Geology degree, I will be going into law, and then I can deal with pursuing Big Pharma directly. Like I told UNC Doc, parents of injured children get motivated. I'm not rolling over on this.

vaccines
Just a reminder:
Mercury in all of its forms is toxic to the fetus and children, and efforts should be made to reduce exposure to the extent possible to pregnant women and children as well as the general population.
~American Academy of Pediatrics
July 2001 Journal of the AAP

In all vaccine trials children are specially selected. No children are allowed who have chronic illness, intercurrent illness, family histories of immunodeficiency or allergy, who were under a certain weight at birth or experience anoxia or other birth problems. Vaccines are not tested in children who are not deemed healthy, yet when they are licensed, they are given to all children regardless of health. Many of these autistic children had health issues prior to being vaccinated. I believe the onslaught of vaccines sent them over the edge. Children today receive so many more vaccines than they did 20 years ago.

Anyone who thinks that you must be vaccinated to attend school is wrong. All states allow a medical exemption and many others allow a philosophical or religious exemption.

There have been 4800 lawsuits filed against vaccine manufacturers. If there is no connection to the vaccines, then why were thousands of children developing normally until they received their 15 or 18 month shots?

Quote from Michael Wagnitz, Senior Chemist:
Most countries only used 3 thimerosal containing vaccines versus 12 in the U.S. In Denmark, where 2 of these studies were done, thimerosal was banned in 1992. In one study, they claimed rates of autism went up after thimerosal was banned. This was because in 1995, they started counting autistic outpatients as opposed to only inpatients for the years prior to 1995. Since outpatients exceed inpatients by a 13:1 ratio in Denmark, you would expect a minimum 13 fold increase. If only inpatient data had been compared, rates would have dropped substantially.
Why are rates of autism in Denmark a fraction of what they are in the U.S. ( 7/10000 as compared to 60/10000)? Nobody asks this simple question. The authors of the Denmark studies work for the Statens Serum Institute, a European vaccine component provider. This is never mentioned. The study in the U.S. has 5 different conclusions dating from 2000-2004. Each subsequent evaluation, which was totally controlled by the CDC, lowered the risks of thimerosal containing vaccines. When the watered-down study was officially published by Pediatrics in 2004, the lead author had already been employed, since 2001, with a major thimerosal vaccine manufacturer. Pediatrics did not believe this little tidbit was worth mentioning. If you go to the medical search engine "Pubmed" and type in thimerosal, you will get references to 1108 published, peer-reviewed papers. The over-whelming message of these papers is the extreme neurotoxicity of thimerosal.







Mercury-poisoned children need treatment
A generation of children has been overdosed on mercury via Thimerosal in vaccines and RhoGam shots, from maternal dental amalgam, from fish, and other sources.

A genetic subset of children is less able to excrete mercury and other toxic heavy metals. These children manifest with allergies, asthma, autoimmune disorders... and that's just the "A's."

Dr. James Adams at Arizona State University is conducting a study on chelation to remove mercury from children given the psychological label of "autism spectrum disorder." This was reported in June on NBC-TV's Dateline.

Medical test results verify parents' anecdotal reports of children's improved health and mental ability. Dr. Bernard Rimland, PhD of the Autism Research Institute in California has videotaped before-and-after evidence, as well.

For lead-poisoned children, chelation is standard procedure. Only the most churlish soul would deprive children of the chance to stop being poisoned by mercury. Yet to some this "inconvenient truth" must be muzzled by assigning pejorative labels to parents who speak out, and ignoring the growing number of researchers who have taken time to study mercury's extreme toxicity.

Thomas Burbacher's 2005 primate study showed that ethylmercury binds to brain tissue 2-4 times more readily than methylmercury. No wonder doctors don't find it with blood tests -- it must be coaxed out with a chemical such as DMSA (2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid).

Mercury is but one of many environmental toxins entering children's bodies, causing illnesses and unplanned interactions with pharmaceutical drugs. But it is the second most toxic element, and one that can be removed from medical products and energy production. All it takes is for someone in power to care.

How unfortunate for humanity that altruism is expensive, and cures are not profitable.






Fletch's "playing"
Whoa there fella! I was only offering a little humorous gibe to you. (Which is why I empahsized your use of "playfully."

Didn't mean to incite such a passionate response. Nice touch to accuse me of various acts of mendacity. I would prefer to argue actual facts or positions, but feel free to resort to name calling if you must. (And assumptions about my profession, "leftist" status, integrity, etc. Your wife or girlfriend must be a patient woman.)

PS- What I said was that perhaps the Constitution was too liberal for you. (Because of the weight it gives the little guy against the most powerful. Loser pays would shift much of that power to the richest, in my opinion. To my perhaps faulty logic, that could equate to you preferring a more conservative, less liberal system which implicitly threatens the "little guy" as an equal player.)

I didn't "shoot the messenger" by pointing out a Lew Rockwell website posted for the EXPLICIT reason to take political action to "save" Stoessel's job might not be the most object journalistic source.

OK, now you can proceed to insult my motives and integrity again. Still, I remain fascinated that a case you claimed showed how out of control the system is, is so hard to find evidence of. I searched Lexis Nexis for hours with no luck. I guess it's because I'm such a dumb, blind, leftist, secularist, agenda driven, yadda yadda...that I can't find your big highway contractor case.

Idiots
A sad phenomena is how stupid a few people can be. Lawyers jump in to take advantage and the rest of us pay.


Hmmm... they don't sound like experts
So here we have John Stossel, whose 20/20 TV paycheck is funded by pharmaceutical ads, claiming that injecting infants with mercury is a good thing.

Next comes vaccine developer Paul Offit, who has a close working relationship with pharmaceutical companies, chimes in about Bendectin instead of Thimerosal to muddy the waters.

Then below, anonymous contributors claiming to be doctors rail against the reckless parents jeopardizing the world's health. Nice touch of patronizing tone; the sheeple expect it from their authority figures, right?

Any toxicology results or studies done by credible, honest researchers (read: off pharma dole) are dismissed as "cherry picking." And let's cast doubt on the ability of a parent to correctly note a child's symptoms worsening or improving... though sometimes a parent appears competent enough to bring a child in for a convenient prescription.

Any readers bored by Stossel's overgeneralizations can click back to Townhall and be redirected to "The Center for Consumer Freedom," a faux "fish are safe to eat" site now trashing the mercury summit at Madison, Wisconsin.

Strangely absent is any mention of the autism/mercury cases still in discovery in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The jury can't be out, because it hasn't even come in yet.

Also absent in all the false bravado is any talk about a "safe" level of mercury. From what I've read, it does not exist.

Those people paid to promote vaccines have an enormous disincentive to disprove the notion that mercury causes neurological damage. Those people being encouraged to receive 25 micrograms in a flu shot should avoid accepting tacit assurances -- "Trust us, we're experts" -- and do their own homework.

And demand vaccines without mercury.






