Pinterest's Way Of Dealing With Anti-Vax Nonsense And Scams Is Only Possible Because Of Section 230

from the experimentation-wins dept

A key argument by many who are advocating for getting rid of Section 230 is that various internet platforms need to “take more responsibility” or have some sort of “duty of care,” to rid their platforms of malicious content (however that’s defined). I even heard one staunch anti-Section 230 advocate complain vocally that internet services “aren’t experimenting enough” with policing their platforms. The argument that there’s not enough experimentation struck me as quite odd — because if you look around, there’s actually a ton of experimentation going on in platform moderation methods and techniques. And, even more weird, is that most of this experimentation is only possible because of Section 230.

Take the case of Pinterest. While Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Amazon have all struggled with ways to deal with the influx of utter nonsense — much of which is actively dangerous — Pinterest earlier this year announced that it was taking a hardline stance against anti-vax nonsense, banning it from the site, as best it could.

Pinterest has responded by building a ?blacklist? of ?polluted? search terms.

?We are doing our best to remove bad content, but we know that there is bad content that we haven?t gotten to yet,? explained Ifeoma Ozoma, a public policy and social impact manager at Pinterest. ?We don?t want to surface that with search terms like ?cancer cure? or ?suicide?. We?re hoping that we can move from breaking the site to surfacing only good content. Until then, this is preferable.?

Pinterest also includes health misinformation images in its ?hash bank?, preventing users from re-pinning anti-vaxx memes that have already been reported and taken down. (Hashing is a technology that applies a unique digital identifier to images and videos; it has been more widely used to prevent the spread of child abuse images and terrorist content.)

And the company has banned all pins from certain websites.

?If there?s a website that is dedicated in whole to spreading health misinformation, we don?t want that on our platform, so we can block on the URL level,? Ozoma said.

That was at the beginning of the year. And now, Pinterest is trying to fill the nonsense void with credible information instead. Rather than just blocking all of the nonsense, it has decided to replace it with credible information:

On Wednesday, Pinterest announced a new step in its efforts to combat health misinformation on its platform: users will be able to search for 200 terms related to vaccines, but the results displayed will come from major public health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and Vaccine Safety Net.

The platform will also bar advertisements, recommendations and comments on those pages.

?It was really important for us to make sure that this experience doesn?t allow any misinformation to seep in,? said Ifeoma Ozoma, public policy and social impact manager for Pinterest. ?You?re not going to end up in a situation where you click on a trustworthy pin and the recommendations or comments are full of misinformation.?

This is certainly not a panacea. Indeed, it’s not even that hard to still find vaccine misinformation on Pinterest if you look hard enough. And, there’s certainly a risk of over-blocking in this area as well. For example if someone were countering disinformation about vaccines, it’s possible that they could accidentally get swept up in the mess as well. Also, not all information is so obviously bullshit. I’ve seen anti-vaxxers misrepresent legitimate studies as supporting their position — so how do you handle legitimate reports that are being misrepresented? It quickly becomes difficult (as we’ve discussed in many previous posts).

However, the key thing here is that this is how Pinterest has decided to deal with this problem. It’s the way in which this one platform has decided to approach things on a problem that it sees with the spread of, often dangerous, myths about vaccinations (and, just a heads up: don’t even think of spreading more anti-vax nonsense in the comments, because you’re not just wrong and ignorant, but you’re actively harming people).

But the key thing here is that Pinterest is able to experiment this way because Section 230 protects its choices. Section 230 allows platforms like Pinterest to experiment and try different approaches. And that’s important for a variety of reasons. More experimentation means more ideas and more tests of what actually works. It also allows for a recognition that every platform is different. The content that is on Pinterest is different than the content on YouTube or Reddit or Amazon or Twitter, and Section 230 lets them craft a unique policy and implement it how they see fit to best deal with their own platform and their own community.

Nearly all of the proposals to chip away at Section 230 would limit or block entirely this kind of experimentation — meaning we’d all end up significantly worse off in the long run. It’s one thing for people to simply demand that platforms take more responsibility — but when the people making those demands are simultaneously trying to take away the tools that allow the companies to actually experiment with how best to take more responsibility, that’s when problems come in.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: pinterest

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Pinterest's Way Of Dealing With Anti-Vax Nonsense And Scams Is Only Possible Because Of Section 230”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

myths vs. side effects

Are you saying that the adverse reactions listed in the package inserts are myths?

