Vaccination Death

[Kirra_Bomber_Zeus]

[Reactions yes, but resulting in death?  Against the millions of dogs that receive a yearly vaccinationeach year?

I'd still say the percentage was small. 

I agree that the risk of actual death immediately from a reaction may be small - but I guess the point I was trying to make is that there are many dogs "reacting".

As many vets wont admit that a problem is a reaction to a vaccine then we will never know the real figures of how many dogs do die anyway (whether that may be immediately or from health complications from the reaction much later on).

Death is the worst case scenario, but other effects from a reaction can be life altering for the pup too

As for Fort Dodge, if you don't trust them use diffrent products.  I wouldn't vaccinate using their vaccines, people don't call em Fort Dodgey for nothing!

Yep, Kirras reaction was from a Fort Dodge product too - wouldnt touch them with a ten foot pole!

However, since then she has reacted to many other products such as heartworm, flea treatments and many many medications - my new vet even admits there is a 90% chance that this is because the vaccine reaction she had when she was a pup all but destroyed her immune response to chemicals.

As I have said before - I guess those that have had experience with a dog dying from a disease and those that have had experience with vaccine reactions will always have differing opinions on which one is the lesser evil!

Jen

[Pup's mum]

Some night time reading:

Zeus Note: This legislation was passed just before Christmas. Below are a collection of related articles. Some of the links that no longer work have been taken out.

From: Emma Holister

Senate Moves Towards Forced Vaccinations, Vaccine Damage Immunity for Drug Companies

Associated Press | December 2, 2005

By ANDREW BRIDGES

RELATED:

CONGRESS SET TO PASS LAW ELIMINATING LIABILITY FOR VACCINE INJURIES

By creating a federal agency shielded from public scrutiny, some lawmakers think they can speed the development and testing of new drugs and vaccines needed to respond to a bioterrorist attack or super-flu pandemic.

The proposed Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency, or BARDA, would be exempt from long-standing open records and meetings laws that apply to most government departments, according to legislation approved Oct. 18 by the Senate health committee.

Those exemptions would streamline the development process, safeguard national security and protect the proprietary interests of drug companies, say Republican backers of the bill. The legislation also proposes giving manufacturers immunity from liability in exchange for their participation in the public-private effort.

"We must ensure the federal government acts as a partner with the private sector, providing the incentives and protections necessary to bring more and better drugs and vaccines to market faster," Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., said when the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions approved the bill.

The agency would provide the funding for development of treatments and vaccines to protect the United States from natural pandemics as well as chemical, biological and radiological agents.

But it is the secrecy and immunity provisions of the legislation that have alarmed patient rights and open government advocates. The agency would be exempt from the Freedom of Information and Federal Advisory Committee acts, both considered crucial for monitoring government accountability.

"There is no other agency that I am aware of where the agency is totally exempt either from FOIA or FACA," said Pete Weitzel, coordinator of the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government. The coalition is an alliance of journalism groups, including the American Society of Newspaper Editors and Associated Press Managing Editors, that wrote to lawmakers seeking amendments to the bill. "That is a cause for major concern and should raise major policy concerns," Weitzel said.

Burr spokesman Doug Heye said the provisions would keep competitors from gaining proprietary information through FOIA. However, confidential business information already is exempt from FOIA.

"There's no secrecy involved in BARDA," Heye said. "That is absolutely false. This is an agency that will be putting out information daily."

Some Democrats question whether the public would accept drugs or vaccines developed in conjunction with the agency, citing the abortive 2003 effort to vaccinate 500,000 front-line health care workers against smallpox. Only about 40,000 workers ultimately received the vaccine amid concerns about the vaccine's safety, which health authorities initially downplayed.

"Republican leaders in Congress are now proposing a plan that would make exactly the same mistake," Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said in a statement. "Their plan will protect companies that make ineffective or harmful medicines, and because it does not include compensation for those injured by a vaccine or drug, it will discourage first responders and patients from taking medicines to counter a biological attack or disease outbreak."

The bill does provide for limited compensation. However, another provision would grant drug companies immunity unless "willful misconduct" can be shown.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America said it was reviewing the bill. Another industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, declined comment.

The National Vaccine Information Center, an advocacy group, called the legislation "a drug company stockholder's dream and a consumer's worst nightmare."

The proposed law comes amid growing concern about pandemics and the government's ability to meet such threats. For instance, the United State needs another three to five years to develop the manufacturing capacity to produce 300 million doses of flu vaccine, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

The agency would improve on Project BioShield, a barely two-year-old program also meant to encourage production of vaccines and drugs, Heye said.

"While some progress has been made, we still haven't seen the participation from companies, universities and research institutions in developing vaccines we might need to protect us from the next threat, whatever that might be," Heye said. "One of the reasons is (they) don't want to put their very existence on the line."

Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, said the agency as proposed would represent a setback to decades of progress in opening up to the public the process of testing the safety and efficacy of drugs.

