"Just Say No!!!"
I Will “Just Say ‘No!’”
As a member of the demographic deemed most likely to die from COVID 19, I watched with interest as news of a vaccine surfaced and then came into reality at the end of 2020. However, unlike many, I am leery. Why? Because based on the testimony of one of President Biden’s COVID team members about how vaccines are safely developed and knowledge of the changes in vaccine law that leave consumers with limited protection in the event of injury or death, I choose not to participate.
In 2017, Dr. Michael T. Osterholm, a respected epidemiologist, and member of the President’s COVID team authored the book Deadliest Enemies. In it, he recounts the announcement by the Secretary of Health and Human Services that a vaccine for AIDS would be available in two years. In Osterholm’s words, this was “wildly unrealistic.” Osterholm believes that two years is not enough time to develop “any vaccine.” (16). The author later describes the normal process for vaccine development. Because of the extensive tests for short- and long-term efficacy, side effects, and the potential of the disease to mutate rendering the drug useless, pharmaceutical companies are hesitant to develop vaccines. They can expect licensing to take “more than a decade of work and a billion dollars of investment” (87). As of today, COVID has been in existence for less than two years, and the variety of vaccines less than one year. Based on Dr. Osterhom’s expert opinion, none of them meet the standards for a thoroughly and properly tested vaccine.
The Emory Law Journal produced a 49-page report, Liability for Vaccine Injury: The United States, the European Union, and the Developing World. In terms of the U.S., the report focuses mostly on childhood vaccines, but the information applies to all vaccines. An agency, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, is responsible to coordinate efforts with states to control diseases. The Emory Report, citing evidence from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Monthly Statistics Report, admits that “Some children are permanently disabled or die from their vaccine exposure” (419). In addition, citing Gordon Shemin author of Mercury Rising: The Omibus Autism Proceeding and What Families Should Know Before Rushing Out of Vaccine Court and Daniel Cantor author of Striking a Balance Between Product Availability and Product Safety, the report asserts that “people receive little warning of the risks of vaccination because of minimal information requirements under the Vaccine Act” (420). Again, while the focus is primarily on childhood vaccinations, the information applies to all vaccines.
The Vaccine Act of 1986 changed the rules for compensatory damage awards to those injured or killed by a vaccine. Individuals have a three-year window to file a claim with NVICP which was intended to be a “no-fault” program (425) that would compensate victims “quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity” (426). The system is not without drawbacks. Pain, suffering, and wrongful death claims are capped at $250,000. Established in 1986 and never increased, this amount is “worth less than half that amount today” (430). While claimants can pursue civil cases, the Vaccine Act has made this extremely difficult to limit awards to “fraud, intentional wrongdoing, or other illegal activity” (431). Researcher Nora Freeman Engstrom author of A Dose of Reality for Specialized Courts: Lessons from the VICP“paints a ‘gloomy portrait’” of the NVICP. She believes it “should ‘shake public confidence in this new alternative mechanism—and inform future analysis” (432). NVICP is not “fair, consistent, non-adversarial and speedy” and according to the Engstrom, the process takes “two and a half times longer to process claims than the traditional tort system—sixty-six months” (433). Engstrom also notes a case that took “twelve years, from 1998 until 2010 for the NVICP simply to deny compensation” (435). From her research, Engstrom concludes “the system is not working” (433) and according to Chief Special Master (the group who decides cases for the NVICP) Gary Golkiewicz the “NVICP’s bias [is] against petitioners” and “HHS and the DOJ ‘altered the game so that it is clearly in their favor…’It doesn’t take a mental giant to see the fundamental unfairness in this” (435-436). In other words, since settlements come out of the government’s pocket, they make them very hard to receive. The Emory reports state “The Vaccine Act and the NVICP in particular, simply have not fulfilled its mission to compensate vaccine injury victims…” (436). The report contains more information that can be cited in this post, but it is worth investigating.
There is no denying that COVID 19 is a serious disease and a rush to produce a vaccine is understandable. However, patient safety should not be sacrificed for speed. There are reports of serious side effects, the latest just last week concerning blood clots caused by the Astra-Zeneca vaccine. Virtually protected from civil litigation, pharmaceutical companies face almost no financial downside should their product not work or even cause harm or death. The virus has already mutated bringing in questions of the efficacy of the vaccines being administered. For me, I am in no rush to get vaccinated and am going to “Just Say No!”
-Mary Agrusa
The COVID 19 vaccine is something that all people should get. First, it can help the economy. Secondly, due to health reasons. Finally, People can go out, have fun, and socialize with others. While people are concerned, their suspiciousness should not be unlike the other vaccines that we take. The COVID 19 vaccine is positive. because it gives people a sense of normalcy back.
It helps the economy because it helps people start working again. The production rate goes back higher and the economy can go back to normal. For example, the price of oil was cheaper because there was not a demand for it. This is not good for the economy. According to the U.S. Bank’s website, “stunningly rapid creation and approval of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines seemed to positively influence investor sentiment in the closing months of 2020 and is considered an encouraging sign for the long-term health of the economy”. The economy is negatively impacted by the virus and the vaccines will slowly bring things back to normal.
The vaccine helps people with preexisting health issues. This provides people with the security they need to take care of their families and themselves with peace of mind. For example, my neighbor who is in their 60s is looking forward to the vaccine so that she can go out to the store and not worry so much about others who may be carrying the virus.
Socially, people are not able to enjoy their lives. Families are not able to spend time together and make precious lasting memories. People are not able to date and weddings were canceled. Youth are not able to spend time with their peers. Life is short and it should be spent with people that we care about. A vaccine is able to give this freedom back and restore the social balance in society.
While people may feel that the vaccine has not been tested enough, they fail to understand that billions of dollars have gone into the vaccine to ensure its effectiveness and safety. People should trust the reliability of the vaccine in part for this, and for the reliable scientists that worked on it. -Peaches Andrews
Works Cited
Osterholm, Dr. Michal T. Deadliest Enemies. New York: Little Brown and Company, 2017.
Print
Holland, Mary S. “Liability for Vaccine Injury: The United States, the European Union, and the
Developing World.” Emory Law Journal. Vol. 67. Issue 3. 2017. PDF file. Accessed
3/29//2021.
Comments
Post a Comment