Thimerosal is medicine's BIGGEST mistake
I would challenge UNC Doc or any of these other sanctimonious physicians in denial over thimerosal to view this video:
http://www.autismmedia.org/media15.html

Erik


The crucible of democracy
Fletch… you cannot make a victim whole. Just paying their medical bills is not making them whole. Money is worthless to make people whole. The question that every juror and any attorney seeking a jury award is to answer this question: What good will money do? We cannot give back life or limb. All we have is dirty rotten money that does nothing to restore the health or vitality of anyone. So why give it you ask? Well it is the only thing that we can do. That is it. So if we can only give money then we should otta give the person enough money to do three things: Help, Fix and Make Up for. Money can help by paying bills and out of pocket expenses and lost earnings and the like. Money can fix – if it can fix by restoring what was taken, but when money will not fix it then money must be used to make up for. It must make up for all the rotten things the person went through. It can ease the pain, it can ease the burden, it can ease the suffering and it may help a person forget their loss. Since money is not really ever making someone whole, then it is less valuable. When the dollar is weak against the Euro it takes more dollars to buy Euros – so the same thing with the value of the dollar as to making a person whole.

I would like you to look at it this way. This is a market based society. You are all speaking of markets for this and that, for profit and loss in companies. I think you should consider asking yourself, what would it take to hire a person on the open market by placing an ad in a newspaper and seeing if they would take it for a volunteer. The job description is that you will undergo a kidney surgery where a doctor will leave a towel in you body to support the kidney during a partial nephorectomy. Now the towel will be left in for 14 days and the doctor is not going to know it is there. (real life situation) He puts it in you and he will blame the nurse who works for the hospital. So this towel is getting kind of sticky in the your body. The partial nephorectomy was done with the laparoscope so there is no scar. The doctor says it is a success, everything is fine. Then 14 days later the doctor is going to try to figure out why you have all this puss coming out of you and then he is going to discover the towel and open you up and take your kidney without even admiting that he did this – saying that well you have another kidney anyway. You will now have a 16 inch scar on your side the rest of your life and if you need a kidney in the future well that is the risk you take.

What is that case worth? Give me some answers and I will tell you the value. But the question is who would voluntarily undergo the above – what would it take in society to hire someone to do that. Remember my client did not apply for this job. It was not even a risk he was aware of. A dollar an hour? Two, three – at least minimum wage? What can you hire someone for.

The defense is going to tell the jury that those future non-capped bills that others here are not arguing about that should be paid – well guess what the defense is? Its too speculative. Its too speculative to think that this young man 32 years old is going to need a kidney or dialysis in the future – look at him now…its too speculative. The jury will always agree… Who will pay for that in the future?

So there is a cap on compensatory damages as you put it. There is a cap because they are rarely awarded for future care. The defense always argues it is too speculative. You want tort reform, let the people come back and have another day in court when 40 years are up and there is not enough money and the government is paying for it all.

Now as to the individual. Go pull out a bottle of aspirin. Look at the 100’s of pills. Now if I held them in my hand and there was just one in a hundred chance that one pill in the jar would kill you – would you still take it? I mean that is what the numbers game is with Vioxx and these other life saving drugs. The makers of Vioxx just won a case in Los Angeles – some guy died and Vioxx was found not to have killed him. Did that jury get it wrong? Because another jury found that Vioxx killed a man and they hit them up for millions. You never hear much about losses of the plaintiff, you hear lots when someone wins.

The McDonalds case. It comes up in every trial. I address that with every jury. Everyone still thinks she got millions. She didn’t. You all here know that. She didn’t even drive the car. The car was not even moving. But to the jury, I just tell them “there is no coffee in this case.”

So why do I cite Hobbs and this principle that the individual matters? Because a trial, 12 Citizens, chosen by both sides, is the crucible of democracy. There is no government regulators it is pure democracy. Tort reform is about taking away that vote taking away the most basic part of our system of justice. Lady justice is blind and in one of her hands she has the scales and in her other hand a sword. If we are all equal under the blindfold of Lady and the scales tip in favor of whom ever then that sword comes out and smites down the oppressor.

If you destroy the power of the jury then you destroy the crucible of democracy.

Fletch
Excellent postings. I really enjoy reading them.

celtic-dragon
First, excuse me ma'am. Second, thank you for your understanding. Third, you are right, boys are far more likely to be born autistic than girls. But, no one knows why. Fourth, since my borther lives in a very rural area of the state, as we have all our lives, how can mercury be the problem? The only mercury we see around here is in a thermometer.

Children are BORN with autism, they do not get it from immunizations against, potentially, deadly illnesses. When I see one study, I mean just one, that a child showing all the "normal" growth patterns, both physically and mentally, then becomes autistic AFTER recieving immunization shots, I might start believing these "studies". As I said before, beware of what a "study" says. They say exactly what the sponsor of that particular study want it to say.



about ignoring rights . . .
"This is our view, we are not a society that ignores the rights of even one man or one child for the greater good"

We aren't discussing ignoring peoples' rights. Tort reform is about defining them in the first place, which our Constitution (the founding document) empowers Congress to do. Congress also has the power to regulate copyrights and interstate commerce, which are all implicated here. Society is not benefiting from medical copyrights because those rights are being eliminated or turned into liabilities by lawsuits.

Assumption of the risk doctrine, as someone said earlier, perhaps should apply to medical treatments, with the amendment that it should apply to unknown risks voluntarily confronted.

J.D.
That doesn't mean that the costs should be paid by innovation sources. If something is approved by the FDA then there should be no liability for approved design defects.

The plaintiff is not the only one who suffers here: the award of damages against an innovator creates a market externality in terms of harm to the public.

Simply put, revenue from medical IP should not be permitted to flow to a plaintiff's damage award.

The least among us
Limitations on jury awards punish only the MOST severely injured, and do not create fewer lawsuits just fewer dollars to care for these most seriously injured souls. The catastrophically injured then go on the government dole to get care that the wrongdoer should pay for. So jury caps do nothing to stop frivolous lawsuits, they simply make the government a big giant HMO and allow the wrongdoer to skirt their personal responsibility. In addition to creating a huge debt on the Government to care for doctors errors, drug company products or any product that kills, maims or damages.

When I mentioned "the least among us" in my last post, I did not mean to imply a class of person like rich or poor. I meant like my clients who are unable to defend themselves - the elderly - people in nursing homes. If we can protect them then we are all safe. That was my point about protecting the least among us.

Additionally, I was not suggesting that anyone was to be placed above another person. In fact that is my argument – it is the individual that matters. I agree, the founders of our country stated we are all equal. It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln came along that we gave the equality to all.

I want you to look at the Gettysburg Address, because this is the fulfillment of the equality principle and it is the fulfillment of John Lock’s two treatises of government and the Rousseau idea of we come together and we can disband.

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

In this statement, we see that certain principles transcend all things. The individual matters. Thus, the proper argument to be made in a republic is that we cannot make right what is inherently wrong. Killing someone with a drug so that others may benefit is wrong.