"These provisions are extremely dangerous," Wolfe said. "The fact that they are being proposed, really exploiting people's fears about pandemics and epidemics, is outrageous and goes backward on the progress on the use of the Freedom of Information Act and Federal Advisory Committee Act to increase public scrutiny and increase the correctness of decisions that are made."

Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike agree the drug industry needs some protections to encourage it to produce emergency stocks of vaccines and drugs, but Democrats have balked at providing blanket immunity without first establishing a compensation fund for patients.

Republicans are pushing for liability protections for vaccine manufacturers on other fronts as well. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is seeking to add such protections to a defense appropriations bill.

Frist spokeswoman Amy Call said drug company concerns about liability are real.

"There's really no financial incentive for them to get into the market, sell to the government at a reduced rate and then open themselves up to losses that could potentially bankrupt them," Call said.

The push for liability exemptions may force the Burr bill to the sidelines until the next session of Congress, Republican and Democratic aides said. But Call said Frist intends to pursue the legislation.

____________________________________

Thanks to Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath, for sending the articles below:-

http://www.nccn.net

IMMUNITY FOR THE DRUG INDUSTRY 22/12/05 - Written by the Democratic Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Staff, addressing scandalous language added in once again by Senator Frist, in a must pass DoD appropriations bill:

In the middle of the night, Republican leaders attached sweeping,

never-before-seen immunity for drug companies into the Department of

Defense Appropriations Conference Report. The language constitutes an

unprecedented pharmaceutical industry wish-list of liability protections

that go way beyond avian flu preparedness and that will allow the industry

to injure or kill Americans with contaminated drugs and vaccines and never

be held accountable. This language is broader than any House or Senate

bill and has never been considered by any committee or passed by either

body. The language in fact, even expressly immunizes pharmaceutical

company recklessness.

The language:

Applies to a wide range of drugs, vaccines, and other products. The

proposal provides that any "drug, biological product or device that is used

to mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure a pandemic or epidemic or limit the

harm such pandemic or epidemic might otherwise cause." may be covered and

given immunity. The proposal does not, in any way, limit its application

only to new drugs or vaccines used in a pandemic context. The scope of the

proposal is so broad that it could include drugs like Tylenol, Advil or

Vioxx.

Allows the Secretary to declare an emergency under ANY circumstance. The

immunity for drug companies is triggered upon a declaration by the

Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). The language is so broad

that it allows the Secretary to make a declaration at any time, for almost

any reason, and for any period of time he or she so chooses. The Secretary

may make a declaration pursuant to this section if a disease or health

condition is a public health emergency or "there is a credible risk that

the disease, condition, or threat may in the future constitute such an

emergency." [emphasis added.] There will always be a future risk of a

health condition becoming an emergency, but that future risk alone should

not be enough to justify total immunity for the pharmaceutical industry.

This declaration is not subject to appeal, or to any independent judicial

review.

Provides for total preemption of state law during the declaration. The

language also preempts all state laws, requirements, or state tort law that

is different from or in conflict with the federal rule.

Immunizes drug companies for reckless and grossly negligent conduct. The

only exception to the grant of wholesale immunity is in the case of

"willful misconduct." However, willful misconduct is defined as evidence

that the drug company had actual knowledge that their product would injure

or kill someone. This requirement means that only conduct that would also

constitute assault, battery or murder would be sufficient to find "willful

misconduct." The language explicitly protects recklessness by stating, "a

standard for liability that is more stringent that a standard of negligence

in any form or recklessness." That is language never before seen in any

proposed bill.

Immunizes criminal conduct when the Secretary or the Attorney General fails

to act. Even if a drug company has acted with "willful misconduct" as

defined by this language, the drug company is still immune from

accountability unless the Secretary or the Attorney General initiates an

enforcement action against the drug company and that action is pending at

the time a claim is filed or the action resulted in some form of

punishment. So even if a drug company knowingly kills thousands of people,

if no official enforcement action is taken, that company is still immune.

Erects insurmountable barriers such that Americans will never be able to

hold a drug company accountable. Under the language, a person who has been

injured by a dangerous drug or vaccine must prove "by clear and convincing

evidence willful misconduct" on the part of each and every defendant drug

company. This standard of proof is so high, and rarely used in civil

proceedings, that the injured individual will never be able to hold a drug

company accountable.

Includes severe restrictions even if a claim is allowed. In the unlikely

event that a claim is allowed to go forward because a court has found

sufficient evidence that a drug company intentionally and willfully injured

or killed a person, the following restrictions would still apply:

* The complaint must be accompanied by physician's affidavit by a doctor

who did not treat the person that the person is suffering from an effect of

the covered countermeasure;

* The injured individual must provide their medical records that show that

the injury was caused by that countermeasure;

* An exclusive federal cause of action, barring individuals from filing a

claim in their own state court under state law;

* The elimination of the collateral source rule such that any damage award

received by the injured person would be reduced by any other payment

received by the individual, such as health insurance or disability benefits;

Includes provisions of the so-called "Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act" (LARA).