Are you saying it is good to block a video of a person reading off the package inserts?

Are you saying that there are no adverse reactions; this is a myth?

Are you denying the billions paid out by the federal court set up for that purpose; this is a myth?

Are you saying that the videos showing normal persons before and abnormal persons after are a myth?

Are you saying it is good to block a video of a child before and after?

Are you saying it is good to block a lawyer talking to people?

Are you really saying that these biologics have to be tested like other medicines?

JdL (profile) says:

Re: myths vs. side effects

Mr. Masnick is an example of that curious modern species, a human who most of the time seems perfectly rational, but who, at the mention of vaccines and any possible uncertainty regarding them becomes a raving lunatic.

For anyone who wants a balanced view, here’s a good start:

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: myths vs. side effects

"the mention of vaccines and any possible uncertainty"

There is no "possible uncertainty". There is no link between vaccines and autism, and vaccines are proven to be far less risky than allowing herd immunity to decrease. Your child is at far greater risk from the effects a measles outbreak or polio returning than they ever could be from getting vaccinated.

"For anyone who wants a balanced view"

I’m not clicking on the link, but who is this "rational" fellow?

"Kendrick dislikes the medical community and argues against the use of statins.[3][4] Kendrick is associated with the pseudoscientific Institute for Natural Healing. He is a leading figure in the cholesterol denialist movement"

Oh…. So, another bullshit artist taking over from Andrew Wakefield after his con lost all credibility. Got it…

JdL (profile) says:

Thanks so much for your intolerance!

The author outs himself as an rabid anti-anti-vaxer, apparently labeling any questioning of the efficacy or potential risks associated with a vaccination as automatically "nonsense". It must be swell to be so all-knowing! As for freedom of speech, well, it’s fine, as long as the author and his friends deem its content "not dangerous".

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Thanks so much for your intolerance!

Nobody is saying vaccines come without risks. However, those risks are the lesser of the two evils, one being the risks of the vaccine, the other being the risk of contracting whatever the vaccine prevents.

There should be a country, say Tuvalu, where all the antivaxers can move and share their diseases with one another instead of the rest of society.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Thanks so much for your intolerance!

The author outs himself as an rabid anti-anti-vaxer, apparently labeling any questioning of the efficacy or potential risks associated with a vaccination as automatically "nonsense".

If there were credible information to back up the anti-vax position, you’d have a point. There is not. There is none. There is junk science, conmen, and scams. And believing in such nonsense is literally killing people. If, at some point, credible information is put forth about harms from vaccines, then that would be interesting. To date they don’t exist. To date there are just rabid idiots spewing nonsense. Don’t be one of them.

I’m all for free speech, but I’m not for forcing platforms to host nonsense that kills people.

Matthew Cline (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Thanks so much for your intolerance!

Are you saying that package inserts are not credible?

The warnings in the package inserts don’t mean that any of them are likely to happen, or a person receiving a vaccine is likely to get any of them.

Are you saying that parents and children are not credible?

The problem isn’t their credibility, but 1) just because X happened after a vaccination doesn’t mean that it was caused by that vaccination, 2) signs of X (like autism) manifesting before a vaccination but the parents either not noticing or not realizing what the signs were, and 3) the fallible nature of human memory.

Are you saying that VAERS is not credible?

Are you saying that the evidence in Vaccine court is not credible?

1) IIRC, the standard of evidence in a VAERS hearing is different than that of a normal court.

2) The various times that VAERS has sided with the plaintiffs doesn’t indicate that vaccines are more dangerous than doctors claim they are, nor does it indicate that (for example) vaccines cause autism.

Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Thanks so much for your intolerance!

the standard of evidence in a VAERS hearing is different than that of a normal court.

As in: None

As long as the claim is that the "injury" is proximally caused by a vaccine, it will be accepted. No verification needed to get a payout.
Tgere are credible claims that antivaxxers are deliberately filing false claims in order to bump up VAERS’s bogus numbers to make it look scarier.

But only cognitively nonfunctional useful idiots like AC would cite VAERS as evidence.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Thanks so much for your intolerance!

