Victims in Japan Sue for Damages Due to Gardasil and Cervarix HPV Vaccines

cervicalcancervaccinesjapan_japannews

The mother of a victim, right, speaks to reporters that she can “appreciate” the government’s decision to maintain its suspension of the government-supported cervical cancer vaccinations. Image source.

Victims of HPV Vaccine in Japan Will Sue State and Vaccine Makers

by Rishma Parpia
The Vaccine Reaction

In the U.S., the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been a subject of controversy from the very beginning after Merck’s Gardasil vaccine was licensed in 2006. [1] Japan is one of the many nations raising concerns about HPV vaccine following persistent reports that girls are suffering severe adverse effects after getting vaccinated. [2]

Controversy Surrounding Safety of HPV Vaccine in Japan

Here is what happened in Japan in a nutshell. In December 2010, the HPV vaccine (both Merck’s Gardasil and Cervarix manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline) was provided at no cost to Japanese girls between the ages of 12-16 years old. In April 2013, the vaccine was officially included in Japan’s national immunization program. However, two months later, Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare publically announced that it had decided to withdraw its HPV vaccine recommendation. [3] The decision was in response to numerous reports that formerly healthy vaccine recipients were experiencing alarming side effects ranging from short-term memory loss to paralysis. [4] In October 2013, a special taskforce was formed to investigate the side effects of the HPV vaccine. [5]

Interestingly, HPV vaccines were not withdrawn from the market in Japan and continued to be available, but local governments, as advised by Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, did not actively promote its use. Girls can still receive the vaccine if they chose to do so but doctors and other vaccine providers must inform them that the health ministry does not recommend it. [6]

The Nationwide Liaison Association of Cervical Cancer Vaccine Victims and Parents in Japan and Dr. Sotaro Sato, director of the Sato Cardiovascular Internal Medicine Hospital in Osaki speculate that the motive behind this decision is more than likely due to:

fear of potential lawsuits being filed by the association on behalf of numerous desperate families whose beloved, previously healthy daughters have been seriously impaired, paralyzed or horribly devastated by HPV vaccinations. Japanese courts would be likely to find health bureaucrats responsible for the serious adverse effects inflicted on the girls if they did not take precautionary measures beforehand and leave some evidence that could later be used to prove they had at least tried to do something to block the further spread of health impairments to upcoming generations of teenage girls.

This would be a particular problem if the government moves to reinstate their recommendation of these vaccines during the current fiscal year ending on 31 March 2014, due to pressure from politicians and academics with financial ties or other links to the vaccine manufacturers, lobbying activities, and consulting ‘experts’ hired by the manufacturers. [7]

Almost three years later, The Japan Times recently reported that a class action lawsuit will be filed after June 2016 against the Japanese government, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline by victims who have suffered severe side effects as a result of receiving the former government recommended vaccine. Twelve plaintiffs will file the lawsuit at four district courts in Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka and Fukuoka.

The plaintiffs are demanding answers as to why they were not informed of the risks of HPV vaccine prior to receiving it. [8] The defense team will be hosting seminars in the next two months in hopes of seeking additional plaintiffs. [8]

Vaccine-Injured Victims Cannot Sue Vaccine Makers in the U.S

Unlike in Japan where vaccine-injured victims can directly file a lawsuit against the state and the vaccine manufacturers, the judicial process in the U.S. for vaccine-injured victims of HPV and other government recommended or mandated vaccines is remarkably different, to say the least.

Under current U.S. federal law, no one can directly sue a vaccine manufacturer in civil court after a vaccine causes the injury or death of a minor child or adult. [9] To understand how this came about, it is important to understand the historical context of this issue.

Back in the early 1980s, parents were filing lawsuits on behalf of their minor children who were damaged or died from reactions to the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DPT) vaccine and the live polio vaccine.

It was during this period when pharmaceutical companies demanded that Congress pass a law protecting them from all product liability from vaccine injuries and deaths by establishing a federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) to compensate vaccine-injured children.11 But with strong opposition from co-founders of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) and other consumers, the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preserved product liability if compensation was denied or there was evidence the drug company could have made a vaccine safer. [10]

NVIC co-founder and president, Barbara Loe Fisher, said:

Parents successfully argued that, if Congress was going to give drug companies partial liability protection through the creation of a federal vaccine injury compensation alternative to a lawsuit, then language had to be written into the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 that protected a citizen’s right to sue drug companies when federal compensation was denied, or the company had the technological ability to make a vaccine less toxic but refused to do it. Continued civil liability was the safety net for American consumers in that law. Continued civil liability was the leverage that gave some financial incentive for drug companies to make vaccines safer and gave some political incentive for government officials to award federal compensation to the vaccine injured.” [10]

Fast-forward to 2011, in a split decision with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting, the U.S. Supreme Court gave complete product liability protection to vaccine manufacturers and banned lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies for injuries and deaths caused by FDA licensed vaccines, even in cases of design defect. The ruling was in response to a 2005 lawsuit filed against Wyeth Inc. (now Pfizer, Inc.) and brought to the high court by the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, who suffered encephalopathy and a residual seizure disorder after being given a third DPT shot in 1992.