Proponents have even dumped into this proposal provisions of LARA, a bill

which has twice passed the House but has never been considered in the

Senate. Among other things, the proposal would amend the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure without following the normal rule-making processes.

Establishes a "compensation" fund under the sole direction of the

Secretary. The language establishes a fund similar to the smallpox

compensation fund. However, the fund is operated under regulations

established by the Secretary alone, includes caps on compensation, and is

inoperable until Congress appropriates a sufficient amount of money for the

fund to operate.

_________________________________________

"Vaccines are proving they can be blockbusters. Prevnar, Wyeth's children's

pneumococcal vaccine, revenues total over $1 billion. Analysts say vaccines

against human papilloma virus, a sexually transmitted disease that is a

major cause of cervical cancer, could be big sellers for Merck & Co. and

Glaxo who are each developing one. "

http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?.../512110337/1003

Drug makers seek protection

Home News Tribune Online 12/11/05

THERESA AGOVINO

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK - Large pharmaceutical companies are approaching development of

vaccines and drugs for potential pandemics with trepidation, even as fears

abound of a bird flu outbreak and doctors lament a shortage of treatment

options.

Drug makers are especially afraid of lawsuits stemming from vaccines which,

unlike drugs, are given to healthy people, making any harm they cause an

even bigger legal risk.

Proposals in Congress would exempt companies that manufacture vaccines and

drugs for pandemics from lawsuits. Senator Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is trying

to put a rider on a spending bill that would immunize drug makers and

another freestanding bill introduced by Senator Richard Burr, R-N.C., seeks

to accomplish the same goal.

That's a necessary safeguard to promote interest in developing those

medicines, drug makers say.

"We won't do it without indemnification," said Len Lavenda, a spokesman for

Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccine arm of Sanofi-Aventis SA.

But some insist immunizing drug companies won't be enough to spark interest

in a field fraught with an uncertain pricing structure. Unlike drugs for

conditions such as cholesterol and high blood pressure, which have

guaranteed markets, medicines for pandemics will only be used sporadically,

if at all.

The government adds to the pricing pressure. The Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention buys 55 percent of the recommended childhood

vaccines and pays substantially less than the private sector, so some

experts suspect payments for pandemic treatments will be less than generous.

When anthrax fears surfaced after the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government

threatened to break the patent covering Cipro, an antibiotic made by Bayer

AG. And Roche Holding Ltd. has already been under tremendous pressure to

lower the cost of its Tamiflu, which is believed to be effective against

bird flu, and give others permission to make it.

"Companies are worried about low prices," said Frank Sloan, professor of

health policy, law and management at Duke University.

"They are worried they won't recoup their research and development costs,"

he said. "That is the real problem."

In a statement, Senator Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., called the attempts to

indemnify companies "a sweetheart deal for the drug industry."

A spokesman for Burr said his bill contains provisions to compensate people

hurt from treatments through government funds and that companies will only

be indemnified when the product is used in a pandemic, not for a general

medical problem.

The drug industry insists such moves are crucial. In a pandemic, a vaccine

may be approved without the same level of testing that would be normally

required and given to virtually all Americans.

"This is 300 million plaintiffs you are talking about," said John Clerici,

a lawyer who represents Sanofi and other companies. "If they get anything,

they'll blame it on the vaccine."

Sheltering drug companies from lawsuits isn't without precedent. Acambis

PLC was protected to make an Anthrax vaccine and the manufacturers of swine

flu vaccines were given the same treatment back in the 1970s.

Individuals seriously harmed by vaccines the U.S. government recommends for

children are paid through a federal pool funded by a tax on inoculations.

But Lavenda said lawyers are seeking ways to collect damages from companies

instead of the government fund.

Chris Viehbacher, president of GlaxoSmithKline PLC's U.S. pharmaceuticals

business, estimates the industry has spent $200 million preparing itself

for lawsuits over a vaccine preservative in children' s vaccines.

Lavenda said the issue of immunity from lawsuits must be cleared before

other negotiations can begin on issues such as price.

Lobbyists and pharmaceutical executives said the main force pushing for

indemnity is not the drug industry, but the Biotechnology Industry

Organization, a trade group. BIO declined comment, but lobbyists and

analysts suggested its members are far more interested in pandemic

medicines than drug companies.

"Biotech companies are more amenable to working in new areas. They are

startups," said Christopher Milne, assistant director at the Tufts Center

for the Study of Drug Development. "Big pharmaceutical companies are

resistant to getting heavily involved where the government is paying. They

remember the Cipro incident."

Generex Biotechnology Corp. recently hired a lobbying firm to help it get

government contracts to develop its bird flu vaccine.

Anna Gluskin, Generex's chairwoman, CEO and president, said she isn't

worried about lawsuits because the company's vaccine is made from synthetic

proteins, which she maintains is a safer manufacturing process.