FYI this is not an attempt to get the original poster to understand why the are wrong (since I expect that one to be running on willful ignorance and thus will ignore any counterpoints) but to show others that are still on the fence the kind of snake oil people like the original poster are trying sell them and why.

Are you saying that package inserts are not credible?

Not in the way the you Nurgle cultists are portraying it (And yes you are a death cultist promoting disease by not getting vaccinated, not getting your kids vaccinated and/or trying to get rid of vaccines).
Which is selective application. You look at that list and go look at all the horrible things that will happen when you get a vaccine. Then take/give a Tylenol which has a just as scary list of possible side effects and don’t even bother to read the insert since nothing on the list will ever apply to you or your family.
To put it a bit more succinctly a fair application of your complete overreaction to the insert coming with a vaccine would mean total rejection of any medicine.

Are you saying that parents and children are not credible?

An anecdote is not data. The plural of anecdote is still not data. So yes they are not credible, especially since confirmation bias comes into play with parents.
It is why scientists use a whole host of statistical techniques to not just find correlation but causation.
They need to do it that way since it is plainly unethical to deliberately not vaccinate people seeing how effective vaccination is in preventing people getting infected by the disease the vaccination works against. So we can’t do a control group that is deliberately not vaccinated to just study this non-problem for 20 years.

Are you saying that VAERS is not credible?

Well unless you consider people becoming the Hulk, Wonderwoman or get any other superhero transformation (the correct word seeing that mutations happen during conceiving a child) as credible. Or dying/get seriously injured in vehicular accidents by being the victim of someone else hitting you.
Side effect of anyone being able to put in anything without it being checked.

Are you saying that the evidence in Vaccine court is not credible?

Bingo. We’ve got a winner here. The vaccine court is not a criminal court where it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Even a hint of possible damage/being hurt is enough to get reimbursed. Is way cheaper then having to slog through the same amount of court cases.
What I do remember is that autism spectrum disorder related injuries don’t get reimbursed as a result of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Thanks so much for your intolerance!

"An anecdote is not data."

Especially since the anecdote is based on nothing more than assumption. Yes, your child has a vaccination and they showed signs of autism – but beyond the timing there’s no evidence they were related. I ate a peanut butter sandwich as a teenager, and the next day showed the first signs of gout, a condition that’s followed my throughout my life. That doesn’t mean that gout is caused by peanut butter sandwiches!

John Roddy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Thanks so much for your intolerance!

ACK-SHULLY, there is a new method for treating rabies: shut off the brain. Seriously, that is an actual real thing that has actually really had some success. It’s stupendously dangerous, obviously, but has managed to punch a small hole in the near-100% death rate of infected victims who start showing symptoms.

That being said, it’s only effective if the brain is shut off DURING treatment, not before hand. So this particular thread’s OP is getting a bit too far ahead of himself.

Lawrence D’Oliveiro says:

Re: Re: protect someone from rabies is to vaccinate

Rabies is an interesting one, because you can vaccinate someone even after they’ve become infected, if you get them soon enough. The die-a-horribly-painful-death stage only happens once the disease spreads to the nervous system, and if the vaccine can get there first, you’re saved.

Greetings from NZ, currently suffering a spreading measles outbreak and grappling with our own sources of disinformation.

Rocky says:

Re: Re:

When someones choice not to vaccinate creates life-and-death situations for a lot of other people I find the anti-vaxxers complaint about "consent and freedom" extremely hypocritical. It’s very easy, if you exhibit dangerous behavior that threatens society at large I’m afraid your "consent and freedom" will be curtailed.

WHO has listed anti-vaxxers as one of the top-ten most significant threats to health on the planet. I just hope the anti-vaxxers don’t cause too much collateral damage before they remove themselves from the human gene-pool if they persist to behave like irresponsible morons.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 taking away the democratic vote

Ummm…Queen Elizabeth?

"What is a democratic vote?
In a democracy, a government is chosen by voting in an election: a way for an electorate to elect, i.e. choose, among several candidates for rule. In a representative democracy voting is the method by which the electorate appoints its representatives in its government."

"Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law notes that the United States exemplifies the varied nature of a constitutional republic—a country where some decisions (often local) are made by direct democratic processes, while others (often federal) are made by democratically elected representatives."

cattress (profile) says:

Freedom to choose

As a libertarian, I support your freedom to choose whether to be vaccinated, or abstain from entering any place of public accommodation. To be a member of society, like any group, you trade off certain things for that membership. Society demands that in most situations you wear clothing and do not have an offensive odor. These things are not really negotiable, but are open to some interpretation. Don’t like wearing pants? Like the smell of your unwashed feet? Refuse to get a couple of proven effective shots to prevent the potential spread of deadly illness to the most vulnerable members of society? That’s fine, I don’t want to force anything on you. But you cant force the rest of us to look at your hairy ass, smell your rank feet, or accept a completely unnecessary risk to the well-being of our kids.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Freedom to choose

"But you cant force the rest of us to look at your hairy ass, smell your rank feet, or accept a completely unnecessary risk to the well-being of our kids."

But it’s OK to spread disease that could have been controlled via the vaccination to the rest of society. I personally don’t know enough about the vaccination issue to know whether they are bad or good but I do think there is a possibility that drug manufacturers push their products for the sake of profit rather than efficacy, but I don’t think the question should be over ideology rather than societal good.

If and when some vaccines are proven to have significant deleterious effects then those individual vaccines should be called into question (rather than the entire process of vaccination), along with the proceedings the FDA used to approve them. And, in the end, if there are issues with certain vaccines, it should be the FDA that should be excoriated, along with the particular manufacturers, not the rest of society.

cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Freedom to choose

I might have been some what unclear. I feel that if you wish to be a part of society, then you have to get vaccinated. If you feel getting vaccinated is too great a risk, or for whatever reason, refuse to be vaccinated, then you can go live on a compound some where, or with whatever fringe society will have you. You are free to choose which life you want to lead. You are not free to impose an unnecessary risk on the rest of us.
And there’s plenty of reason to be skeptical of drug companies, especially with the revelations from Purdue pharma. But we should be worried about vaccines and preventative treatments being suppressed; drug companies make way less if we don’t get sick.
Oh, and those manufacturer "warning" slips that come with vaccines are mostly just litigation ass coverage. My prenatal vitamins came with pages of warnings. So does my heartburn medicine. Anyone notice how drug commercials legal jargon advises people to inform their doctor of every conceivable medical condition that said doctor should either already be aware of, or asking about before writing a prescription? I mean, anyone who has ever gone to a doctor knows you have to fill out pages and pages of medical history before you even see an exam room. Ass coverage. Even headache medicine warns that it may cause a headache!

rkhalloran (profile) says:

Re: Re: Freedom to choose

SImple math: you get vaccinated once as a kid, maybe a booster as a teen. Pharma’s not making any big money on that; consider the chronic medications like insulin, blood thinners, cholesterol meds etc that you have to take EVERY FREAKIN’ DAY, there’s the vector for price gouging.

Yes, some people have bad reactions to vaccines, the percentage is exceptionally small. The benefit to society in general greatly outweighs this. The anti-vaxxers touting how few people die of the classic childhood diseases don’t count in the much more frequent (but still slight) neurological problems, blindness, male sterility from mumps, etc etc. Dodging the question by focusing only on the worst possible outcome frankly proves the moral bankruptcy of their position.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: how could you possibly know what the risks vs benefits a

What are the risk from the vaccine???? The safety study was 48 hours and they compaired it to DPT….. DPT is banned in the US because it harmed so many children…. Also, what’s the risk of the vaccine compared to the possibility of getting polio….. Do you know you can get poilio and be fine…… Do you know the chances of getting polio?

Are you familiar with the cutter incident?… And, Cutter was not the only manufacturer that messed up.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: how could you possibly accept kids with polio

In the USA 0% thanks to vaccines. Same with measles until recently… As far as your other questions, ask someone who has polio. You’ll be able to find them easily enough if you go to an Orthotist and look for the person with the exoskeleton braces up to their hips.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re:

For example the Hep B vaccine the safety review was 4 days and no placebo.

4 years, not 4 days. And there’s no need to give a placebo to newborns.

Risks of the polio vaccine are minimal.

The safety study was 48 hours

Reference for that?

Do you know you can get poilio and be fine.

