Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique Products & Services On Earth!


Autism Ideas - Part 4 -
The Vaccine Court As Such

By Mary W Maxwell, PhD
Upfront disclosure: I am a maniac for the separation of powers. At the founding of our nation, some limited powers were given by the 13 states to the Federal government. They are very clearly listed in the Constitution (e.g., the coining of money, the making of treaties, the raising of an army). "Guarding the public's health" does not happen to be one of the federal powers. It's not listed in the Constitution of 1787, nor has it ever been added thereto by amendment. No amount of legislation by Congress can alter that plain fact.
So, please take my chat below about the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, or my apparent going along with other crazy federal nonsense, to be just that ­ a 'going along with nonsense.' Having made my statement about the unconstitutionality of federal involvement in health, I shall not further argue it, turning instead to an exposition of the Vaccine Court. (Actually, to be honest, the separation of powers problem might slip back into the conversation, but the intent here is to describe the 'law' as it stands. -- See? There I go with the innuendos!)
Because the Constitution assigned Congress the task, or at least gave Congress the power, to "establish tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court," a law was passed by the very first Congress -- The Judiciary Act. It announced that federal district courts would come into existence. The subject matter brought to those courts, whether civil or criminal had, of course, to be of a federal nature. (Nope, you can't trip me up; I'm not going to 'go there.')
This proper legislative enactment, The Judiciary Act of 1789, contains, in its original wording, some interesting points, such as the requirement for clerks of court to take an oath "that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all the orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of the said court," and furthermore ­ get a load of this: "the said clerks shall also severally give bond, with sufficient suretiesto the United States, in the sum of two thousand dollars, faithfully to discharge the duties of his office." Brilliant, no? (and two thousand then would be like a krillion now).
The Act also limited the jurisdiction of the district court to lesser crimes, such as those for which "no other punishment than whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes is to be inflicted."
Interruption -- Islamic Law alert! Your humble writer had recalled the basic phrase "not exceeding thirty stripes," but needed to get the exact quote from the Judiciary Act, so I put "not exceeding 30 stripes" into the search engine, and lo and behold, up came the 1979 text of Pakistan's Zina law which says: "Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable under this Ordinance, shall be punished with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes." (Well, we all came from the same seed, didn't we?)
Over the next two centuries, Congress set up some additional courts. For instance, today we have an immigration court and a bankruptcy court. (Don't get me started on that latter one, but do listen to Sherman Skolnick's yellings on the subject.) In 1986 we got the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Court. It comes under the supervision of the United States Court of Federal Claims.
Normally a government does not allow itself to be sued by anyone, although it may 'grant leave' for this to happen in a particular case. That is, it may waive its sovereign immunity. As of 1948, Congress decided to allow anyone to sue the United States in civil actions for torts, if federal employees have been negligent (you slip on a banana peel sort of thing). As published in the Code, at 28 USC 1346, you can sue "under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred."
Yet in the vaccine saga, the person who does the neglecting is not the government; it is the manufacturers of the vaccine, perhaps, or the doctor or nurse who went a jab too far. The only way the feds got to create this court was on the justification that the vaccine recipient, that is, the jabee, was doing a public good. (Not to be immunized is to run up the chances of getting a disease and spreading it to others?) So those persons who suffered can ask for compensation in these special courts.
Qualifications for an award are as follows:
The claimant (technically called "the petitioner") must be a child, not an adult.
The injury must have occurred shortly after the jab (but up to 30 days if paralytic polio).
The claim must be filed within 36 months of injury.
The court must rule on the case within 8 months.
Unusual aspects of the litigation are as follows:
'Discovery' is not available (you can't subpoena your opponent's records).
Instead of judges, there are 'special masters,' appointed for four-year renewable terms.
Attorneys can be paid even if the case does not win. (A lose-win situation for law firms!)
The injured party can opt to reject an award (presumably hoping for more $$); if he does, he's then allowed to sue manufacturers in regular state court (state? did someone say 'state? Yay!)
Payments are as follows:
The average award as of 2010 was $822,000, the top award being $4.9 million.
The 'pain and suffering' component of the calculation is capped at $250,000.
All death cases are paid exactly $250,000. (This figure is the same as it was in 1986.)
Congress ordered that the claims be handled "quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity." The 'ease' comes from the fact that no individual has to prove her case, provided she meets the factors listed on the "Vaccine Table." Thus, many cases are for a foregone conclusion. For example, if the injury sustained after a vaccination is encephalopathy, chronic arthritis, paralytic polio, etc. (but not autism), the case will be paid. If the child's injury is not shown on the Table, she may yet prove vaccine causality 'on the balance of probabilities.'
A great increase in the number of new autism diagnoses in the US began around 1990. (At present it is more that 1 per 100 births.) Many parents told their doctors that trouble started soon after the MMR immunization (a combined injection of vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella ­ rubella is also called German measles). The immediate reaction included such things as fever, listlessness, crying, and diarrhea; a further reaction included standard symptoms of autism, such as loss of acquired speech, social withdrawal, and self-harm.