Some pharmaceutical companies have chosen to develop a vaccine for bird

flu. Sanofi Pasteur has a government contract to produce 8,000 doses of an

experimental vaccine, but it has received indemnity from lawsuits. Glaxo

said it will start a small trial in Europe during the first quarter of next

year, and discussions with regulators haven't progressed enough to have

included the indemnity issue.

Viehbacher said any company which successfully creates a vaccine would have

leverage over the government. Vaccine production is complicated, so

breaking a patent wouldn't guarantee supply, he said.

Vaccines are proving they can be blockbusters. Prevnar, Wyeth's children's

pneumococcal vaccine, revenues total over $1 billion. Analysts say vaccines

against human papilloma virus, a sexually transmitted disease that is a

major cause of cervical cancer, could be big sellers for Merck & Co. and

Glaxo who are each developing one.

_______________________________________

U.S. Senators with up to $13.4 million in pharmaceutical holdings increased the value of their stock portfolios last night when they approved an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that immunizes drug makers from accountability to the public when they sell dangerous drugs and other products, according to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR).

___________________________________________

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0051222-10.html

President Applauds Congress for Passing Defense Appropriations Bill

I applaud the Congress for passing legislation to fund our troops who are

fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. This

funding will help us continue to hunt down the terrorists, pursue our

strategy for victory in Iraq, and make America more secure. I look forward

to signing the bill into law.

What the president does not mention in the 'making of America more secure'

- is that in the bill, Senator Frist slipped language into the bill

indemnifying manufacturers from their products (drugs/vaccines, et. al)

that can harm, disable and/or kill the American people. The arctic drilling

was widely focussed on, and that amendment was pulled from the bill. The

environment in Alaska is now safe - Americans in the US however, are now

not. What the president also fails to mention is that he was the #1

recipient of contribution funds for the 2004 election, bringing in over

$1,000,000.00 from PHARMA.

http://www.secretwebsites.com/say_no_to_drugs.htm - For those that believe

I'm slamming Republicans, I am not - it just so happens those mainly

responsible are Republicans - but, there are a few democrats as well.

Again, here are the 38 senators that voted this bill in, with a conflict of

interest with ties to the pharmaceuticals (stock holdings):

Allen (R-Va.), Bayh (D-Ind.), Bingaman (D-N.M.), Bond (R-Mo.), Boxer

(D-Calif.), Brownback (R-Kan.), Burns (R-Mont.), Carper (D-Del.), Coburn

(R-Okla.), Cochran (R-Miss.), Conrad (D-N.D.), Crapo (R-Idaho), Dayton

(D-Minn.), DeWine (R-Ohio), Dole (R-N.C.), Ensign (R-Nev.), Feinstein

(D-Calif.), Frist (R-Tenn.), Hatch (R-Utah), Hutchison (R-Texas), Inhofe

(R-Okla.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Kerry (D-Mass.), Kyl (R-Ariz.), Landrieu

(D-La.), Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Levin (D-Mich.), Lieberman (D-Conn.), Lott

(R-Miss.), Reed (D-R.I.), Reid (D-Nev.), Roberts (R-Kan.), Stevens

(R-Alaska), Sununu (R-N.H.), Talent (R-Mo.), Vitter (R-La.), Voinovich

(R-Ohio) and Warner (R-Va.).

If you notice that your state/senator is listed above, congratulations -

you just noticed that your Senator just screwed you over (don't expect a

dinner - and remember this on election day). If you think that PHARMA does

not run this country, think again. PHARMA has just proven that they can

buy and even own Congress and the President. With all the hype on

"protecing america against the war on terrorism" - today, America has just

been taken hostage by its own government.

Read the below statemement from Dem. David Obey (WI) - it is long, but, it

is very much worth the read. There are few exceptions to those in power who

I believe are trying to do the right thing for their constituents and

America - this gentleman below is one of them.

House Committee On Appropriations, Democratic Staff

David R. Obey (WI-07), Ranking Member

For Immediate Release

Contact: Kirstin Brost

December 22, 2005

202-593-1310

Obey Statement on Defense Appropriations Correction Bill

A Shameful End to a Shameful Congress

WASHINGON -Dave Obey (D-WI), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations

Committee, made the following statement this afternoon on the bill

stripping the provision to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge (ANWR) from the Defense Appropriations Conference report:

"Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object:

"More than a year ago, when Mr. Lewis was elected Chairman of the

Appropriations Committee, he came to me and asked if we could have an

understanding that we would express our substantive differences but still

cooperate in moving bills forward in an orderly way once those differences

had been expressed. We did that.

"Time and time again, the Minority was denied the opportunity to offer

different sets of priorities, priorities that did not offer huge tax cuts

for those who have the most in society, paid for with cuts in education,

health care, and worker protection for those who have the least. Despite

the fact that the rules of the House were used to block our efforts to

obtain on-the-record votes on a number of our alternatives, Democrats

continued to cooperate procedurally, even as we made clear our

differences on policy.

