William Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Can your friend explain why vaccines are different from other drugs?"
While I'm certainly not qualified to negotiate that legal minefield, may I guess? I'd say that a drug is intended to fix an existing problem, whereas a vaccine applies a "dangerous" element to prevent possible future risk. Thus one who gets sick from a vaccine* can claim that absent the vaccine, the illness would not have occured; however, with other drugs the person was already sick and something had to be done. It sounds like a stretch, to be sure, but then the claim that putting a car in drive and pushing the accelerator literally through the floor board is consistent with an automatically accelerating car is a bit of a stretch as well. Yet Audi lost to such a claim. -jsh *Here's an unsettling tidbit: "But there would be panic [from smallpox terror scares]. Mass vaccination would be demanded, and politicians would find such calls very difficult to resist. They should remember, however, that when millions of people were vaccinated in response to the outbreak in Britain in 1962, nearly as many died from its complications as from smallpox itself." www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n17/penn01_.html __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
