So when is a vaccine injury not an vaccine injury?

When our government decides it is not.

When is an injury from a vaccine not an injury? Or more precisely, how does our Federal Government view injuries that do not fall into their small categorized, time frame of causation that must fit inside of not < # days and no longer > #days.

For most vaccines that are part of ‘the Program’, i.e. the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), there is a list of known injuries and associated timeframes the injuries must manifest themselves within.

Very popular today is shoulder injury, as a result of a vaccine administration. The petition must show the pain and injury occurred within 48 hours to be considered a petition worthy of compensation by our government. But what about those petitioners that did not report the injury or document the injury until several days later.

For the NVICP to grant entitlement for compensation for a Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) case, the injury cannot occur prior to three days or no later than 42 days.

How did those dates and time frames become the standard to adjudicate petitions?

In the case of M. v HHS, petitioner alleges the meningococcal vaccine given to the child caused a neurologic condition known as chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). Basically, severe chronic GBS.

The issue with this case is that the medical literature generally states that GBS and CIDP symptoms should not manifest themselves until the 3rd day from vaccination.

In this specific case, symptoms occurred within hours. Medical experts retained by the petitioner could not explain why or how symptoms occurred within hours. Case dismissed.

Yet the government’s position is that since the petitioner failed to establish a medical theory supported by research or medical expert testimony, the petitioner has failed on their burden to provide preponderance of evidence.

But that shall not mean the child is not suffering from CIDP. On the contrary. The decision means the child could not prove his case with the generally accepted medical literature. And most of literature is from case studies twenty-plus years ago.

Or take the case of T. vs HHS. Petitioner alleges DTaP, HPV, Influenza and Meningitis caused systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This is the most common form of lupus. Child received the vaccines back in 2013. Medical records show child diagnosed with lupus but not attributed to the vaccines. Why? No medical expert would testify on behalf of the child. No family history of lupus. Government did not have to provide another cause. Just case dismissed. And the child still suffers from lupus today.

If the petitioner would have been compensated for their injury, there would be a very good probability that current and future care would be part of the damage award. But since the petitioner failed, the burden shifts to the family and later, probably to the taxpayers.

This is the shape and condition of the NVICP today. Many teens and young adults suffering from postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome

(POTS) due to their Gardasil vaccination will not be able to proceed in the NVICP. Many parents will be denied an opportunity to litigate the death of their baby from vaccine induced SIDS.

Many young children who suffer early onset of epilepsy and seizures due to the DTaP vaccine are denied the very same opportunity.

Yet our children, all suffer ongoing medical conditions, many for the rest of their lives, all due to the establishment timing parameters the NVICP uses to adjudicate petitions.

Yes, petitioners have been successful occasionally in pursuing their case outside of the timing element. But it requires a very lengthy, adversarial process of testimony and hearings with medical experts. And then it comes down to a Special Master’s decision of the government’s expert more credible than the petitioner’s expert.

Another factor is the random luck of which special master will be reviewing your petition. It is widely known that several of them are there to protect the vaccine program and the policies of our government. Even if you have the best experts, you generally will not be able to move forward successfully.

I write this article not only to inform the public about the difficulty of prosecuting a successful case on behalf of the petitioner, especially if it is a child, but also as a harbinger of what is to come with the COVID-19 vaccines.

During the most recent ACIP meeting, a member of the committee asked a HRSA administrator if they are working on an injury table for the COVID-19 jab. Their answer was ‘no’ and we have not been told to do so.

Remember, the Gardasil and Hep A vaccines when first approved and placed into the NVICP, had no included injury table. Thus, petitioners had to fight for every one of their petitions, seeking medical testimony from medical experts. This is a very litigious and adversarial process which goes against the very fiber of what Congress intended the program to be. “A fair, equitable, and quick process”.

Most medical experts do agree that the COVID-19 jab does create known injuries in high prevalence for myocarditis and associated conditions plus blood clots or Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS).

But to get our government to voluntarily create a vaccine injury table without Pharma slowing down the process or grinding it to a halt will be a monumental task. That is a reason why the bill introduced earlier this year in the Senate to reform the CounterMeasures Injury Compensation Program would require the Secretary of HHS to create a commission to develop a list of injuries from the COVID-19 jab.

Parties injured from the COVID-19 jab do not need a vaccine injury table to proceed. It would just make it less challenging and shorten the process. And if a table is constructed, watch out for the timing requirements.

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