"The Republican Majority wanted to finish all of these bills by the end of

the fiscal year, and we did not procedurally obstruct them because while we

differed strongly with the values that lie behind their budget priorities,

we respected the fact that they are in the Majority and we respect and

revere this institution. But because of internal divisions between the

Majority party - divisions within the House GOP caucus and divisions

between House and Senate Republicans - the fiscal year ended with the

Labor-HHS bill and the Defense appropriations bill that represent 67

percent of the discretionary spending in our budget bill still being hung

up in the legislative process.

"Now in the closing days of this Congress, the Republican Leadership has

decided to use the must-pass Defense appropriations bill to force down the

throats of the American people a number of wholly unrelated gifts to

special interests. They decided to hold funds for our troops hostage in

order to force Congress into removing protections against oil drilling in

ANWR. To make room for their tax giveaways, they even imposed a second

round of cuts to education, health, worker protection, and even imposing a

$4 billion cut in military spending.

"Senate action yesterday has corrected one provision inserted in the bill

by abuse of power - the strong-arm attempt at drilling in ANWR - and for

that I mildly applaud the Senate. I led the opposition to ANWR's inclusion

in the Conference and I am happy that the Congress was not blackmailed into

accepting it.

"But frankly Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, ANWR was not the

biggest problem with the Conference report. The biggest problem is that it

shortchanges our economic future by refusing to make adequate investments

in education and it cruelly neglects to strengthen support for programs

that help provide critical health care services to people who desperately

need them. But we have lost that fight. This Congress has made the

decision to cut critical health, education, worker protection, and social

service funding by $3 billion below last year's level. What I find to be

so gutless about Congress' performance on this bill is that those cuts

could not pass the Senate on a roll call vote, so the Majority party had to

arrange for their Senators to duck this vote and hide from accountability

by arranging for the bill to be passed without a roll call vote. That

means the Majority party has denied critical help to families most in need

of help, but has not had the courage to forthrightly defend their votes to

the people affected in the public arena. This bill makes that problem $1.4

billion worse for those programs and because of the across-the-board cut,

it makes other ill-advised cuts in critical funding for the FBI, local law

enforcement, and it even cuts an additional $4 billion out of the defense

bill. If I could do anything to change that, I would. But it is clear

that the die is cast.

"Continuing under my reservation Mr. Speaker, there is a second outrageous

problem with this bill. The Majority has turned the proposal to prepare

for a flu pandemic into a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.

"When the President requested $7 billion to begin a much belated crash

program to develop a new generation of vaccines and antiviral drugs to

combat a potential flu pandemic, the Republican Majority responded by

cutting it in half. When I asked Senator Stevens in Conference why we

shouldn't fund the rest of the Administration's request so that it was

clear that the government had a long-term commitment to the development of

needed vaccines and antivirals, he responded that because liability

protection language for manufacturers was not being adopted, long-range

funding should be withheld. The Conference Committee ended its work with

an understanding, both verbal and in writing, that there would be no -- I

repeat no -- legislative liability protection language inserted in this

bill. And because the Majority told us it did not want any compensation

program for victims to come out of the discretionary portion of the budget,

no funding was provided for that either. But after the Conference was

finished at 6pm, Senator Frist marched over to the House side of the

Capitol about four hours later and insisted that 40 pages of legislation -

which I have in my hand - 40 pages of legislation that had never been seen

by Conferees be attached to the bill. The Speaker joined him in that

insistence so that, without a vote of the Conferees, that legislation was

unilaterally and arrogantly inserted into the bill after the Conference was

over in a blatantly abusive power play by two of the most powerful men in

Congress. We then discovered that this language provided all sorts of

insulation for pharmaceutical companies and that this insulation applied

not just to drugs developed to deal with the flu, but in fact applied to a

far broader range of products.

"In essence, the provisions allow the Secretary of HHS to issue a

declaration that has the effect of almost completely prohibiting lawsuits

in state or federal courts by persons whose health was injured against

manufacturers and various others for compensation for injuries caused by

the use of "covered countermeasures." That determination would bar

lawsuits against a wide range of "covered persons" involved with the

countermeasures-including manufacturers and their suppliers, distributors,

state and local governments and their employees involved with use of the

countermeasures, medical personnel prescribing and administering the

countermeasures, and so forth. This is very broad power indeed to ban

lawsuits. Unlike the language requested by the Administration, the

Division E language is not limited to products to combat a flu pandemic.

Rather, it applies to any drug, vaccine, medical device or other products

useful in dealing with anything the Secretary considers to constitute a

public health emergency or that could constitute an emergency in the future.

"Although a rationale often offered for lawsuit protection is that it is

needed to encourage manufacturers to develop and produce new treatments,

the protections of Division E are not limited to new or experimental

products. Rather, nothing in the language would prevent the Secretary from

providing protection against lawsuits to drugs that have been on the market

for decades.