Initial claims brought forth by Bruesewitz’s parents under the national VICP in 1995 were rejected driving them to file a civil court lawsuit against Wyeth, Inc. based on design defect. [13] According to American Medical News, the U.S. Supreme Court stated:

The act reflects a sensible choice to leave complex epidemiological judgments about vaccine design to the [Food and Drug Administration] and the National Vaccine Program, rather than juries. [12]

So, now, unlike the original National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 that gave plaintiffs the option to sue drug companies when denied federal compensation, today Americans are restricted from suing vaccine manufacturers and instead are required to sue the Secretary of DHHS by filing a vaccine injury claim through the VICP. [12]

The 2011 Supreme Court ruling was a corporate bailout of vaccine manufacturers that excused the industry from any sort of accountability, leaving them with no incentive to make vaccines safer.10 The increasing number of states mandating more vaccines and restricting or removing vaccine exemptions, together with the failures of the VICP and Pharma’s total liability shield, is leading to more widespread questioning of U.S. vaccine policies and laws.

The fact that vaccine victims in Japan (and other countries) have the legal right to hold pharmaceutical companies liable for the safety of their products in civil court and vaccine victims in the U.S. do not, is adding more fuel to the debate about vaccine safety and choice.

References:

1 National Vaccine Information Center. Merck’s Gardasil Vaccine Not Proven Safe for Little Girls. NVIC Press Release June 27, 2006.
2 Mulcahy N. Japan Withdraws HPV Vaccine Recommendation for Girls–Updated.Medscape Medical News Jun. 25 2013.
3 Hanely S, Yoshioka E, Ito Y, Kishi R. HPV Vaccination Crisis in Japan. The Lancet2015; 385 (9987): 2571.
4 The Tokyo Times. Side Effects in Young Girls Takes Gardasil Out From Japanese Market. The Tokyo Times.
5 Erickson N. Japan and the HPV Controversy. Sanevax.org Apr.8, 2014.
6 HPV Vaccine Seen Differently By Japan and the U.S. The Tokyo Times.
7 Erickson N. HPV Vaccines: Japan Requires Disclosure of Side Effects. Sanevax.orgAug. 29, 2013.
8 Kameda M. Victims of government-recommended cervical cancer vaccine to sue state, drug makers. The Japan Times Mar. 30, 2016.
9 La Vigne P. Vaccine Injury Lawsuits Slow to Settlement, Sometimes Dismissed. The Vaccine Reaction Mar. 3, 2016.
10 Fisher BL. No Pharma Liability? No Vaccine Mandates. NVIC.org Mar. 2, 2011.
11 Holland M, Krakow R. Background on the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.The Vaccine Epidemic 2012.
12 American Medical News. Supreme Court Upholds Vaccine Liability Shield. American Medical News Mar. 7, 2011
13 The Supreme Court of the United States. BRUESEWITZ ET AL. v. WYETH LLC, FKA WYETH, INC., ET AL. The Supreme Court of the United States Feb. 22, 2011.

Read the full article at TheVaccineReaction.org

Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com

Dr. Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Harm

dr_andrew_moulden_every_vaccine_produces_harm

eBook – Available for immediate download.

Canadian physician Dr. Andrew Moulden provided clear scientific evidence to prove that every dose of vaccine given to a child or an adult produces harm. The truth that he uncovered was rejected by the conventional medical system and the pharmaceutical industry. Nevertheless, his warning and his message to America remains as a solid legacy of the man who stood up against big pharma and their program to vaccinate every person on the Earth.

Dr. Moulden died unexpectedly in November of 2013 at age 49.

Because of the strong opposition from big pharma concerning Dr. Moulden’s research, we became concerned that the name of this brilliant researcher and his life’s work had nearly been deleted from the internet. His reputation was being disparaged, and his message of warning and hope was being distorted and buried without a tombstone. This book summarizes his teaching and is a must-read for everyone who wants to learn the “other-side” of the vaccine debate that the mainstream media routinely censors.

Read:

Read Dr. Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Harm on your mobile device!

on your mobile device!

$3.99

Kindle Dr. Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Harm Book icon

<!–/*
* The backup image section of this tag has been generated for use on a
* non-SSL page. If this tag is to be placed on an SSL page, change the
* 'http://healthimpactnews.com/openx/www/delivery/…'
* to
* 'https://healthimpactnews.com/openx/www/delivery/…'
*
* This noscript section of this tag only shows image banners. There
* is no width or height in these banners, so if you want these tags to
* allocate space for the ad before it shows, you will need to add this
* information to the tag.
*
* If you do not want to deal with the intricities of the noscript
* section, delete the tag (from … to ). On
* average, the noscript tag is called from less than 1% of internet
* users.
*/–>

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?

Medical_Doctors_Opposed_to_Forced_Vaccinations_Should_Their_Views_be_Silence_sm

eBook – Available for immediate download.

One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”

However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.

The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.

Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.

In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.

Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.

These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.

In this eBook, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.

Read:

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?

on your mobile device!

$0.99

Kindle Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations - Should Their Views be Silenced? Book icon

<!–/*
* The backup image section of this tag has been generated for use on a
* non-SSL page. If this tag is to be placed on an SSL page, change the
* 'http://healthimpactnews.com/openx/www/delivery/…'
* to
* 'https://healthimpactnews.com/openx/www/delivery/…'
*
* This noscript section of this tag only shows image banners. There
* is no width or height in these banners, so if you want these tags to
* allocate space for the ad before it shows, you will need to add this
* information to the tag.
*
* If you do not want to deal with the intricities of the noscript
* section, delete the tag (from … to ). On
* average, the noscript tag is called from less than 1% of internet
* users.
*/–>