Why Vaccine Companies Should Face Liability: A Case for Accountability, By Chris Knight and Mr. (Dr) Abigail Knight (Florida)

The US National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, signed by President Reagan, shields vaccine manufacturers like Pfizer (formerly Wyeth) from civil lawsuits for vaccine-related injuries, funnelling claims into the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). This no-fault system, designed to stabilise the vaccine market after 1980s lawsuits threatened shortages, has paid out $5.4 billion to 12,000 claimants over 39 years, averaging 1.2 awards per million doses. But as HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. argues in his July 2025 X statement, the VICP is a broken system, hobbling victims with bureaucratic bias and failing its mandate to deliver swift, fair compensation. If vaccine companies cannot survive without immunity, they must "lift their game" like any other manufacturer, facing liability to ensure safer products and restore public trust. This discussion argues for ending blanket immunity, holding vaccine makers accountable under standard product liability laws to drive innovation, protect victims, and align with principles of justice.

The NCVIA was born from a crisis: in the 1980s, lawsuits over the DPT vaccine's alleged side effects (later debunked for permanent brain injury) drove manufacturers like Wyeth to threaten market exit. Wyeth's claim that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe," enshrined in the 2011 Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Supreme Court ruling, justified shielding companies from design-defect claims, provided vaccines were properly manufactured and labelled. The VICP, administered by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, was meant to balance this immunity by offering quick, fair compensation to victims without proving manufacturer fault. Yet, Kennedy's critique exposes its failures:

Bias and Bureaucracy: Special Masters, often with government or political ties, show pro-HHS bias. Claimants face the Department of Justice's "bottomless pockets" without discovery rights or standard evidence rules, making it nearly impossible to prove causation.

Retaliation and Suppression: Petitioners' attorneys report fee suppression and denied access to the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink, a taxpayer-funded resource. Expert witnesses face career threats, including loss of NIH funding, chilling honest testimony.

Meagre Awards: From 1988 to 2023, the VICP awarded $4.6 billion, averaging $450,000 per claim (2006–2020), with $250,000 caps on pain, suffering, and death benefits, unchanged since 1986. Only 60% of awards admit vaccine causation; most are settlements to avoid litigation costs.

This system, meant to protect victims, instead protects manufacturers, leaving injured parties, often children, undercompensated and silenced. Kennedy's pledge to reform the VICP, backed by AG Pam Bondi, aims to restore its "original Congressional intent" of fairness, but deeper change is needed: liability for manufacturers.

Why Vaccine Companies Should Face Liability

Every other industry, from cars to pharmaceuticals, faces product liability to ensure safety and accountability. If a carmaker's defective brakes cause crashes, lawsuits drive recalls and redesigns. Yet, vaccine makers, despite producing products with known risks, enjoy near-total immunity under the NCVIA, except for rare cases of improper manufacturing or inadequate warnings. This double standard stifle innovation and betrays public trust. Here's why liability must be restored:

1.Incentivising Safer Vaccines: The Bruesewitz ruling (2011) bars design-defect claims, even if safer alternatives exist, arguing that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe" per Comment k of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. This removes pressure on companies like Pfizer or Merck to innovate. For example, the Bruesewitz family alleged Wyeth's DTP vaccine used an outdated design, but the court dismissed their claim, citing NCVIA protections. If manufacturers faced liability, they'd prioritise safer formulations, as seen in the shift from whole-cell to acellular pertussis vaccines after 1980s lawsuits.

2.Aligning with Market Principles: Wyeth's 1980s ultimatum to Reagan, legal protection or market exit, exposed a weak business model reliant on immunity rather than quality. Other industries don't get such a pass. Merck paid $4.85 billion for Vioxx-related deaths, spurring safer drugs. Vaccine makers, serial felons with billions in fines for fraud and racketeering, should face similar accountability. If lawsuits threaten their viability, they must "lift their game" through rigorous testing and transparent safety data, not hide behind federal shields.

3.Restoring Public Trust: The VICP's opacity and low award rate (1.2 per million doses) fuel distrust, amplified by anti-vaccine sentiment on X. Kennedy notes that claimants face retaliation and a rigged process, echoing public frustration with elite cover-ups, like Epstein's unprosecuted network. Restoring civil lawsuits would signal that the system values victims over corporate profits, countering narratives of government collusion.

4.Fairness for Victims: The VICP's $250,000 cap on non-economic damages is outdated, failing to cover lifelong care for severe injuries like anaphylaxis or brachial neuritis (listed on the Vaccine Injury Table). Civil lawsuits allow uncapped damages, ensuring victims like Hannah Bruesewitz, who suffered permanent brain damage, receive adequate support. The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) for COVID-19 vaccines is even worse, approving only 46 claims in 14 years, despite 1.6 million reported injuries. Liability would force manufacturers to fund robust compensation, not taxpayers.

Vaccine advocates, including the American Academy of Paediatrics, argue that liability would drive manufacturers out, risking vaccine shortages and herd immunity loss, as seen in the 1980s DPT crisis. They claim the VICP stabilises supply while compensating victims, citing $4.5 billion paid to 9,500 claimants since 1988.

Rebuttal: The 1980s crisis was exaggerated; only one DPT manufacturer remained by 1985, yet the market later stabilised with six major players despite ongoing risks. Liability didn't destroy other pharmaceutical sectors, Merck survived Vioxx, Pfizer survived fraud fines. Competition drives innovation, and liability would push vaccine makers to prioritise safety, not exit. The VICP's low award rate and bureaucratic hurdles prove it's no substitute for real justice. Moreover, the autism controversy, dismissed by studies but settled in cases like Hannah Poling's, shows the system's reluctance to engage with public concerns, further eroding trust.

Kennedy's reforms, enhancing VICP transparency, easing causation burdens, and curbing retaliation, are a start, but partial measures won't suffice. Congress should amend the NCVIA to:

Restore Design-Defect Claims: Overturn Bruesewitz to allow lawsuits for avoidable design flaws, incentivising safer vaccines.

Expand VICP Funding: Increase the 75-cent-per-dose tax to cover higher awards and include COVID-19 vaccines, as demanded in a 2025lawsuit against HHS.

Mandate Transparency: Require open access to Vaccine Safety Datalink and public reporting of VICP outcomes to rebuild trust.

Remove Caps: Eliminate the $250,000 cap on pain and suffering, aligning awards with real-world costs.

The NCVIA's immunity has shielded vaccine makers for 39 years, but at what cost? A broken VICP, biased against victims, protects profits over people, echoing systemic failures like Rotherham's police scandals or Epstein's untouchable network. If Pfizer, Merck, and others can't survive lawsuits, they must innovate like every other manufacturer, not hide behind "unavoidably unsafe." Restoring liability would drive safer vaccines, ensure fair compensation, and rebuild trust in a system that's failed too many. Kennedy's pledge to fix the VICP is a spark, now it's time to light the fire of accountability.

https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/rfk-jr-drops-stunning-new-vaccine