Abraham Lincoln made this argument time and time again in his seven famous debates against Stephen Douglas during the 1858 Illinois Senate race. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Judge Douglas argued that the popular vote should decide the slavery question in the territories. Lincoln demurred, asserting instead that slavery was wrong and no amount of votes by the people could change that. For his support, Lincoln relied on the Declaration of Independence and its claim that All men are created equal The Constitution, being a practical document, did not live up the promise of the Declaration as to do so would have meant the immediate dissolution and death of the new nation, so Lincoln relied on the foundational document that preceded the Constitution.

Proof of this point of view is obvious in the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. Note the first point is the accent on the individual and the second is the Rousseau Social Contract:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This is our view, we are not a society that ignores the rights of even one man or one child for the greater good, we are created equal and we have a contract with our government that it governs from the consent of the people – one man, one vote.

American Jurisprudence has recognized this principal from its inception. It is quintessentially ours. Be proud of this.

It absolutely is the Communist or Socialist view of greatest good over the rights of the individual. It is the democratic view – one man, one vote that palaces the accent on the individual and that each individual has value.

Thus, we are a people who value the rights of the individual and with those rights goes too, responsibility. No group of people should be singled out for preferential treatment or punishment. Legislation protecting one group of people at the expense of the right of one individual cannot stand.




part of the problem
Part of the problem is the public's general mentality that corporations are bottomless pits of money and they can afford any amount,and they owe it. Just today co-workers were praising that a friend had a good government job basically fishing for a living and then turn around and talk about government waste. The mentality is that if it benefits you or a friend, it's justifiable. There is such an attitude of communism; that the rich owe everyone else who isn't. If that mentality had never gotten started, juries wouldn't be awarding obscene amounts. Thank the democrats, who strive for nothing but a communist America; corporate America owes everyone something.

Missing the point
Many of the commentators here seem to be missing the point-

All drugs are potentially dangerous, and all drugs can have side effects. The real question is one of risk, and who should make these decisions about risk- The FDA? Juries? Or individuals?

Let's make this simple to understand. For example, let's say someone discovers a drug that cures AIDS. Let's say the drug is 80-90 % successful in curing AIDS over a several year period, however, in 4-8% of all cases, the drug causes death within a matter of weeks.

Are these acceptable risks? You may ask yourself, "how should I know?" which would be a reasonable response. The truth is, the acceptability of these risks depend on your personal feelings about risk. When the FDA decides on what drugs to approve, they are setting this risk threshold for us. When juries award these large verdicts they are setting a different risk threshold with every single verdict, which can make it quite difficult to do business- And this is exactly Stosell's point- because different juries do not apply the same standards of risk assessment, drug companies can become worried about releasing potentially life saving (or just plain helpful) drugs in the first place.

Obviously, the real world is not as straight forward as the example I laid out above, but the principles are the same-

Who should make these decisions about what we put into our bodies- The FDA, based on an arbitray scale of risk- Juries utilizing ever changing scales of risk- Or ourselves, the individuals, making decisions about risk in regards to our own bodies.

I don't understand how anyone could call John a communist- if you read this, keep up the great work John.

lawsuits = extortion/blackmail
The greater majority of lawyers care not about truth but only about winning at any and all costs.

$to$$el'$ Junk Journalism
$to$$el has for years been the Media Darling Corporate Apologist of the Junk Science Propaganda Campaign ... long funded by a comglomeration of silicone, pharma, oil, tobacco, and cell phone dollars (to name but a few).

He continues to give the Breast Implant Industry's false viewpoint that the implants claims are baseless. Well over a quarter of a million of women have reported to the FDA their implant related injuries and illnesses, and more become ill and incapacitated daily.

I head an international support group for thousands of women harmed by breast implants AND the vast propaganda put out by $to$$el, Milloy, ACSH.org and other industry funded flacks.

He lied about Organic Foods and was busted. Again he is lying about the dangers of silicone breast implants.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

Fletc's Big Highway Contractor Case
Speaking of playing, Fletch: have you found yet any shred of evidence that your $25 million dollar penalty highway contractor case really exists? Or will the evidence come in around the same time as OJ's finding of the "real killers" ?

I don't think some understand the intent
celtic-dragon writes: Wednesday, August, 09, 2006 1:37 AM
No link with Autism?
Maybe you should experience having a child with Autism, Mr. Stossel. You don't mention the voluminous research done from the 1940's until the present day that demonstrates damage to nerve tissue with ANY exposure to mercury.
===============================
Which has little to do with the point of the article. He didn't say they weren't necessary for violations but rather was getting at how they inhibit much that could help. Also, the threat of a suit and all payment of actual damages has never been sought by either party and certainly not conservatives. Lawsuits are vital but multi-million dollar lawsuits for unforseeable ramifactions, are not paid for by the company but can affect their future activity. We pay the lawsuits.

The insurance company and the lost profits are paid for by consumers, not the CEO or some other company person. But, what is worse is that it means we lose jobs. The malpractice insurance for the same heart doctor here is 62 time higher than for a doctor doing the same in a private hospital with a lower mortality rate, in India.

A $200,000 heart operation here costs $10,000 there. Lawsuits have made every aspect of medical care higher. My VA doctor went into the VA after being sued for saving a baby's life that had already suffered brain damage as the result of the umbilical cord being wrapped around the baby's neck when delivered by another medical team. He was only called in to save the life, which he did, but they sued him too. He didn't pay for his defense, we did.

We are seeing doctors leaving Philidelphia and other places due to lawsuits and going to states with litigation reform at the state level. If they screw up, they still get sued and the patient still gets lifetime care, if needed, compenstation for lost wages, lost mobility, lost health, etc. but, not millions above and beyond a reasonable punitive sum.

Maybe that is why we see so many pharmacuetical companies setting up in Ireland.
quote:
Ireland is now one of the world’s largest exporters of Pharmaceuticals with €34 billion of intermediates and finished pharmaceuticals exported in 2002. 6 out of 10 and 12 out of 25 of the world’s top selling drugs are produced in Ireland including Lipitor and Zocor. Products are manufactured for global markets.
http://www.idaireland.com/home/index.aspx?id=64
=============================
quote:
The number of companies making vaccines has declined from 26 in 1967, to 17 in 1980, to just five in 2004. Although some of these changes result from mergers among pharmaceutical companies, for the most part, says Dr. Offit, a series of events has made the manufacture of vaccines more expensive, and their sale less profitable.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-05/chop-itv050905.php
============================
The reasons for the companies not continuing to make vaccines are several but, here is the portion in that last article that applies to "lawsuits" and help we could be getting but aren't.
quote:
Finally, product liability lawsuits have sharply raised costs to vaccine manufacturers. A 1986 lawsuit claiming that pertussis vaccine caused paralysis in a child yielded a jury award of $1.1 million--more than half of the entire market for pertussis vaccine at the time. Although no scientific evidence backed the claim that pertussis vaccine caused paralysis, writes Dr. Offit, liability costs have caused pharmaceutical companies to flee the vaccine business.