"Further, the language explicitly prohibits any judicial review, in either

federal or state court, of the Secretary's decisions to grant immunity from

lawsuits. If anyone believes that the power is being exercised too

broadly, or even in violation of the law, they apparently would have no

remedy other than asking the Secretary to change his mind or asking

Congress to amend the law.

"Although proponents point to provisions of this language that make an

exception and allow lawsuits in cases of willful misconduct, that exception

is so narrowly drawn as to be almost meaningless. First, the provision

defines "willful misconduct" as acts taken "intentionally to achieve a

wrongful purpose", knowing there is no legal or factual justification, and

in disregard of known or obvious great risk. Basically, Mr. Speaker, the

only conduct that would permit a lawsuit under this definition is probably

conduct so egregious as to be criminal in nature.

"However, even this highly restrictive definition of "willful misconduct"

doesn't seem to have been enough restriction on lawsuits to satisfy the

authors of Division E. They added yet another provision that allows the

Secretary of HHS to promulgate regulations further narrowing the scope of

actions that could give rise to a right to sue. Then, there's yet another

provision that says if the conduct in question is regulated under the Food

and Drug Act or Public Health Service Act, a lawsuit for willful misconduct

can be brought only if the federal government has taken enforcement action

against that conduct. Finally, the language makes various changes to the

normal rules of civil procedure to add further obstacles and difficulties

in front of a potential plaintiff. In short, as a practical matter there

is virtually no right for anyone to sue about anything covered by a

Secretarial determination under this language.

"In summary, the Administration asked for some very broad liability

protections for manufacturers and others involved with countermeasures

against pandemic flu - and the Administration's proposal was widely

criticized as going too far. With Division E of the Defense appropriations

Conference report, Congress would be providing even broader protection,

potentially covering a wide range of drugs, vaccines and devices far beyond

what is needed to deal with the flu.

"Further, this denial of the right to sue is more sweeping than provided in

the case of childhood vaccines, or in the case of smallpox vaccine. In the

smallpox case, manufacturers are protected by basically substituting the

federal government as defendant-with the scope of potential lawsuits

against the federal government narrowed but not eliminated.

"Now Mr. Speaker, I recognize that some sort of liability protection or

indemnification that would be necessary and appropriate to encourage

development and manufacture of some measures to deal with pandemic flu and

I would support such reasonable language, language that has been reviewed

by a Committee that knows what it is doing in a process that allows for

public comments. But there are real doubts as to whether it needs to be

this broad. Its worth noting that Sanofi Pasteur, our only domestic flu

vaccine manufacturer, has already signed contracts with the federal

government to make avian flu vaccine and has already delivered some lots,

rather than refusing to proceed until legislation like this is enacted.

Similarly, Roche has been supplying Tamiflu for the national stockpile and

actively seeking contracts to supply more.

"The result of this legislative action was a provision in the pending bill

that prevents anyone who is a victim of a faulty vaccine from being able to

obtain compensation in the courts. It says that if you become seriously

ill because of mistakes in the manufacturing, that you lose your right to

sue for compensation, but you can seek compensation from the government.

But guess what -- the problem is that no money was provided for that fund.

So anyone who gets sick would have to lobby Congress to put money in the

money in the fund before they can collect. Thus, people injured lose their

right to sue, but are not guaranteed any alternative means of covering

their medical bills, lost earnings and other costs.

"Mr. Speaker, the Committee system was created years ago to ensure that to

protect the public interest, legislation would be carefully reviewed before

it was placed before the body for consideration. But that protection was

arbitrarily by-passed by the Leadership in both Houses.

"This is the second time that this Congress has supinely done the bidding

of the pharmaceutical industry in the dead of night. The first time, a

vote was held open for three hours while the Republican Majority twisted

arms to create the complex and ridiculously confusing prescription drug

bill that our seniors are now so desperately trying to understand - a bill

that was ushered through this institution by over 600 lobbyists and that

protected companies by preventing the government from even attempting to

negotiate lower drug prices.

"If I thought that denying unanimous consent on this bill would force the

Majority to eliminate that language I would object. But, Mr. Speaker, it

has also been made quite clear to me that the Majority will not relent on

the language that insulates drug companies. So Mr. Speaker, I want it to

be clear that the action to insert this special interest language in the

bill is in my view a corruption of the legislative practices of the House.

When Congress returns in January, I intend to raise a question about the

privileges of the House that are highlighted by this action because it has

brought discredit to the House and should disturb every Member who serves

here. No Member of Congress, no matter how powerful, should be able to

unilaterally insist that provisions that were never discussed and never

debated in the Conference should be slipped in to that Conference report

without a vote of that same Conference.