Yes, you can. There’s also a small chance you could be paralyzed for life, or die. You can play Russian roulette and be fine too.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

"4 years, not 4 days. And there’s no need to give a placebo to newborns."

An anti-vaxxer lies and fails to understand basic scientific logic? What a shock!

"There’s also a small chance you could be paralyzed for life, or die. You can play Russian roulette and be fine too."

Nobody who’s been around polio would ever be so cavalier about it, even if they are suffering from survivors’ bias. It’s actually sickening seeing people trying to play with the lives of their children and others like this (full disclosure: I have an uncle who had polio as a kid. Yes, he survived but he also completely lost use of his right arm).

Anonymous Coward says:

The big question is who is healthier the vaccinated or the unvaccinated??? Look at the study that Peter Abby did. The unvaccinated are healthier….. look at the Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S. children

Anthony R Mawson

I could go on for days with studies. … the vaccinated are sicker.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The big question is who is healthier the vaccinated or the unvaccinated??? Look at the study that Peter Abby did. The unvaccinated are healthier….. look at the Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S. children

Anthony R Mawson

Um. Nope.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

While I don’t know how common it is(hopefully ‘very’), I remember listening to a teenager asking for advice in how to effectively bypass their parents and get their vaccinations in spite of their parents’ opposition to them, as while their parents may be been duped the teenager at least had seen through the plague-protectionist bullshit and wasn’t looking to add themselves to the ‘infected by an easily preventable disease’ statistics.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Maybe if you clowns stopped focusing on the couple of debunked studies that support your point of view and looked at the actual scientific research on vaccines you would have you questions answered. If not go to a polio patient and ask them if the risks are worth it. Or ask a mother who’s child got encephalitis from Rubella. Or a father who can’t take their immunity compromised child anywhere in public because idiots like you might have measles and kill the kid stone cold dead.

cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re:

If I believed that vaccines went through little to no scientific scrutiny, as you are posing here, I wouldn’t get them either. What makes you think that vaccines don’t under go rigorous testing, based on universally agreed upon scientific methods? I mean, I get skepticism of Big Pharma. Do you think they lie about clinical results, fake their research? Why would they take such a risk? Much easier to tweek the formula of a successful drug for a patent extension with none of the risk of committing fraud. And the level of conspiracy needed to pull off such a plot? Too many people, it would never work. Are you being serious, or just trolling? Im not trying to be rude or insulting, but have you really thought about how ridiculous the premise that giant drug companies have never done safety studies, and yet haven’t been sued out of existence; instead, doctors who save the lives of babies emphatically market their products without any compensation, and loving, caring , intelligent parents choose to have their precious babies injected with an untested product? None of that seems remotely possible to me.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: google search images of vaccine-injured children

So, what you’re saying is that you have no actual source for the claim you just made, and want to shock people with graphic images rather than risk having your claims debunked?

Should I respond with graphic photos of children being needlessly maimed by preventable diseases because some idiots won’t vaccinate theirs?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 google search images of vaccine-injured children

Oh, I didn’t bother clicking them.

It does bring to mind, though, cases where Nigerian 419 scammers used photographs of actually diseased people in their emails to make their "plights" look more convincing. You know… just in case you thought they weren’t already despicable enough.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 google search images of vaccine-injured chil

I’ve also seen animal rights activists recently sharing a photo a rabbit in pretty bad shape claiming it’s the result of animal testing for makeup (the photo in question is actually due to ear mites and has nothing to do with the accused companies).

Unfortunately, whether it’s for money or a cause they believe to be morally righteous, some people have no problem outright lying in the process.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Package inserts…1427.13094..16093…0.0..……0….2j1..gws-wiz.ssKO1yw8UoI&ved=0ahUKEwjhxM-ErbzkAhXRslkKHVa-AbQQ4dUDCAs#spf=1567778245249

Anonymous Coward says:

Literature on injuries

Vaccine injuries were acknowledge in 1985.
This book shows up on the U. S. Gov. website.

National Research Council (US)
Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention.
Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1985.

