WP: Trial Lawyers Tie (pandemic) Vaccine Funding to Liability

Vaccine Funding Tied to Liability
Trial Lawyers Say Move Would Hurt Consumers
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 17, 2005; Page D01


Legislation that would pour billions of dollars into the production of vaccines against avian flu and other pandemic diseases is threatened by the trial lawyers' lobby, which objects to proposed limits onlawsuits against drug manufacturers.

Republican congressional leaders, acting at the urging of President Bush, hope to approve a measure soon that would appropriate about $7 billion to pay for vaccines that would combat a flu epidemic and biological attacks by terrorists. The bill could begin moving on Capitol Hill this week.

But the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and some of its Democratic allies in Congress are working to scuttle or drastically transform the effort, asserting that anti-lawsuit language in the bill would so broadly indemnify pharmaceutical companies against suits that consumers' rights would be denied.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the Senate's chief advocate for strict liability protections, asserted that the companies need to be thoroughly indemnified against suits to provide enough of an incentive for them to make vaccines, which tend to be low-profit products.

The conflict will almost certainly lead to fireworks during debate on the floor of the House and the Senate and could delay the legislation itself, which is a Bush priority, lobbyists and congressional aides said....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602238.html

I have heard that this vaccine has been associated with a number of bad reactions including psychological effects on the vaccinated. If you are familiar with or have ever felt paranoid after taking CIPRO, I think it MAY be similar to that. There could be some unintended consequences for some who take it. I'm not a doctor so don't take my word for it.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:soClBMKA4q4J:biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/bt/smallpox/pdf_homeland_security_liability_provisions_fact_sheet.pdf+security+bill+%2Bvaccine+protection&hl=en

<snip>Subtitle G of the bill (sections 861–865) provides legal immunity to sellers of “qualified anti-terrorism technologies” designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Qualified technologies can include a vast array of products, ranging from detection devices to medical products. Even “services” such as security services can be considered qualified technologies.

Subtitle G establishes a three-tiered scheme of protection to sellers of any product or service which is designed or adapted to prevent, detect, identify, deter, or limit the harm of terrorism. The first tier of protection gives “government contractor” immunity to corporations selling anti-terrorism technologies for claims arising from an act of terrorism. To be eligible for this immunity, a seller must submit its product design for approval by the Secretary, who is
exclusively responsible for determining whether the product will perform as intended, conforms to the seller’s specifications, and is safe for use as intended. Once a product is approved and placed on an “Approved Product List for Homeland Security,” the seller enjoys a nearly absolute presumption of immunity. This presumption can only be overcome if a plaintiff shows that the seller acted fraudulently or with willful misconduct in submitting information to the Secretary
prior to its approval. This immunity applies not only to goods and services sold to the government, but also to those sold to the general public. <snip>

<snip>The net effect of Subtitle G is to effectively eliminate the ability of Americans to obtain compensation for harm caused by “anti-terrorism technologies,” even in cases of willful misconduct.<snip>

Anyone know about Blackwater or CACI 'services'?