"This is what happens when there are no checks and balances, when one party

controls the White House, the Senate, and the House and respects no limits

on its own use of power. We have been placed in the this position because

the House Republican Leadership has sent Members home for the Christmas

holidays with the message to the Senate that we would not be here even if

the Senate changed the legislation the House sent. That was irresponsible

and the country will pay the price. This institution will pay a price as

well, in terms of diminished respect from the people we were elected to

represent. Members on both sides know it and it is time to have a modicum

of respect for the way we do the people's business.

"This is a shameful and shabby way to the end the worst session of Congress

I've experienced in 36 years in Congress. I most reluctantly withdraw my

reservation because lodging an objection at this point would simply delay

the shameful inevitable."

forwarded by

Zeus Information Service

Alternative Views on Health

www.zeusinfoservice.com

Edited January 10, 2006 by Pup's mum

[Pup's mum]

I agree that the risk of actual death immediately from a reaction may be small - but I guess the point I was trying to make is that there are many dogs "reacting".

As many vets wont admit that a problem is a reaction to a vaccine then we will never know the real figures of how many dogs do die anyway (whether that may be immediately or from health complications from the reaction much later on).

Death is the worst case scenario, but other effects from a reaction can be life altering for the pup too 

Absolutely correct.........

[fiery_di]

Does anyone know of a link in regards to Fort Dodge having to recall the Proheart Heartworm injection???

My Ruby was vaccinated with this a few yrs ago and shortly after contracted an auto-immune disease which gave her a blood disorder.

My vet *thinks* that the vaccine may have *indirectly* given her this and I would like to investigate it a little further...

Cheers & Thanks

Fiery Di

[Nadia]

There are some threads with information on this on DOL, if you do a search a few should pop up.

[Pup's mum]

Di - some basic reading material while I find more for you....

http://www.black-russian-terriers.com/healthinfo.html

- go to the links at the bottom of the page

[zayda_asher]

Thanks for that info Pup's mum!! I haven't got those ones

Dan

[Pup's mum]

and a few more.....

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/apr05/050415c.asp

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/PH6QA.htm

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/Documents/FINALVMAC...art%20SR12'

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/proheart6091304.html

[Do No Harm]

Professor Ronald Shultz, a Veterinary Immunologist/Vaccinologist has been researching veterinary vaccines for more than 30 years. He has said that if a pup is vaccinated once with a Modified Live Virus vaccine after the maternal antibodies have waned, then provided that vaccine 'takes' that dog will be immune for life.

Here in Australia, a leading manufacturer of vaccines is Virbac. Virbac produces a Newsletter which is distributed to all veterinarians in Australia. In its August 2005 Newsletter it reported on its recent research among Australian veterinarians on the issue of small animal vaccinations. Its findings were that "91% of veteri narians felt that a change from annual vaccinations would have an adverse effect on their practice turnover".

Who is right about the need for the number of vaccinations that are routinely promoted as 'essential' on an annual basis - the veterinary scientist or the veterinary clinician?

It may be worth mentioning too, that veterinarians familiar with the scientific research opt not to vaccinated their own adult dogs but typically promote the revaccination of dogs owned by their clients.

Money, money and more money. That's what it is all about - unless one happens to be the aggrieved owner of an 'unfortunate' dog.

[dogbesotted]

personal experience. in 1998 my heart do Morris had his annual booster. within 1 week he was fighting for his life - immune mediated thrombocytopenia. Four blood transfusions and many dollars later he recovered. but remained on pred..which caused bladder stones which required major bladder surgery. he passed away nov 27 1999 from lymphoma- six week after diagnosis.

suspect vaccine advers reaction.

1.http://www.britfeld.com/vaccination-adverse.htm ( article by Dr Jean Dodds)

2.http://www.mercola.com/2003/apr/2/dog_vaccines.htm

[fido666]

I was warned that some pups can feel a little off colour for a couple of days after the C4 though.  With all the parvo around I just can't risk not vaccinating as I will be showing my pup.

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought C3 protects against parvo already??

Hi Andomeda,

I checked the card from the vet and it has ticks against Distemper, Hepatitis, and Parvo. The C4 protects against Kennel Cough as well. Any reason why you asked?

Cheers,

Corine

[morgan]

Pups Mum - thanks for those links - have read most of them, but hadn't bookmarked them!

For human beings, the  World Health Organization considers a reaction of one in 10,000 unacceptable.

This quote is from one of those links - research I have read indicates that adverse reactions in infants/children is about 1 in 175!

The C4 protects against Kennel Cough as well

I thought the kennel cough one was the C5? Never touch it anyway, as so many dogs vacc for KC still catch it! And the intra-nasal form is causing nasal cancers.

There was an earlier comment about diseases runnimg rampant if we stopped vaccinating children and dogs - not true - first world countries that have no national vaccination programs have less disease, as most of the diseases were declining due to improved nutrition, sanitation and water supplies. All cases of polio in the US for many years have actually been caused by vaccines!

In Japan, since vaccines stopped being given to children under the age of 2, the rate of SIDS has dramatically reduced, but is now happening in over 2's - maybe it should be called "sudden toddler death syndrome" there? And the rate of disease has not escalated.

