Forced Inoculations Beginning of Bush's Bad Bird Flu Plan

[Guest guest]

A

Wed, 2 Nov 2005 15:17:41 EST

Re: Forced Inoculations Beginning of Bush's Bird Flu Plan

 

 

 

 

MOUNTAIN VIEWS: FORCED INOCULATIONS BEGINNING OF BUSH'S BAD BIRD FLU

PLAN By John Hanchette

 

 

 

 

OLEAN -- Last week's column warned of imminent federal legislation

that would toss powerful pharmaceutical companies billions of dollars

and complete protection from liability suits in case untested and

experimental bird flu vaccines damage American recipients. It drew

heavy response.

 

The bill (S. 1873) -- a big congressional wet kiss to the drug

industry -- is dressed up in a noble-sounding title: " Biodefense and

Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act. "

 

In essence, however, it would force Americans to receive

inoculations against a disease that has yet to kill one of them, while

removing their constitutional right to seek redress in our courts in

case of injury or death from the shots because of company negligence.

The proposal, now moving its way through the Senate, would also ban

citizens from using the Freedom of Information Act and other popular

informational laws to discover whether the new vaccine (when it is

finally produced) was effective and safe, and even whether anyone had

suffered adverse reactions to it.

 

Some of the e-mails and letters were laudatory, but sadly and

predictably, many readers missed the point.

 

One wrote that I could only have reached my conclusions if I

started from the position that the pharmaceutical companies were

" evil " and that the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease

Control, and " practically every virologist and epidemiologist in the

world is part of a conspiracy. " Or was I saying that I have " some sort

of privileged information that H5N1 influenza will never mutate and

begin to infect humans and even if it does, it won't reach the USA? "

 

He ended by quoting some venerable Chinese philosopher's advice to

" plan for what is difficult while it is easy, do what is great while

it is small. "

 

Well, yes, point taken on the aphorism -- but that's exactly the

philosophical tack I'm following here: identifying a cancerous piece

of federal business and dissecting it while it is still an undivided

cell. If this bill -- which is absolutely laden with hidden agendas --

metastasizes into actual law, Senate 1873 could further ruin an

already devastated national health care system.

 

Sure, the bird influenza that has killed 62 Asians may mutate into

easily contractible flu for humans. I acknowledge that. It may soon

reach the United States. I acknowledge that. But my beef is the

thematic hidden agenda in this dangerous Senate bill that is designed

to protect wealthy corporate contributors from any consequences of

money-motivated, irresponsible scientific research and development.

The legal precedent would be ruinous and take decades to set right.

 

One thing the bill-backer friends of Big Pharma are trying to slip

through with this legislation is a market exclusivity provision that

would extend patents on hugely profitable drugs that are about to

evolve into the category of cheaper generic medicines.

 

Further, it would prohibit federal drug buyers from contracting

with generic medicine makers to save taxpayers billions of dollars --

a current admirable practice.

 

Further, it would allow federal health officials to purchase

medicines, vaccines and other palliatives by simple fiat without

taking bids.

 

Further, and most onerously, the bill would vastly broaden the

definition of products eligible to be characterized as

" countermeasures " to terrorism -- in other words, potentially

classifying commonly purchased substances like ibuprofen and aspirin

as terrorist-fighting devices.

 

I'm not the only one who's noticed the exclusivity aspect of this

legislative turkey.

 

The Coalition for a Competitive Pharmaceutical Market (CCPM) is an

unusually broad-based national coalition of organizations powerful on

Capitol Hill in representing employers, health insurers, chain

drugstores, generic drug makers and pharmacy benefit managers.

