Why Are Vaccine Manufacturers Immune?

[Byrd]

Why are vaccine manufacturers like Sanofi, Merck, Pfizer etc. given 'immunity' for liability of injuries due to their products?

Did not watch the video, but mercury (thimerosol) isn't used in many vaccines (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about...rosal.html)... when it is, the amount is the same as in a can of tuna fish.  I haven't seen anyone injured or dead from mercury in a can of tuna (unless you smack them very very hard with the unopened can.)

Also, the risk from vaccines is VERY small.  Yes, there's some "injuries" - mild fever and soreness at the injection site are the usual "injuries."  But if they're going to count "injuries" and lawsuits, then it follows that:

• We should sue people who make sidewalks because many people trip and are injured falling onto sidewalks.
  
• Ditto modern roads.  There are tens of thousands of deaths each year from people who are on modern roads.
  
• And gun makers - people get hurt by misfires and other accidents all the time.
  
• Peanut butter manufacturers -people die from peanut allergies all the time.
  
• Fishermen... shellfish allergies.
  

And so on and so forth.

Let's look at a vaccine -- measles is a good one because it's a childhood vaccination.A vaccine became available in 1963. In the decade before, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years old. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year.
(data from many sources - used this after checking others https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html)

Here's the damage done by measles (mostly children.)

• 400 to 500 people (most of them were babies and young children) died
• 48,000 babies and young children were hospitalized
• 1,000 babies and young children suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain)

Even if you lived (I had them), the experience was MISERABLE and lasted weeks -- 2 weeks if you were lucky, 3 weeks and longer if you weren't.  And then everyone else in the household would get it.

After the vaccine became widely used, measles was declared "dead" in the US.  No cases at all.  There HAVE been deaths in immunocompromised children who were given the vaccine, so they are not vaccinated. 

The "injuries" have been "kid feeling sick for a day" and "sore arm."

Is the video saying that it's better for 500 kids to die and for 1,000 to suffer potential brain damage and the rest of the kids getting sick for weeks (parents have to take off work for weeks because you can't go to school or daycare with this)  instead of "some kids getting fever and a sore arm but living?"

(and there's the issue of not being able to get time off to care for a very sick kid for 3 weeks.)


You can do this same thing with other vaccines... look up the numbers.  Do the math.  Find a neutral source (don't use a blog or an op-ed.  Look for a site that's just reporting on things and not pushing the narrative one way or another.  I use the MMR (Mortality and Morbidity Reports)
 
So what reason was this video giving to sue companies that make products that reduce the death and disability rate by such huge numbers?  And what are they saying about parents who would have to stay home to care for the kids and potentially lose their jobs? (because if you leave a sick kid alone at home, somebody's going to call Child Protective Services and then you're "in a whole new world of hurt," as we say here in Texas.)