[Chapter] 5 Vaccine Injury


Adverse events following immunization are reported to the FDA by manufacturers, pharmacists, physicians, and the military, and to the CDC by the parents or guardians of children who receive federally funded vaccines. Although these reporting systems are useful, neither of them provides an adequate basis for estimation of the total number of events that occur, in part because reporting is voluntary. Even if reporting were mandatory, however, the data would not allow determination of the number of events actually caused by, rather than coincidental to, the administration of vaccines because information on similar events in unvaccinated individuals is not collected. Conclusions about cause and effect and rates of adverse reactions to vaccines should be drawn only from carefully designed, well-controlled epidemiological studies.

Responsibilities for identifying vaccine-associated risks, promoting awareness of contraindications to vaccination, and completing all of the steps required for vaccine improvement are now poorly defined and coordinated. Proposals outlined elsewhere in this report should ensure greater cooperation among the multiple public and private components of the vaccine innovation and immunization effort.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Literature on injuries

Dude, you REALLY need to read what you post before you post it in support of your baseless claims. What you posted quite literally shreds your entire argument. For example:

Conclusions about cause and effect and rates of adverse reactions to vaccines should be drawn only from carefully designed, well-controlled epidemiological studies.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: U. S. Gov. - vaccine injuries

Yes, nobody’s saying that such things don’t exist. What’s being said is that they’re so rare as to be trivial compared to the risks associated with the diseases they prevent.

You’re finding information everybody else already knows about, and has evaluated, as if it’s not new smoking gun information. It’s not.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Vaccine Injury Table

Brachial Neuritis
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
Vasovagal syncope
Encephalopathy or encephalitis
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
Chronic arthritis
Thrombocytopenic purpura
Vaccine-Strain Measles Viral Disease in an immunodeficient recipient
Paralytic Polio
Vaccine-Strain Polio Viral Infection
Disseminated varicella vaccine-strain viral disease
Varicella vaccine-strain viral reactivation
Guillain-Barré Syndrome

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Vaccine Injury Table

National Advisory Vaccine Committee

DRAFT February 2018 NVAC Meeting Minutes

Additional petitions requested the addition of autism, asthma, and tics. Another involved three different conditions: pediatric autoimmune and neuropsychiatric syndrome, pediatric infection-triggered autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorder, and pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorder associated with group A streptococcus. The sixth petition related to experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis and/or acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis. Medical officers provided the Commission with scientific and medical literature. Following discussions, commissioners all voted to exclude these conditions from the Vaccine Injury Table.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Injury Table

Again, this means nothing. No vaccine is 100% safe, just as no medication if any kind is 100% safe. However it’s better for everyone if as many people as possible have the vaccine and there’s infrastructure to deal the the inevitable rare problems, than it is to risk breakouts if these diseases. The latter will have vastly greater costs, both human and monetary. Therefore adding vaccines for other diseases make sense as we understand which vaccines provide more value through mandatory usage than without.

You repeating what sane people already know will not change that the only thing you can do with there scare tactics is to make your children LESS safe, as they become more susceptible to preventable diseases.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Vaccine Liability

History of Vaccine Safety

lawsuits were filed

Damages were awarded

liability and prices soared, and several vaccine manufacturers halted production.

To reduce liability and respond to public health concerns, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) in 1986.

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) was created to compensate those injured by vaccines on a “no fault” basis.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Vaccine Liability

Here is an interesting search result:


…As a quid pro quo, manufacturers enjoy significant tort-liability protections. Most importantly, the Act eliminates manufacturer liability for a vaccine’s unavoidable, adverse side effects.

…although products-liability law establishes three grounds for liability—defective manufacture, inadequate directions or warnings, and defective design—the Act mentions only manufacture and warnings. It thus seems that the Act’s failure to mention design-defect liability is “by deliberate choice, not inadvertence.”

…which exempts from strict liability rules “unavoidably unsafe products.”

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting

Vaccine manufacturers have long been subject to a legal duty, rooted in basic principles of products liability law, to improve the designs of their vaccines in light of advances in science and technology. Until today, that duty was enforceable through a traditional state-law tort action for defective design…

…Its decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products.

…And yet it is undisputed that prior to the Act, vaccine manufacturers had long been subject to liability under state tort law for defective vaccine design.

…The principal innovation of the Act was the creation of the no-fault compensation program

…Trial courts, moreover, have considerable experience in efficiently handling and disposing of meritless products liability claims, and decades of tort litigation (including for design defect) in the prescription-drug context have not led to shortages in prescription drugs.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...