 

Last week, this huge group urged the Senate to revise the

" biodefense " bill to remove the broadened definition of terrorism

" countermeasures " because the proposal allows it to be done " in a way

that could grant existing everyday medicines -- rather than novel

products related to (defense) against bioterrorism -- multiple years

of additional market exclusivity. "

 

This, contends CCPM chairman Annette Guarisco, " would

unnecessarily drive up prescription drug costs for private and public

payers without advancing our nation's bioterrorism preparedness. "

 

Even the big health insurance companies and pharmaceutical

management lobbyists were startled by the brazen provisions at the

expense of common citizens Senate 1873 portends.

 

Mark J. Rubino, chief pharmacy officer for Aetna Inc., states,

" For private and public purchasers seeking to provide consumers with

therapeutically equivalent, but more cost-efficient generic drugs, the

market exclusivity provision included in the Biodefense bill takes us

in exactly the wrong direction. "

 

Mark Merritt, president of the Pharmaceutical Care Management

Association, said, " This drug monopoly extension proposal is a

sweeping and unprecedented measure that would rewrite drug-patenting

and force working families, the disabled, and seniors to pay more for

their prescription drugs.

 

Perhaps most troubling of all, this measure has moved forward

without any regard to the cost (effects) it would have on on Medicare,

Medicaid, and private payers. America's working families, seniors, and

small businesses deserve better. "

 

 

Some who read the column accused me of overstating the liability

protections for Big Pharma contained in the bill. Surely, they wrote,

I was guilty of hyperbole or making things up. Surely, federal

legislators wouldn't remove the cherished American right to redress

wrongs or seek compensation for uninvited injury.

 

Oh, yeah? The language seems pretty clear to me. It provides

incredibly broad and iron-clad protection from any American seeking

legal remedy from Big Pharma and just about everyone else involved in

protecting against bird flu. Look up the draft bill's Section 319F-3

(a) if you don't believe me.

 

" Authority -- As provided in subsection (b), and subject to

subsection (b) (1) C, a manufacturer, distributor, or administrator of

a security countermeasure, or a qualified pandemic and epidemic

product, or a health care provider shall be immune from suit or

liability caused by or arising out of the design, development,

clinical testing and investigation, manufacture, labeling,

distribution, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing,

administration, or use of a countermeasure, or a qualified pandemic

and epidemic product, described in subsection (b) (1) (a). "

 

That just about covers the waterfront, as they say. The only

avenue of relief an injured vaccine or medicine recipient or survivor

could follow is requesting an investigation of their allegation by the

Secretary of Health and Human Services -- who would have to find

" clear and convincing evidence " of " willful misconduct " that " caused

the product to present a significant or unreasonable risk to human

health and proximately caused the injury alleged by the party. "

 

There are at least seven tough legal tests contained in that one

paragraph. And if the HHS Secretary refuses to even investigate the

complaint of injury or death, such decision is completely " within the

Secretary's discretion and shall not be subject to judicial review. "

 

If the secretary does find for the complaining injured party --

which is extremely unlikely -- the drugmaker or distributor or health

care provider named in the determination can petition the federal

court in the District of Columbia for " judicial review " of the HHS

ruling. But no subpoenas shall be issued, " nor shall other compulsory

process apply, " and no third parties can intervene. The drug company

appeal " shall automatically stay the Secretary's determination for the

duration of the judicial proceeding. "

 

There are six more pages of legal gobbledygook backing this up,

one of them defining the scope of protection from lawsuit as extending

to allegations " relating to, or resulting from the design,

development, clinical testing and investigation, manufacture,

labeling, distribution, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing,

prescribing, administration, or use of product " defined as measures

against pandemics or terrorism. There, is that specific enough for

you? Is that an imaginative figment?

 

Interpretation of this congressional language: Pigs will fly

backwards and upside down before the common citizen gets any redress

or compensation for injury or death resulting from a bird flu vaccine

or medicine.

 

Why are vaccine safety advocates so adamant that John Q. Public

might get screwed by all this protect-Big Pharma bird flu legislation?

Because it has happened before.

 

 

 

More- http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/hanchette179.html

 

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/021105birdfluplan.htm