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which Congress authorized in 1986 to compensate families whose children were injured by vaccines, reduced some financial pressure on vaccine manufacturers. However, says Dr. Offit, flaws in this program limit its effectiveness. Families can choose to opt out of the program and proceed to a jury trial, the program does not cover all vaccines, and it does not cover effects on an unborn child when the mother is vaccinated. Fearful of litigation, no pharmaceutical company is willing to produce a vaccine known to protect newborns from a group B streptococcus infection, a disease that kills 100 U.S. newborns each year.
==================================================

Notice that line, "no pharmaceutical company is willing to produce a vaccine" and think about it. None, zero, nobody in the world for fear of lawsuit and thus we have newborns die that could be saved.

So, where do we really come out ahead, keeping in mind nobody is saying legitimate lawsuits and reasonable settlements should be eliminated?

1. lost jobs
2. lost businesses mean lost tax revenues
3. fewer advances in healthcare
4. fewer doctors and nursed than needed
5. higher medical costs
6. higher insurance premiums
7. fewer hospitals due to closings and not building new ones.

Then people wonder why America is in decline?

JD
Great letter and many thanks for your support here. One note; Thomas Hobbs wrote "Leviathan", not " Levation", at least to the best of my knowledge. I am reading "Leviathan" at this time. It is a bit grim.

Lawsuits make us less safe
In your piece, "Lawsuits make us less safe," you report that "Eli Lilly developed a mercury-based preservative called Thimerosal that was used in many children's vaccines. Plaintiffs' lawyers jumped on scaremongers' claims that mercury causes autism in children." You add that a "government-issued review found no such link." That sounds simple, but it doesn't explain the 6,000 percent increase in autism from one in 10,000 to one in every 166 children, that happened coincidentally with the dramatic increase in mercury-containing vaccines in the childhood schedule in the last 20 years.

These are the details on thimerosal.
Thimerosal goes back 75 years. It was invented and tested Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical Company in 1930. The one study done on thimerosal was on 22 adult patients suffering from meningitis. There was no chance for follow-up to observe long-term effects, as all of the patients died. Even if follow-up had been possible, damage to the developing brains of very young children would have remained an unknown. Eli Lilly said it was safe and the medical community just accepted it. After the creation of the FDA, its use was simply continued. This is an unconscionable oversight failure and calls any safety claim into question. The CDC continually says there's no evidence that thimerosal is toxic. That's clearly false. There are volumes of scientific research showing just how deadly thimerosal is. The "government issued review" was just that, findings controlled by the government. The Centers for Disease Control directed the Institute of Medicine to produce that report clearing thimeorsal of a link to autism two years ago. Actually what the IOM did was to ignore all the toxicological studies showing thimerosal is a deadly vaccine additive and rely on epidemiological findings in their report. Epidemiological studies are population studies. Any competent doctor or scientist can tell you these studies are often flawed and can be easily manipulated to show the results the researcher wants. That IOM Report from two years ago angered a lot of people and settled nothing.

In his book, Evidence of Harm, journalist David Kirby points out that "...many researchers had sent the company [Eli Lilly] documents dating back to the 1930's, each raising a red flag about thimerosal." (EOH 207-209). Mr. Kirby chronologically lists over 70 years of scientific research on the damaging and deadly effects of thimerosal that was willfully ignored by Eli Lilly and the CDC.http://www.evidenceofharm.com/ Our CDC and FDA should be utterly embarrassed to make safety claims based on such a pathetic history of oversight. Our federal health agencies are also the ones whose members have over 700 conflict-of-interest waivers for direct financial ties to the vaccine makers.

Lawsuits are hardly an issue here. With eighty percent of autistic Americans under the age of 18, the cost of the generation of disabled autistic adults is a bill we'll never be able to pay. The good ship "Safe Mercury" is sinking fast. Regardless of the members in our federal health agencies and the media who assure us that a known neurotoxin is safe to inject into children, they can't explain the numbers. The CDC recently announced that there are 300,000 people with autism under the age of eighteen in the U.S. A recent Harvard study puts the cost for a lifetime of care for one autistic person at 3.2 million dollars. Other research shows that to be a gross underestimate. A school superintendent in one article described the increase in autistic special needs students as a "train wreck coming." The prospect of all these autistic adults on disability looms like a tsunami. We need the press to present the facts in this critical controversy not medical myths of vaccine safety. When the reality of the damage done to a generation of children from mercury is fully evident, everyone will be asking why the press failed to do its job for so long.
.

A real problem?
Something like 95% of civil cases settle without ever going to a jury at all. Seems like a very elitist view to say juries of common sense citizens are routinely awarding millions to underserving plaintiffs. Either you believe in our jury system or you don't. Personally, I trust juries of regular folks more than I trust the giant pharmaceutical industries Mr. Stoessel is kept awake at night worrying about.

A question: if a product is totally safe (like the alleged replacement for asbestos), how could the company expect to be held responsible for it not being safe?

American pharmaceutical companies might well avoid the vaccine market these days because there are far more profitable markets. These companies rarely if ever produce drugs that "cure" any disease. Far more profitable to make drugs to "manage" disease by making millions take the drugs every day for the rest of thier lives.

Why waste money on a flu vaccine a limited number of people will pay for once a year, when you can produce drugs (statins, for example) that millions will take every day for the rest of their lives?


Since Stoossel cant find new material...
What is the point of this article? To do what? This is the same point of his last article isn't it.

Let's revisit the philosophy of our founding fathers in coming up with this system of placing the rights of the individual over the rights of the many...

Our country is founded upon a few principals - the primary one being that the INDIVIDUAL MATTERS. Stossel continues to argue that the rights of the many or the rights of business prevail over the rights of the individual.

This is the logic that finds eminent domain taking over family farms for municipalities to sell them to builders of resorts. This is also the logic of putting caps on damage awards. It is also against the principal that it is a free market. Do you want to cap attorneys fees so that the government must do more regulation of the free market ability to contract? So should the government then set price controls on all your wages too?

I am an attorney who represents the elderly against nursing homes in elder abuse cases. This argument by Mr. Stossel continues to adopt an Un-American view of "the greatest good for the greatest number" Caps on damage awards and the idea that the many are more important the rights of one is un-American. It is Un-American because it is a philosophy founded upon the works of Hobbs and Jeremy Bentham and thus the philosophy of Karl Marx - totally Un-American.

So all who adopt such philosophy should get out their little red books and read up on the founding fathers of Communism…. Because that is what it is plain and simple.

Who we are today as a people was brewing on the Continent at the founding of our Nation – all of our forefathers left the tyranny of European Monarchs. At that time Hobbs was writing the Lavation that was very much a precursor to the Utilitarian view and Jeremy Bentham and essentially their point was “the greatest good for the greatest number.” This is the argument of putting a cap on general damages in medical malpractice cases. This is a pure argument for Caps. Caps are Jeremy Bentham’s legacy, the greatest good for the greatest number. That’s what caps are. Translate: You ignore the interests of the one for the benefit of the whole.

The other side to that argument, the side who our founding fathers were is that we are each intrinsically valuable. This is based on the Social Contract of Rousseau. We come together and we can disband. Further, underneath that Social Contract of Rousseau is John Locke’s two treatises of Government, which puts the accent on the individual.