[fido666]

Hi Morgan,

I thought the kennel cough one was the C5? Never touch it anyway, as so many dogs vacc for KC still catch it! And the intra-nasal form is causing nasal cancers.

I'm going off what it says on my vaccination certificate, it has Dhpvkc listed on it. I took this code to mean Distemper, Hepatitis, Parvo, and Kennel Cough. I think C5 does Leptospirosis as well, perhaps someone more knowledgable can confirm this?

Do you have any links to the intra-nasal problems? God, I'm paranoid now as my breed is also susceptible to most monthly and annual Heartworm medications. I think I shall just lock myself and my dogs in a bunker somewhere .

Cheers,

Corine

[Rappie]

C4: Parvo, Distemper, Hepatitis, Parainfluenza

C5: C4 + Bordatella bronchiseptica

Serious problems related to intranasal vaccinations are news to me. Please let me know if there any scientific papers going around.

[MolassesLass]

Dog vaccines:

C3 - Distemper, Parvo, Hepatitis

C4 - C3 + Parainfluenza (viral component of KC)

C5 - C4 + Bordatella bronchiseptica (bacterial component of KC)

C6 - C4 + Coronavirus and Leptospirosis

C7 - C6 + Bordetella bronchiseptica

[Andromeda]

I was warned that some pups can feel a little off colour for a couple of days after the C4 though.  With all the parvo around I just can't risk not vaccinating as I will be showing my pup.

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought C3 protects against parvo already??

Hi Andomeda,

I checked the card from the vet and it has ticks against Distemper, Hepatitis, and Parvo. The C4 protects against Kennel Cough as well. Any reason why you asked?

Cheers,

Corine

Hi fido666,

From your quote I thought you were saying that in order to be protected against parvo you need to have a C4 and from my understanding, I thought you only need a C3 to protect against parvo.

[haven]

Professor Ronald Shultz, a Veterinary Immunologist/Vaccinologist has been researching veterinary vaccines for more than 30 years. He has said that if a pup is vaccinated once with a Modified Live Virus vaccine after the maternal antibodies have waned, then provided that vaccine 'takes' that dog will be immune for life.

Not sure if it was written by this guy, but someone posted a very interesting article on this subject a few months ago. I haven't been able to find it, so if anyone has it or can link it I would really appreciate it.

Also, in a small hijack, because of this article I was going to have my dogs titre tested in Feb, which is when their annual booster is due. Someone once posted about a Vet's who did titre testing and if it was necessary, vaccinated the dogs at no further charge. Does anyone what Vet it was, or know of a Vet that does this?

[Coolibah Coolies]

Ok guys here is a real life senareo I am picking up 3 puppies in the morning, they have had 1st vacination due for second I know my vet only has fort dodge what do I do? ask her to get other brand in specially? I am so frightened after what happened to daisy and buddy I cant sleep. :D

Edited to add after Buddy died with no symptoms. Daisy vomited twice on the monday morning they had had the vaccs on the previous Friday morning. I raced her to the vet where she spent 5 days on a drip had plasma etc we made the decision to give her her wings after 5 days

Next closest vet is 200 ks away?

I know that lots of people in the USA and vets will not use fort dodge and there is alot of info on the net regarding such happenings.

Thanks

Ruth

[fido666]

Hi Andromeda,

Hi fido666,

From your quote I thought you were saying that in order to be protected against parvo you need to have a C4 and from my understanding, I thought you only need a C3 to protect against parvo.

Sorry, I just meant I had my dogs vaccinated because of all the Parvo going round. I didn't meant to suggest it had to be C4 though.

Cheers,

Corine

[Kirra_Bomber_Zeus]

Ok guys here is a real life senareo I am picking up 3 puppies in the morning, they have had 1st vacination due for second I know my vet only has fort dodge what do I do? ask her to get other brand in specially? I am so frightened after what happened to daisy and buddy I cant sleep.

Edited to add after Buddy died with no symptoms. Daisy vomited twice on the monday morning they had had the vaccs on the previous Friday morning. I raced her to the vet where she spent 5 days on a drip had plasma etc we made the decision to give her her wings after 5 days

Next closest vet is 200 ks away?

I know that lots of people in the USA and vets will not use fort dodge and there is alot of info on the net regarding such happenings.

Thanks

Ruth

coolibahkoolies, I can imagine how you must be feeling.

YES, I would ask your vet to get in another brand. I would tell them that you have had bad experiences with this brand and there is no way that you will use it again. Any decent vet would understand after what you have been through - if not - find another one.

I would rather inconvenience the vet (sorry to the vets out there :p ) than risk another episode such as you have had.

Although, if it was me (and before anyone jumps on me, Im stating what I would do after the research I have done) I would just be doing a non Fort Dodge C3 vacc at 12 weeks and thats it. End of story. It has been so long since I have vaxed now - I cant remember :D what age is the second vacc at?

Jen