Homeland Security and the Pharmaceutical industry...

bonkey

The following is from the editorial of the Feb 2003 Scientific American :

Critics may gripe about whether the new Homeland Security Act fights terrorism well, but no one can say it doesn't do a great job of protecting drug companies from autistic children.
A short provision at the end of the act, added quietly just days before its passage, exempts Eli Lilly and other firms from direct civil litigation over whether vaccine additives cause autism.

The article goes on to say :

No-one - not Eli Lilly, not administration officials, not committee members who oversaw the bill - will admit to having inserted the vaccine rider. It just appeared - a Thanksgiving miracle for drugmakers

Now, there has been a lot of talk about the various bills which were introduced following the September 11th atrocities. We have heard that the kneejerk reactions were used to put through various measures eroding civil liberties, etc. All valid arguments.....but there was - at least - always a counter-argument which could give some level of validity to the laws.

This one however, has me stumped.

Anyone care to offer a suggestion as to how preventing the public suing the drug companies for events which occurred in the past is in any way connected to Homeland Security?????

jc

Hobbes

Saw this before it got passed.

From what I could gather of the spin, the reason it is in is to stop most of the US population sueing companies that were supplying vaccines for bio/chemical attacks.

For example, Cipro is has almost the same side effects as Anthrax (except the 'kills you' part), yet it was shouted out around the time of the anthrax attacks as the drug to take despite there being cheaper and safer drugs to take to protect against anthrax.

Bayer made massive amounts of money off that free advertising, and now doesn't have to worry about all the people who took it.

But again, the reason is to protect companies. After all who would mass produce a vaccine for the US if they realised they could have the pants sued off them?

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
After all who would mass produce a vaccine for the US if they realised they could have the pants sued off them?

This is what I'm trying to figure out though. The bill appears to be saying that its okay - in this example - to produce a vaccine that causes autism in kids, as long as it protects people from something nasty....

Not only that, but isnt it also saying that any vaccine already marketed which has such deleterious side effects is also ok...no need to take it off the shelves, or indeed hold the company responsible, because hey, its a vaccine and thats important.

Seriously...if the rest of the medical industry were run this way, it would be a complete farce. We'd be back in the days where going to the doctor was limited to absolute necessity cause he was as likely to do more damage as he was to improve things.

jc

Hobbes

That's very Un-American of you Bonkey! Please report to the nearst homeland security center for re-education.

Thought you would be more intrested in the fact the bill extended some airline insurance policies by a year (if the terminated recently) and cut down on the amount of cash a passenger could get due to airline negligence.