To the Editor:

I am responding to an opinion article in the Eagle titled "Anti-vaxxers put us all at risk," Feb. 13.

In 1986 Congress passed a law that the victims of vaccine injuries could not sue the vaccine manufacturer based on the design of the vaccine. Why do vaccine companies need or get such special protection? No other manufacturer enjoys such protections. Imagine what that does for incentive to design a safe product.

It's a lot like this: Your toaster causes your house to burn down, and then afterwards you find out that toaster companies can't be sued based on the design of the toaster.

The title alone of the opinion article, "Anti-vaxxers put us all at risk," implies that the efficacy of vaccines is less than 100 percent. If vaccines were 100 percent effective and you get a vaccine and I don't, how could I be putting you at risk?

According to the CBS News article "Supreme Court vaccine ruling: parents can't sue drug makers for kids' health problems" from Feb. 22, 2011, "The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a federal law prohibits lawsuits against drug makers over serious side effects from childhood vaccines. ... Within hours of getting the DPT shot, the third in a series of five, the baby suffered a series of debilitating seizures." (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-vaccine-ruling-parents-cant-sue-drug-makers-for-kids-health-problems)

Maybe everyone should rethink vaccines.

Ron Bright

Mt. Vernon

Recommended for you

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.