Do we need a specific Injury Table for COVID-19 jabs?

As I have discovered and reported earlier of our government’s desire not to create a specific vaccine injury table for COVID-19 jabs, the question remains.

Does HHS need to develop a specific COVID-19 jab injury table?

The table would be used to determine compensation for the nearly 7,800 jab related injury petitions received for COVID.

The CounterMeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) does not allow reimbursement of attorney fees or medical expert costs. Thus the petitioner is prosecuting their own petition on their own or what is called Pro Se' in the legal world.

From a FOIA that I filed earlier this summer asking for a standard of proof, HRSA responded that the Sec’y of HHS back in August 2021, very quietly adopted the Smallpox Vaccine Injury Table that was developed over 17 years ago as the current table to decision on compensation for the COVID jab. No public announcement, press release or news coverage. Just a listing in the thousands of pages of the Federal Register. A way to comply with the law and bury the story at the same time.

The process of filling out a petition application is very isolating.

The petitioner would gather their own medical records and submit them along with their application for benefits to the CICP in hopes of receiving compensation. Along with the medical records would be any documentation off unreimbursed medical expenses and lost income (capped at $50,000 per year). No pain & suffering damages.

The CICP would perform a medical review of the records and the petition, then determine if the petitioner’s injury is indeed compensable or not.

But what is the standard of proof level to achieve compensation? This is where an injury table would come into play. A listing of known injuries and the timing of symptom development based upon medical literature, studies or consensus of the medical community.

Example in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) is a very common injury from the flu shot. Guillain–Barré Syndrome (GBS) can not develop earlier than 3 days from the vaccination and no longer than 42 days after the vaccination. GBS is an inflammatory disorder and an acute immune-mediated demyelinating neuropathy that causes reduced signal transmissions, progressive muscle weakness, and paralysis.

Why this set of dates. It is based upon the medical literature from the study of GBS. From 20+ years ago. It is not current. That is one of the dangers of an injury table.

What is remarkable about any new studies or research continuing the narrative that GBS has association with the influenza vaccine but the incidents are “extremely” rare and the maximum risk for development of GBS is 2-3 weeks. They continue to ignore one of the largest databases of GBS injuries. VAERS would give them a very large window into the occurrence of GBS. But Pharma and Public Health do not want this to become part of the public discourse. So the narrative remains, GBS is extremely rare but there is an association with influenza vaccination.

But VAERS and other observational research clearly indicates that GBS can develop at day 45 or even at day 60. This would be outside of the table definition in the NVICP.

Will the timing of injury listed on the table be so narrow that most will not qualify as a table injury? In the NVICP, if the injury is not a table case because of timing, the petitioner can continue to prosecute their case as a causation in fact type of case. Have to prove that their specific injury may have been the result of the vaccination. The petitioner will be able to introduce medical experts to testify on their behalf, introduce other science studies and research that may be published within the last few years.

Many petitioners have been very successful in their cases with the help of medical experts. But in the CICP, most petitioners will not be able to pay for their own medical experts (fees ranging from $5,000 to $100,000 or more).

So what happens to a petitioner in the CICP who does not meet the strict table definitions of a known injury? Probability of compensation is not good, most likely, a dismissal.

So this is a major drawback using a table in the CICP. That could be altered to be more equitable to those who have been injured. Allow for attorney fees and medical expert costs to be included in the CICP.

Now the big elephant in the room still remains. Who is going to lead the development of an injury table and how many voices will be heard on what is to be included on the table?

For any table to be developed and included, The Sec’y of HHS will have final say. Thus the politics will be in play. How much influence will Pharma have. Probably the loudest voice in the room.

One piece of legislation introduced in the US Senate earlier this year called for a commission to develop a vax injury table within 2 years. That would be a very Herculean task.

Another issue with a table specific COVID jabs is this. Many people who are injured developed an initial injury and those injuries may lead to other medical conditions to be determined in the future. And we are witnessing many who have been injured with bizarre or undetermined injuries. Not seen before.

Most doctors will refuse to accept the jab caused any injury other than soreness at the injection site. No medical consensus of any injury but it is really obvious if they would just be honest.

So maybe any effort right now to develop an injury table will be too restrictive, be misapplied.

Maybe the best path forward right now for the thousands of people who have been injured or will become injured in the near future is to allow medical experts and attorneys who are experienced in dealing with vaccine injuries in the NVICP to be reimbursed by the CICP.

Just a thought.

Keep learning, keep challenging yourself and always, always question authority.

---

Wayne Rohde is an author of 2 books on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program aka The Vaccine Court. His upcoming work, Global Vaccine Injury Compensation programs will be released in early summer of 2023.

He is also the host of The Right on Point podcast, a candid discussion of your civil rights and liberties in the COVID world.