Since autism did not appear on the Vaccine Table, there was no guarantee of payment. Persons wishing to pursue a claim had to prove the causal link between the vaccination and the illness. By 2008, nearly 5000 families were saying that the MMR vaccine had caused their child to have a developmental disorder along the "Autism Spectrum." The court decided that it would combine all autism claims into one, calling it the Omnibus Autism Proceedings.
Remember these masters of the court are not physicians or chemists, and yet their task now, since the Table could not be employed, was to make a determination as to causality. They divided the Omnibus claims into two groups. One group claimed that thimerosal, a preservative used to give vaccines shelf life (i.e., to kill bacteria), was the culprit. Another group claimed that it was specifically the mercury, within the thimerosal, that was doing the damage.
The result of all this, except for the Hannah Poling case and some others that got quietly paid, was that the Omnibus claims were defeated en masse. Three judges heard the first group by using "test cases." The selected children in the first group were: Michelle Cedillo, Colten Snyder, and Yates Hazlehurst. This test case lost, no 'causality' having been found. The court had the gall to rebuke doctors for having misled the parents!
Two of those first three appealed to the Circuit Court and lost. The second group had William Mead, Jordan King, and Colin Dwyer as its representative children. That case lost and they did not appeal. One thing that seems likely is that the attorneys would not have quite the same get up and go that they'd have if their remuneration depended on a win for the claimants! Another thing is that the parents probably threw in the towel when they heard that the main expert witness physician (opposing them) was not subjected to cross-examination.
That said, it came to light that an autistic child named Hannah Poling had received a $1.5 million payment. (Her case is No. 02-1166v, 2002 WL 1883059. Fed Cl April 10, 2008). The explanation the government has provided is that her case, which was slated to be one in that first group of test cases, had received a 'concession,' meaning that it was conceded that the vaccine was the cause of her injury. The conceding entity was the US Department of Health and Human Services.
(Note: I have lived abroad for a along time and did not realize that our Department of Health ­ whose unconstitutionality I have 'committed' not to mention -- and which verb I would never use intransitively -- has added a phrase "and Human Services." What the Sam Hill are human services? And why do we need the word 'human' there? Would anyone think the 'Department of Health and Services' was referring to goat services?)
Now then, if you know the judicial routine (that which whistleblower Eustace Mullins aptly called "The Rape of Justice"), you will be able to discern the meaning of the Poling concession. First let's describe it. This lovely child, they said, had a pre-existing condition ­ something to do with mitochondria (but I believe anything would have sufficed). The Department of HHS ­ let's not spell it out, it irritates me, just call it DHHS ­ said that, yes, it was the thimerosal and what it did was aggravate Hannah's condition.
Hence the case does not 'open the floodgates' ­ not many children have that pre-existing condition. Let's look at the government report (may we please just call it 'government report'? even the acronym could make me go postal at the moment):
"The facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations the child received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder."
If I am correct, the wierdo's who like to get citizens riled up went out of their way to say that although Hannah received 9 antigens that day, it was the 3 in the MMR component that harmed her. They also stated that she does have autism, not just the qualifying encephalopathy. Yet the website of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program continues to say: "HHS has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by
vaccination."(See Mary Holland,"Unanswered Questions" at digitalcommons.pace.edu.)
Having thus far held my tongue, I now say that I am sure the entire affair is a psy-op. Caveat: I do tend to say that about a lot of things, and at times I say it recklessly -- though this is not one of those times. A psy-op, that is, a 'psychological operation' is usually designed to make everyone feel impotent and agitated. In this case it was probably meant, additionally, to waste the parents' time ­ if you can in your wildest dreams imagine anyone being so mean as to do that to the nation's most time-pressed families.
Here are three more complaints (from our customer service department, or our goat services, or whatever). First, there should never have been a vaccine court. Shielding the pharmaceutical industry from liability is plainly daft, not to say disgusting. One of the excuses given was that if we didn't protect their bottom line ­ one wants to say 'or their bottoms,' but don't worry, one won't ­ they would stop making vaccines and we would be left with a dangerous situation.
Second, even if a tribunal were needed, to cover a particular problem, why abandon the principle of transparency? Just as I was sending my book to press, "Prosecution for Treason: Weather War, Epidemics, and Mind Control," I got nervous about the fact that, on page 40, I had retailed Dr Andrew Wakefield's remark that there are 'secret' vaccine courts in the US. Naturally I should not report things second-hand like that. I should have checked. But I was down to the wire, so I let it go. Turns out he was right; the vaccine court is secretive indeed.
Third, no amount of payment will 'compensate' the child. What an awful word! But then, as I have hinted elsewhere, I strongly suspect autism is intentional, part of a big war against the people. (I am certain that the military deliberately harms our soldiers, including via injections.)
So the goings-on in the Claims Court are not what we should be concentrating on. As far as identifying the baddies, however, some people associated with the courts, and also with the goats, need to be interrogated. Pronto.
Mary W Maxwell, PhD, can be contacted at credosbooks.com, which is a blog page run by her wonderful publisher Trineday.
Donate to Rense.com
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At Rense.com
Subscribe To RenseRadio!
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files, 
Highest Quality Live Programs


This Site Served by TheHostPros