Vaccine Court

The so-called vaccine court is a small special court in the United States Court of Federal Claims that handles controversial claims that a vaccine has harmed someone. While vaccines in general are extremely safe and effective, some people still suffer severe vaccine reactions and bring their claims to vaccine court. In this court, lawyers, activists, judges, doctors, and scientists come together, sometimes arguing bitterly, trying to figure out whether a vaccine really caused a person’s medical problem. In Vaccine Court, Anna Kirkland draws on the trials of the vaccine court to explore how legal institutions resolve complex scientific questions. What are vaccine injuries, and how do we come to recognize them? What does it mean to transform these questions into a legal problem and funnel them through a special national vaccine court, as we do in the U.S.? What does justice require for vaccine injury claims, and how can we deliver it? These are highly contested questions, and the terms in which they have been debated over the last forty years are highly revealing of deeper fissures in our society over motherhood, community, health, harm, and trust in authority. While many scholars argue that it’s foolish to let judges and lawyers decide medical claims about vaccines, Kirkland argues that our political and legal response to vaccine injury claims shows how well legal institutions can handle specialized scientific matters. Vaccine Court is an accessible and thorough account of what the vaccine court is, why we have it, and what it does.

A hard look at the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and the families desperately trying to navigate their way through it. The Vaccine Court looks at the mysterious and often unknown world of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), the only recourse for seeking compensation for those who have been injured by a vaccine. The NVICP, better known as the ”Vaccine Court,” however, is not without controversy. Established by Congress as a direct result of the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, the NVICP was supposed to offer a no-fault alternative to the traditional injury claims filed in state or federal courts and was to provide quick, efficient, and fair compensation for those who have been injured by vaccines. The reality, however, is that many cases take several years or longer to complete and require tremendous commitment from families already pushed to the brink of bankruptcy caring for the vaccine-injured family member, only to discover that the end result is manipulated by the government in defense of the US vaccine policy. Mr. Rohde looks into the inner workings of the US Federal Claims Court and the NVICP. He interviews families who have filed petitions and won compensation, families who have been denied compensation, and families still waiting for a decision. By highlighting the journeys of these families—their efforts to find attorneys willing to represent them, the filing of their petitions, and the subsequent mountain of paperwork, medical records, and other documents that span years—Mr. Rohde exposes the bitter truth behind the NVICP. Through his thoughtful interviews and fact-finding research, The Vaccine Court sheds light on how the NVICP has evolved into something far more treacherous than what Congress envisioned with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986.

Reveals the truth behind the controversial issue of vaccine-related injuries. Proponents declare that vaccines have saved millions of lives. Critics claim that the success is overstated and that vaccines may even be dangerous. Many consider mandatory vaccinations a violation of individual rights or religious principles. Many in public health argue that vaccine mandates are critical and justified and that antivaccination sentiment has resulted in outbreaks of preventable childhood illnesses. Vaccine critics point to mainstream medicine’s denial of and underreporting of vaccine injury. Vaccine injuries have happened in the past and continue to happen today, and neither the mainstream medical establishment nor the government has ever fully and transparently addressed the issue of vaccine injury. In the 1980s, the United States addressed individual cases of vaccine injury by establishing the NVICP—the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program—a controversial Department of Health and Human Services program. The NVICP was intended to be “non-adversarial, compassionate, and generous” to vaccine-injury victims. However, many vaccine-injury victims and safety advocates believe that the program is not functioning as intended. There are also concerns that the program is keeping the reality of vaccine injury from public inspection. Vaccine Injuries, a groundbreaking book in the field, reveals cases of vaccine injury from the NVICP—something that has never been offered to the public—and lets readers asses vaccine injuries for themselves.

The United States is facing a vaccine shortage that may threaten public health. This book examines vaccine research and development, production and supply, and utilization and offers recommendations aimed at ensuring vaccine supply and promoting innovation. In addition, this comprehensive volume provides information on the adverse reactions associated with the range of vaccines used in the United States and contains the most thorough analysis ever published on the state of the law regarding vaccine-related injury and compensation for vaccine injury.