Contrast these two theories: Hobbs, Jeremy Bentham and utilitarian view of the greatest good for the greatest number and the social contract of Rousseau and Locke’s accent on the individual.

Consider if you will the context of when these ideas came out having been brewing on our own Continent and on the European Continent. England, the French Revolution of 1790 – our own Revolution. If you read the biography, John Adams, by David McCullough – here we have John Adams in France in 1780 with Benjamin Franklin as Ambassador to France. Adams is writing locally about the rights of the individual, Adams is joined by Thomas Jefferson. It is the influence of this Locke/Rousseau idea that is the philosophy which is our Continental model – that each of us are intrinsically valuable. Each of us are an end unto ourselves. We are not to be seen as small parts of the greater whole but we are intrinsically valuable, we individually are an end unto ourselves.

It is the Communist or Socialist view of greatest good over the rights of the individual. It is the democratic view – one man, one vote that places the accent on the individual and that each individual has value.

Proof of this point of view is obvious in the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. Note the first point is the accent on the individual and the second is the Rousseau Social Contract:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This is our view, we are not a society that ignores the rights of even one man or one child for the greater good, we are created equal and we have a contract with our government that it governs from the consent of the people – one man, one vote.

American Jurisprudence has recognized this principal from its inception. It is quintessentially ours.

I call it the trip wire model. You see our society works best if we protect the rights of the least among us then we all know that we are all safe. When we say that one person must suffer so that others may gain we are all jeopardized.

The idea of caps is an idea of obliterating the philosophical heritage of our Country. It says that individuals do not matter. Despite the fact the doctor sawed off the wrong leg, this legless person’s pain and suffering, his mental anguish should not be considered because some group of people – either doctors, either insurance companies or either whom ever you name, but someone else is better than that individual. This leaves the least among us, the person who cannot fight, the person without their legs, having nothing to stand on in court. You, I, or anyone of our friends could be that legless person.

Ronald Reagan used to say about recessions. Recessions are when someone else has lost their job, a depression is when you loose your job. Or better yet, the story Reagan told of the starfish. The storm comes in and it washes up all these starfish on the shore. A person is seen on the beach picking up the starfish and throwing them back into the water. If they remain on the land of course they die. The job of just picking up one at a time is futile because there are so many thousands starfish that have been washed up. A passerby says: “why are you doing that, it won’t do any good; there are just too many that your efforts don’t matter.” The person on the shore, as he picks up a starfish and throws it back into the water saving its life says, “it mattered to that one.”

Each of us matter. Caps or “tort reform” are the philosophy not of individual rights but are abhorrent to such rights. We need to place the accent on the individual not on transient problems that change the foundation of our country.

For the Republicans, of which I am one, to align themselves with Bentham and Marx and ignore the individual rights of each one of us is abysmal. The American System of Justice is not a partisan system – it is there solely for the protection of our inalienable individual rights and that protects us all. Stand up America and stand fast against such tired philosophy of Socialism, Marxism and Communism.

I also want to point out to you that even the AMA has stated - you can check this fact out and I know the CDC has indicated that this is so that hospital mistakes kill 80,000 people a year... That is the equivalent of a Boeing 747 Crashing Every single day killing all on board.

In plane crashes a governmental body, independent of the industry, investigates such accidents. In auto accidents, independent police and sheriff’s deputies investigate the facts and scenes of accidents. But in Hospitals and Doctor’s offices who do you think investigates the deaths of a 80,000 people a year? You got it - fellow doctors at the same facility. What is worse, the reports generated by the doctors investigating themselves – they are secret and can never been looked at or even viewed by the deceased patients relatives. (See for instance Cal. Evidence Code 1157)

So John, stop being the front man for the pharmaceutical industry and re-evaluate your American roots. Remember Both Lincoln and my favorite, Teddy Roosevelt were for the individual - not big business - not the trusts. Imagine applying your logic to slavery - what was the economic cost of ending slavery? It likely looked wrong applying your logic to it, but it was wrong and Republicans stood up for what was right.

If a drug kills someone then the drug maker – who profits from the drug – should pay for the death or injury. It is that simple. If a product causes thousands of horrific injuries 40 years after its use – then the maker of the product should pay for the injuries and not the tax payers. If a product causes birth defects that cost millions of dollars over the life of an individual to treat them – the company whose product caused such cost should pay for it.

A ten million dollar verdict sounds like a lot….but if it costs $250,000 a year for medical care and treatment then that only covers half the life of the person….and the taxpayer will have to pick up the rest. Should was not hold companies as well as individuals personally responsible for their actions? Personal Responsibility requires the person causing the harm to pay for it. If a product has benefits, but the costs of care from people injured by it outweigh its benefits then it should not be produced. Why do you have a problem with that?

John Stoessel article
I ask the question re trail attorneys- what other academically-based profession gets paid from a percentage of the "winnings"? La Vegas and horse racing doesn't count. They have taught the public that there are no such things as acts of God, because God doesn't have liability insurance!

If a doctor accepts a patient in his care, he has an understood contract to provide the care. If a trial attorney does the same, he has a contract to represent the plaintiff. How do the attorneys accept as ethical suing in the name of thousands or millions of "clients" in a class action suit, having no contract or even a personal meeting with any of them? Their motivation is pure greed, looking for a big payday. a 30% fee from a million clients is a pretty good day's work, realizing most of the "clients" will receive some coupon good for $10 or $50 dollars or some such laughable award. Trial attorneys sell themselves as doing God's work for "the little guy" who can't afford the costs of a suit. Whose fault is that? Today's attorney prayer starts "The law is my shepherd to payday, I shall not want".

Another problem caused by the dems.
I think it’s very simple. We need to cap these liability cases and get rid of the “instant millions” payouts. However, as long as the demoRats have any powers don’t expect any changes very soon.

Here are some interesting facts:
An estimated 50 cents of every dollar awarded to tort plaintiffs gets eaten up by lawyers and courts-and a great deal of that money ends up benefiting Democratic candidates. Over the last decade, the legal profession has led all other groups in campaign contributions-giving a total of $357 million to federal candidates-and 70 percent of its cash goes to Democrats. The 56,000-member Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) was the top PAC contributor to Democratic federal candidates in the last election cycle; the organization spent $2.6 million, 86 percent of which went to Democrats. (National Review, August 20, 2001 by Kate O'Beirne)

Victimhood
There are a lot of very typical comments here from "mercury parents", embracing their victimhood. It's very comforting to surround yourself with other similar "victims" and wring your hands about some faceless corporation that has poisoned your child.
We have never seen our little boy as a victim, but believe me, you often see parents demanding their children be moved to the front in the waiting room because "my child has autism".
Unfortunately you and your comfort zone, the facts don't lie. For those who try to insinuate that those studies refuting this "link" are sponsored by regulators, producers, distributors and administrators of vaccines, I guess that would discount all studies in all peer-reviewed medical journals. Cherry-picking of studies in obscure, non-peer reviewed journals is a trademark of the mercury zealouts, along with wild conspiracy theories.
I suggest you actually read the epidemiology and show where the evil bias is. Real data doesn't lie -- oh, but wait a minute, the CDC is in on this, too!! The only ones standing up for truth are Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his lawyer buddies, as well as the chelationists.
BTW, many of these same folks crying about injecting "poison" into their children have no problem injecting chelation agents into their children, which are of no proven benefit (other than anecdotes, of course), and of potential great harm.
But all of you Erin Brockovich's out there keep at it, if it makes you feel better.

