But let me ask this, that immunity can't be unrestricted immunity, it only covers Properly Manufactured vaccines, right? If for example a vaccine manufacture knowing distributed a contaminated vaccine, that would not be covered under the act. And the act has requirements that must be met by the manufacture to qualify for immunity.
*Note that I know nothing on this subject, I am just trying to pose some counter thought to your statement of immunity. *
Informed consent and adverse event reporting.
For example, the act required that providers administering certain vaccines provide a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) to the vaccine recipient or a legal guardian. The VIS lists the risks and benefits of a particular vaccine. The NCVIA also established a system for reporting suspected vaccine-related adverse events (VAERS.)
Now consider that they are not disclosing the true risk of vaccine, and are exaggerating the benefit, and the CDC is not reporting true adverse events in VAERS, it seems to me that they have not lived up to the deal. In other words, that have not meet the requirements for immunity as stated in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), or the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
But let me ask this, that immunity can't be unrestricted immunity, it only covers Properly Manufactured vaccines, right? If for example a vaccine manufacture knowing distributed a contaminated vaccine, that would not be covered under the act. And the act has requirements that must be met by the manufacture to qualify for immunity.
*Note that I know nothing on this subject, I am just trying to pose some counter thought to your statement of immunity. * Informed consent and adverse event reporting.
For example, the act required that providers administering certain vaccines provide a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) to the vaccine recipient or a legal guardian. The VIS lists the risks and benefits of a particular vaccine. The NCVIA also established a system for reporting suspected vaccine-related adverse events (VAERS.)
Now consider that they are not disclosing the true risk of vaccine, and are exaggerating the benefit, and the CDC is not reporting true adverse events in VAERS, it seems to me that they have not lived up to the deal. In other words, that have not meet the requirements for immunity as stated in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), or the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
But let me ask this, that immunity can't be unrestricted immunity, it only covers Properly Manufactured vaccines, right? If for example a vaccine manufacture knowing distributed a contaminated vaccine, that would not be covered under the act. And the act has requirements that must be met by the manufacture to qualify for immunity.
*Note that I know nothing on this subject, I am just trying to pose some counter thought to your statement of immunity. * Informed consent and adverse event reporting.
For example, the act required that providers administering certain vaccines provide a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) to the vaccine recipient or a legal guardian. The VIS lists the risks and benefits of a particular vaccine. The NCVIA also established a system for reporting suspected vaccine-related adverse events (VAERS.)
Now consider that they are not disclosing the true risk of vaccine, and are exaggerating the benefit, and the CDC is not reporting true adverse events in VAERS, it seems to me that they have not lived up to the deal. In other words, that have not meet the requirements for immunity as stated in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), or the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
#/u/tewdryg