Vaccines have saved more lives than any other single medical advance. Yet today only four companies make vaccines, and there is a growing crisis in vaccine availability. Why has this happened? This remarkable book recounts for the first time a devastating episode in 1955 at Cutter Laboratories in Berkeley, California, thathas led many pharmaceutical companies to abandon vaccine manufacture. Drawing on interviews with public health officials, pharmaceutical company executives, attorneys, Cutter employees, and victims of the vaccine, as well as on previously unavailable archives, Dr. Paul Offit offers a full account of the Cutter disaster. He describes the nation's relief when the polio vaccine was developed by Jonas Salk in 1955, the production of the vaccine at industrial facilities such as the one operated by Cutter, and the tragedy that occurred when 200,000 people were inadvertently injected with live virulent polio virus: 70,000 became ill, 200 were permanently paralyzed, and 10 died. Dr. Offit also explores how, as a consequence of the tragedy, one jury's verdict set in motion events that eventually suppressed the production of vaccines already licensed and deterred the development of new vaccines that hold the promise of preventing other fatal diseases.

Kent Heckenlively, New York Times bestselling author of Plague of Corruption, calls upon both common sense and legal precedence to fight against vaccine mandates around the country. "My body, my choice!" used to be the rallying cry of the left in the abortion fight. But now this same principle of bodily autonomy is the central argument of conservatives, such as that of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in fierce opposition to so-called "vaccine passports," which would limit whether an individual could attend movies or other public events, work, or even go to school, if they chose to decline a COVID-19 vaccine. While cities like New York close their doors to unvaccinated people, the fight against vaccine mandates is cobbling together an unexpected alliance across the political spectrum, such as the Black mayor of Boston, Kim Janey, who recently claimed, "there's a long history" in this country of people "needing to show their papers" and declaring any such passport as akin to slavery. The starting point agreed upon by all parties as to whether the government can bring such pressure to bear upon individuals is the 1905 US Supreme Court of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In that case, a Lutheran pastor declined a smallpox vaccination and was fined $5, the equivalent of a little more than $150 in today's currency, or less than many traffic tickets. The Jacobson case sparked a shameful legacy in American jurisprudence, being used as the sole reasoning by the US Supreme Court to allow the forced sterilization of a female psychiatric patient in 1927. This ruling paved the way for the involuntary sterilization of more than sixty thousand mental patients and gave legal justification to the eugenics movement, one of the darkest chapters in American medicine. In The Case Against Vaccine Mandates, New York Times bestselling author Kent Heckenlively, whose books have courageously taken on Big Pharma, Google, and Facebook, now points his razor sharp legal and literary skills against vaccine passports and mandates, which he believes to be the defining issue as to whether we continue to exist as a free and independent people.

Public health officials state that vaccines are safe and effective, but the truth is far more complicated. Vaccination is a serious medical intervention that always carries the potential to injure and cause death as well as to prevent disease. Coercive vaccination policies deprive people of free and informed consent—the hallmark of ethical medicine. Americans are increasingly concerned about vaccine safety and the right to make individual, informed choices together with their healthcare practitioners. Vaccine Epidemic focuses on the searing debate surrounding individual and parental vaccination choice in the United States. Habakus, Holland, and Rosenberg edit and introduce a diverse array of interrelated topics concerning the explosive vaccine controversy, including the ethics of vaccination mandates, corrupting conflicts of interest in the national vaccine program, and personal narratives of parents, children, and soldiers who have suffered vaccine injury. Newly updated with additional chapters focusing on institutional scientific misconduct, mandates for healthcare workers, concerns about HPV vaccine development, and the story behind the Supreme Court’s recent vaccine decision, Vaccine Epidemic remains the essential handbook for the vaccination choice movement and required reading for all people contemplating vaccination for themselves and their children.

Parents have come to depend on vaccines to protect their children from a variety of diseases. Some evidence suggests, however, that vaccination against pertussis (whooping cough) and rubella (German measles) is, in a small number of cases, associated with increased risk of serious illness. This book examines the controversy over the evidence and offers a comprehensively documented assessment of the risk of illness following immunization with vaccines against pertussis and rubella. Based on extensive review of the evidence from epidemiologic studies, case histories, studies in animals, and other sources of information, the book examines: The relation of pertussis vaccines to a number of serious adverse events, including encephalopathy and other central nervous system disorders, sudden infant death syndrome, autism, Guillain-Barre syndrome, learning disabilities, and Reye syndrome. The relation of rubella vaccines to arthritis, various neuropathies, and thrombocytopenic purpura. The volume, which includes a description of the committee's methods for evaluating evidence and directions for future research, will be important reading for public health officials, pediatricians, researchers, and concerned parents.