SP2678
Well said. I will be applying to the new law school at Elon University upon completion of my degree at Guilford College. I have made the same observation regarding people not liking lawyers. Sooner or later, they are going to need one...

This is such a tired, old scare tactic
I am so tired of hearing people complain about "evil" plaintiff's lawyers and their "greed" and the misnamed "tort reform." I am a plaintiff's attorney. I can promise you I am not rich, and I likely won't ever be. I do this because I enjoy helping injured people deal with big businesses - mostly insurance companies - who use unfair, bullying tactics to try to take advantage of them. Because of the design of most of our contracts - contingency fee based on the award - we have absolutely NO incentive to take on cases that have no merit. It costs A LOT of money to try a case, and most plaintiff's lawyers pay that money up front and then hope to recover it in court costs from the other side - but that ONLY happens if you win. If you don't, the lawyer eats those costs - not the client. My bottom line is that I never want a client to be worse off for having hired me. If I can't help them, I tell them so. I don't sugar coat things. If I don't think they have a case, I tell them and let them know why. And I'm not alone - most, if not all, plaintiff's attorneys work this way.

I am so tired of the endless litany of insults and lies from so-called "tort reformers." Lawsuit abuse is, for the most part, a myth. Juries do their jobs 99.9% of the time when the suits make it to trial - if a judge doesn't pour you out first. There is no such thing as a friendly plaintiff's venue where I live. From day one, I have to counsel my clients that the cards are stacked against them - even when their son has been killed by a drunk driver's negligence or their employer negligently failed to train them properly on how to use dangerous equipment and they are now less on hand - and that the majority of people in a jury box are going to think like the author of this editorial. That's literally adding insult to injury in a lot of these cases, but it's just the truth, thanks to people's blind, basless willingness to believe the worst about lawyers and our courts. No one likes lawyers until they need one.

STAY ON POINT
John's point about the ambulance chasers is right on. Perhaps using mostly drug manufacturing as the primary target was a mistake.

Let's focus on the real problem, i.e. officers of the court allowed to become legislators. All of the blather about the separation of powers would be a joke if the issue were not so serious. Barring lawyers from serving in the legislative branch should be accoplished first, only then will it be possible to use the "loser pays" system that is so successful in the UK.

Jerry
First of all, I do not appreciate being addressed as "man". Secondly, you have my understanding on having a sibling with autism. There is, of course, some genetic component to this problem. Boys are four times more likely to have autism then girls. Environmental mercury is also suspected, and may be a contributiong factor to your situation but that is impossible to determine at this point. Your family has my best wishes.

UNC Doc
I couldn't care less what you think. If you think I'm whining about my damaged child, then too bad. When children get hurt, then parents get motivated. We will win.

Braindoctor
Thimerosal is an organic mercury compound used as a preservative in some injectable medications. It is metabolized by the body into ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. I do not "compare" thimerosal to mercury, because mercury is the active preserving ingredient. Before you chime in on something like this, get some information first.

Lawsuits make us less saafe
When I read the intro:
John Stossel: Lawsuits make us less safe
" Imagine if an evil business routinely deprived us of products that would help us live longer with less pain and more comfort. "
.
I thought the 'evil business' was the Federal Government
raiding and imprisoning suffering and terminally ill
people in STATE LEGAL medical marijauna clinics.
.
Here it is just a bunch of overpaid legal creeps that no one
is forced to do business with.
.
My error
Gary Letterle
West Farmington, Ohio

.

Imagine if your child missed all his/her milestones, and you found out when he/she was tested she was off the charts in mercury.
You'd be outraged.
Stossel, you've totally missed the boat on this.
Thimerosal is far from non-toxic.
Did the government goof? Big time, and they admitted they never calculated the total amount of mercury our kids received in 1999.
Did the pharmaceuticals goof? Big time, again. See the 1990 memo from Maurice Hilleman, where he states the level of thimerosal when you add it up is rather high.
Do we want to risk autism, ADD, ADHD, alzheimers, and more for an adjuvant/preservative that doesn't even work (see Chiron debacle a few years back)?
This is bad reporting, Stossel, just like your "DDT is safe" reporting.

autism
Kitchensink said that vaccines are required for school, and is 100% correct.

I generally abhor lawsuits, and I don't know if autism is caused by vaccines or not; but if you're going to sue anyone over it, sue your school district or government for mandating so many.

When the government forces your child to have a vaccine which most certainly can cause adverse reactions, even serious ones, your right to make health care decisions for your child is taken away. Yes, one can go to a private school (many of which also require vaccines) or homeschool, but those are not options for many people.

Thimerosal Facts
Myth: Thimerosal, when used in vaccines, is added in trace amounts.

Fact: Thimerosal is added at a concentration of 1:10000. This is equivalent to a concentration of 100,000 parts per billion (ppb). Since thimerosal is half mercury, this puts the concentration of mercury in the multi-dose vaccine vial at 50,000 ppb. To put this in perspective, liquid waste that exceeds 200 ppb of mercury must be disposed of in a special hazardous waste landfill. Drinking water cannot exceed 2 ppb mercury. "Trace" would probably be the last word to use when describing the amount of mercury in vaccines. Is it really safe to inject infants with levels of mercury 250 times higher than hazardous waste levels.

Myth: Thimerosal is no longer present in vaccines. It was removed in 1999.

Fact: There is documented evidence that childhood vaccines, used in the U.S., contained the full amount of thimerosal well into 2002. This information is documented in the Physician Desk reference which lists all the ingredients of drugs used in the U.S. for each year. For a current list of vaccines which still contain thimerosal go to http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm.

Myth: Ethylmercury, the type of mercury found in vaccines is less toxic than methyl mercury.

Fact: In a paper published in Environmental Health Perspective, August 2005, it was shown that infant primates, exposed to injected ethylmercury, retain twice as much inorganic mercury in their brains than primates exposed to equal amounts of ingested methyl mercury. Once organic mercury is converted to inorganic mercury in the brain, it becomes trapped and neuroinflammatory disease occurs. (Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 113, #8, 8/2005, pg.1015-1021). Ethylmercury clears the blood in seven days, not the brain.

Myth: There are vast volumes of studies which show thimerosal is safe.

Fact: Again, this statement is the exact opposite of the truth. The only studies which suggest it is safe are epidemiological studies done by the regulators, producers, distributors and administrators of vaccines. These epidemiological studies are the same type of studies used by the tobacco industry to show that smoking does not cause lung cancer. If one wants to find the truth about thimerosal they should start by reading the Material Safety Data Sheet. You can then go to the medical search engine "Pubmed" and type in thimerosal. You should get about 1100 hits. The overwhelming majority of these papers discuss thimerosal's toxicity.



