Nearly 25 years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which exempts vaccine manufacturers from being liable for damages caused by their
vaccines. The Act established an entirely new "legal" system to deal specifically with vaccine injury cases, handling each one in a special "vaccine court" that essentially just dismisses most cases as unwarranted.
The Act is entirely unconstitutional as no company or entity can legally be exempted from due process within the real legal system, but it was enacted anyway and has served as a shelter for vaccine
companies to hide behind in order to avoid costly litigation. And since the medical industry as a whole continues to deny a link between vaccines and
autism, for instance, the "vaccine
courts" can just automatically go along with the notion and arbitrarily reject all autism-related vaccine cases as unsubstantiated.
But all that could change, depending on how the
Supreme Court handles a case currently before it involving a young lady whose parents say she became permanently injured by a diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccine called Tri-Immunol that she received when she was a child. The Bruesewitz's say that Wyeth, the manufacturer of the DTP vaccine, knew about a safer version of the vaccine, but continued to sell the dangerous one anyway. Now their daughter Hannah requires costly, specialized care for the rest of her life.