Law Suits not the problem
I have often wondered how to protect the right of a person to sue when they have reason versus the abuse of the system that does occur. It's not right to cap judgements when a person may have a legal right for just compensation. However, I can think of no reason why the way that a lawyer is compensated can't be regulated. Instead of lawyer fees based upon a percentage of the judgement, and only if "we win your case for you", fees could only be charged for direct costs of services provided including hours billed, reimursables, fees for expert testimonies or tests, etc. Lawyers should also be forced to disclose what these costs would be in writing up front. This would discourage laywers from agressively pursuing cases which have little merit as well as protecting a plantiffs right to seek justice when they are harmed.

Loser Pays Limitations
The comments on the autism issue illustrate the main problem with a Loser Pays system -- namely, that there are many situations in which the loser is a foregone conclusion.

Understand I am making noi claims as to the truth of one side or the other of the thimorosol-causes-autism debate. However, I am saying that, as Dr. Sowell's column of today clearly illustrates, it is possible to conduct studies to demonstrate virtually any conclusion that you have at the outset.

So on the one hand you have "Big Pharm" presenting its studies, and you have the plaintiffs presenting their studies, to the jury.
"Big Pharm" is a big, wealthy corporation. The plaintiffs are distraught parents with an autistic child sitting in the courtroom. Though I haven't seen the statistics, I feel safe in asserting that far more jurors are parents than are scientists. Thus, whatever the facts are (and again I'm not making a statement one way or the other), the emotion of a clearly suffering family will trump the facts every time.

FOR CELTIC-DRAGON
Come on man, you are spouting nonsense. My brothers son is autistic and he never recieved Thimerosal, or any other vaccine, that causes, supposedly, autism. A friend of mine has a brother, now in his thirties, who is autistic. His parents did all the research, determined which vaccines he recieved as an infant, and found that he had never recieved any of the vaccines that, supposedly, cause autism.

It just happens and no one knows why. It is not hereditary, not in my family, my friends family, nor any family I have ever talked to that had an autistic child. It just happens that God, Allah, Jim Jones, whoever you believe in, decided that these children would be born different. It's that simple.

Anytime you see anything that starts with "studies show", be carefull. "Studies" show exactly what the person, company, government, whoever is doing the study, wants it to show. If you do some checking you will find that there are just as many "studies" that show that childhood vaccines are perfectly safe and have no side effects. Again, they show what whoever is doing the "study" want them to show. You shouldn't read to much into them.











Fletch, RE: Loser Pays
Amen!!

Another point on the loser pays system that I don't believe you covered, is "pay outs". Right now, many... MANY... businesses facing lawsuits decide to simply settle out-of-court rather than defend themselves in court. It has nothing to do with guilt of liability. Rather, paying a $2 million settlement in the first 3mo's of litigation is far cheaper than defending against a suit which may take several years and several million more dollars, even if they win.

The sad fact is that most (as I understand it) lawsuits never make it to court. They are settled so that the companies can cut their loses, get it over with, and get back to business. Of course, this is a boon to the litigators.

A lose pays system would actually -encourage- businesses to defend themselves against lawsuits rather than just rolling over and coughing up the dough. As greater percentages of lawsuits are won by businesses, and complainants go broke, maybe, just maybe, the "culture of litigation" will finally wither away and American companies can get back to business.

America's Peculiar Legal System
All one has to consider is the legal system works very well for anyone who has big bucks to pay and push their desires. Corruption is the vechile that makes this system work all too well for any matter at hand. I know we have much to fear, because corruption is a very huge and violent force. This is the force that will pave our contry's road to Hell.

Agree in theory...
While I agree in theory with Mr. Stossel's column that some tort reform is in order, there are a few problems with the thimerasol issue. Anyone who injects a known neurotoxin into day old babies should be held accountable. If there is ANY question as to it's safety, they should err on the side of caution. Parents want to see double blind studies by INDEPENDENT researchers when it comes to things like that.

The difference between mercury laced vaccines and other products is that the vaccines are required by law for children to enter school. We are legally required to inject our children with a mercury preservative just to send them off to kindergarten. I don't have a problem with vaccines so much as legally madating their injection. I think if our government is going to require all our children be injected that they should make allowances for the ones it hurts or kills and their families.

As to whether or not it is profitable anymore for drug companies to manufacture vaccines, which other product are you required to purchase before you can be allowed to send your kids to school or receive public benefits? I realize they have large R&D costs, but my last visit to the doctor for shots the bill was almost $400 for the shots alone. Most people don't ask because "it's free--insurance pays for it!" If you ask me legally requiring millions of people to buy your vaccine products is brilliant and highly profitable!

Get Over It -- No Thimerosal Link
I love the snide "Maybe you should have some experience with an autistic child" comment -- as if that has anything to do with it at all.
Well, my wife and I are both physicians, and we are also the proud parents of a little boy with autism. And we are also able to recognize good as well as phony research.
This ridiculous "30% drop in California cases of autism" is easily explained by changes in reporting due to school/services enrollment, and don't represent a drop in new cases. The autism "epidemic" occurred nearly immediately following a widening criteria for the diagnosis by the DSM-IV back in 1994, along a significant rise in awareness amongst health care providers. And guess what? The rise in cases of autism in California nearly exactly parallels the drop in diagnoses of mental retardation! The fact is, that many cases of MR had been actually undiagnosed ASD. The data was published in Pediatrics this Spring.
Also, there are multiple very large epidemiologic studies from the UK, Scandinavia, and most recently in Montreal (published this past month in Pediatrics) that thoroughly repute any link between ASD and vaccines, and there are more to come.
Face it. You're being duped by lawyers and phony alternative therapy (ex: chelation) practitioners who are making a mint off of parents who desperately want a cure.
You can cherry-pick and choose you're studies which "clearly show" links, but these studies have all been found to have serious methodologic flaws and conflicts of interest, and have not been replicated. But, the Kool-Aid sure tastes good, though, doesn't it?
I could go on and on, but you get the picture. I anxiously await the typical "well he's obviously in the pocket of Big Pharma" blah, blah, blah...
The "I have an autistic child and it is painful and you should walk a mile in my shoes" mantra is weak. You may know someone who has gotten "miraculously better" on fad therapies, but remember: The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

"Assumption Of Risk"....
Seems to me, if a Lawyer had the credentials to perform an operation, the lawyer would have a contract so tight that any possibility of risk would be waved by the person getting the operation. Medical Doctors already have Paralegals in the examination room during a procedure and when the description of risk takes place, that "Extra Person" drives up the price of each visit.
The next logical steep is to have a lawyer to contract and obtain a waver to enter as a judgment in the medical procedure before the operation is performed. Reasonable risk has gone out the window with lottery mania, let’s sue and see if we can make it big.
The chance of change of the laws by any legislature is ridiculous, why would a legislature filled with lawyers enact a law that in essence would kill their cash cow. Legislature and lawyers would kill their mother's before they would touch their cash cow.

There is no link
For Celtic Dragon, there is NO link between thimerosal and Autistic spectrum disorders. All of the research has demonstrated this, and it is not some big government or big pharma conspiracy, unless every government in the world is involved.
Thimerosal is not mercury. To campare the two as you do is not science.
The most recent large scale Canadian study shows an increase rate of Autistic disorders in children after thimerosal was removed from all vaccines.
The increase of cases of Autism are also increased by expanding the Autistic spectrum disorders criteria, as was done in the DSM-IV in 1994 adding Asperger's disorder to the spectrum.
A number of epidemiologic studies stating an increase were flawed, based on school reports, in which every child with any developmental problems was labeled as autistic to obtain funding and services, although they were never evaluated or diagnosed with autism, and medical records not evaluated.
I have studied all of the research, and there is only a hypothetical link, mainly put out by lawyers, activists and grieving parents, and this link has not had any major evidence for, and almost all of the evidence against the link.

Law suits make us unsafe
Something even worse has happened.

The drug companies have manipulated the system to the point that instead of the system protecting the patient / consumer, it is protecting rogue companies, and allows those companies to "rape and pillage" with impunity.

The drug companies are continually coming out with "new and improved" drugs.

Those drugs are often not new, and seldom improved, only more expensive.

This leads to much pain and more comfort, and the unethical enrichment of the drug companies.

confused
no I was right, it was Celtic-dragon. My apologies. done with posting

Correction
I was wrong...it was Flagwaver that had it right. I am still learning to read these comments!

Big Disappointment
John, I am really disappointed in this. Did you get money from the pham. companies to write this? I agree that lawsuits are out of control, but then again, having a son with Autism, and watching not only the change take place after a set of vaccinations, but seeing the reaction he had from those vaccinations, I have to say that I disagree with you on the part about autism. I think the key phrase that got me was "government-issued review". Do you believe that it could be true? I think not. And for the record, I have doctors that agree my son's problem stems from a reaction to the vaccine, and he has a medical exemption from all vaccines now. Did I sue anyone? No. I just deal with it as I go. Most of the time, sueing requires money and time, of which I don't have much of. Imagine, though, if ALL the families with children who had reactions did sue... then you would have something to write about. Fortunately for the Big Pharm. Companies, most of us don't sue. Celtic-Dragon was right on with her/his comments. Why don't you do a piece on this instead? Don't you think that the Pharm. companies COULD be hiding something??

Flagwaver
Right you are. Abuse of the legal system to get lottery style payouts has hurt innovation and denied consumers the ability to obtain useful products. Yet, it is also the only remedy that injured parties have to seek redress from industries that have acted recklessly, or even just did something in ignorance. I cannot demand that the CEO of Merck meet me at dawn and bring a choice of pistols or sword, no matter how attractive that sounds. We are left with the option of bringing these companies to court and making them defend their decisions to keep using a substance that has been banned from Japan, Great Britain, Denmark, Austria and all of Scandinavia. We feel that science is on our side, especilly considering that studies SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to rule out links between autism and Thimerosal were all conducted by drug industry researchers. Independant studies, as well as some internal studies from the drug industry not intended for public consumption back us up. In 1935, vaccinne manufacturer Pittman-Moore warned Eli Lilly that Thimerosal was unsafe after half of their test dogs became sick. Pittman-Moore went on to declare Thimerosal as "unsafe" for animal vaccinations. So what about our children?

A Sensible Reform
When I'm fined for speeding, the state collects the fine and I learn my lesson. Why not allow plaintiffs to collect compensatory damages and let the state collect the punative damages. The government is the one with the authority to punish and should collect the "fine" represented by the punative damages. Then the trial lawyers couldn't get rich playing lotto with the system and actual victims would be made whole when they collect their compensatory damages. Of course compensatory damages would have to include the reasonable legal fees necessary to pursue the action when successful.

Celtic-dragon
I am willing to concede that you may very well be right about Thimorosal, as you have obviously researched it and I have not, I think that you are focusing too much on one specific and not on the bigger picture of the column. The bigger picture is that the fear of lawsuits is hurting the American consumer; you see it in the products that are not made available and you see it in the healthcare industry. When you can have lawyers like John Edwards arguing that cerebal palsy is caused by some undefined maplractice by doctors and win huge amounts of money in jury awards, something is wrong. I don't advocate taking away anybody's day in court, but I think there must be some standard for what cases actually get to trial, and there should be some penalty for bringing frivolous lawsuits. I also think that the penalties should be borne mostly by the lawyers, because they are the ones that press lawsuits that may have no merit because a win or settlement benefits them more than their clients.As I see it, that is the basic argument the Mr. Stossel was trying to make with this article, not to defend pharmaceutical companies.

Shakespeare
Shakespeare said it best in Henry VI, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

For Randomthoughts
Throwing the bums out will be of no value so long as we simply get new bums that do the same thing.

Is there a baby in the bath water?
The paralyzing consequences of lawsuits that you cite are serious and real. I can't help thinking, however, that sometimes lawsuits do keep people more honest, or at least achieve some measure of justice, and aside from the monetary aspects, allow the aggrieved party to be vindicated in an official judgment. The problem seems to be with the size of the awards, the unpredictability of jury decisions, and the difficulty in punishing frivolous lawsuits. More tort reform is required. Isn't it time to remove juries from the task of determining damages?

No link with Autism?
Maybe you should experience having a child with Autism, Mr. Stossel. You don't mention the voluminous research done from the 1940's until the present day that demonstrates damage to nerve tissue with ANY exposure to mercury. You fail to mention the rise in rates of ASD or Autism Spectum Disorder stayed in lockstep with state mandated increases in vaccinations, or that California experienced a thirty percent drop in new cases of ASD after banning Thimerosal. Some Repuplicans have noticed, however. Rep Dan Burton has an autistic grandson, and he is asking questions. This isn't a conservative vs liberal thing, nor is it about the trial lawyers. This is about a generation of our children being poisoned with Mercury, one of the most toxic substances we know of. We, the parents, are sick and tired of the lies, the "reviews" conducted by Big Pharm employed scientists and the stonewalling. We are demanding the release of epidemiologic data held by the CDC on 100,000 children injected with Thimerosal laced vaccines. We call upon this government to follow the lead of other nations in banning this poison from our medicene. The former Soviet Union banned it 20 years ago! To quote Dr. Boyd Haley, head of the Chemistry Dept. at the University of Kentucky and also a toxicologist and expert on Mercury, "You couldn't even construct a study that shows that Thimerosal is safe. It's just too darn toxic. If you inject Thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage".

The "assumption of risk"....
...once this was removed from court noone was responsible for themselves...

Legal Mess
Just remember that 90% of government action is to deal with the unforeseen problems of previous government action. Any fix that our government makes will most likely make the problem worse.

Until we throw the bums out that play footsie in Washington, the lawyers will never allow true change.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.