Congress’s Golden Opportunity for Reform
Congress’s Golden Opportunity for Reform
by Christopher Dreisbach at Brownstone Institute
The Injustice
Electrical shocks from head to toe. Debilitating fatigue. Embarrassing cognitive impairment. As a result of a severe adverse reaction to the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine, these are just a few of the symptoms I endure daily. Formally a practicing attorney, instead of defending my clients in the courtroom, I spend much of my days either in a hot bath or in bed, desperately hoping for relief.
With that background, I was incensed, although not surprised, to learn last month that the Biden administration extended the Public Readiness Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act’s liability protections for Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers, until the end of 2029 under the auspice that the virus remains a “critical risk” to the American public.
Under the PREP Act, the Covid-19 vaccine-injured may only seek recovery for their injuries through the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). Significantly, they are ineligible to seek relief in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), available to those injured by almost all other vaccines.
Due to its unrealistic filing deadline, impossible standard of proof, paltry benefits, conflicting interests, and lack of judicial review, the CICP has currently rejected 98% of claims—compensating just twenty individuals nationwide. But for one extreme outlier (a $370,376 award—likely a myocarditis fatality), the average Covid-19 vaccine-related payout is less than a meager $5,000—a pittance in consideration of astronomic medical bills, lost wages, and permanent disability.
Of course, had the vaccines been as effective as represented to the American people, the virus they were created to negate could not possibly still be considered a risk eight years after their initial rollout. Essentially, their ineffectiveness has precluded any possible adjudication that they are unsafe. Said another way, because of their likely liability, they are entitled to immunity.
Such a policy is not only nonsensical, it is morally reprehensible. While corporate executives enjoy the benefits of billions, the Covid-19 vaccine-injured have no monetary remedy and face financial destitution in addition to perpetual pain and suffering.
This is not the first time the Biden Administration has egregiously maltreated the Covid-19 vaccine-injured. Ostensibly to combat “misinformation,” leading to vaccine hesitancy, the federal government colluded with social media companies and the Stanford Internet Observatory’s Virality Project to monitor and censor online Covid-19 vaccine injury support groups. Numerous federal agencies and government actors—including within the White House—coerced social media platforms to censor, suppress, and label as “misinformation” any speech that might contradict its blanket “safe and effective” narrative.
Inexcusably, the White House was fully aware that “often-true content” was being censored because it might “be framed as sensational, alarmist, or shocking.” Similarly, the Virality Project recommended “adverse event stories” be suppressed because they might be “employed to push back against vaccine mandates”—not because they were inaccurate descriptions of real-life suffering.
The Response
Despite its members being specifically targeted by the Biden administration on multiple occasions, React19, a nonprofit dedicated solely to supporting those injured by the Covid-19 vaccines, has remained entirely nonpartisan throughout its advocacy—no small feat in today’s highly polarized political climate, especially in the context of vaccine injuries.
Fortunately for its members, React19’s politically neutral approach has thus far paid off on Capitol Hill. Throughout the 118th Congress, the organization played a critical role in the introduction of four bills on behalf of the Covid-19 vaccine-injured.
First, the Vaccine Injury Modernization Act of 2023 (H.R. 5142) and the Vaccine Access Improvement Act (H.R. 5143), were introduced by the bipartisan team of Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) and Representative Lloyd Smucker (R-PA). The legislation would not only transfer all CICP cases to the VICP, but would also make that program far more efficient, with increasingly robust benefits for the injured. Representative Smucker, who first met with React19 members as early as the summer of 2021, played a critical role in assuring that the legislation would include provisions specifically to benefit the Covid-19 vaccine injured, not just those individuals already eligible to receive compensation in the VICP.
In addition to these efforts, some lawmakers have sought to negate vaccine injury immunity provisions altogether, rather than reforming existing compensation programs. For example, Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) introduced the End the Vaccine Carveout Act (H.R. 9828) intended to negate both the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and the PREP Act’s immunity provisions, while Representative Chip Roy (R-TX) introduced the Let Injured Americans Be Legally Empowered (LIABLE) Act (H.R. 7551) specifically intended to negate Covid-19 vaccine immunity provisions.
Prior to introducing their respective bills, both Representatives Gosar and Roy sought input from React19 leadership. In addition, the Congressmen requested, and received, the organization’s official endorsement.
Unfortunately, the two divergent approaches have come to represent not just a strategic difference, but also a political stalemate, leaving the sick and suffering with worn partisan talking points, rather than results.
By and large, Democrats favor reforming existing compensation programs. They stress the importance of immunity as a vital component to incentivize robust pharmaceutical research and development. (Of note, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which created the VICP, was signed into law after Wyeth Pharmaceutical, now a wholly owned Pfizer subsidiary, approached the Reagan Administration threatening to halt vaccine research and development unless it was granted immunity from inevitable suits.)
In addition, Democrats, loyal to the Biden administration and its support of vaccine mandates, are generally leery of any legislation that may be viewed as contradicting the “safe and effective” narrative mechanically promoted by current Federal health agencies. Many fear that supporting the vaccine-injured will open themselves up to being labeled an “anti-vaxxer,” an electoral death sentence in many districts. Ironically, this term is often used pejoratively to vilify those suffering from adverse events, ignoring the obvious fact that vaccination is a prerequisite to vaccine injury.
On the other side of the aisle, as anti-establishment sentiment has become a cornerstone of the Republican ethos, increasingly, GOP lawmakers are keen to target the overwhelming influence of the pharmaceutical lobby on public policy. For them, defending the benefits of pharmaceutical immunity, while simultaneously chastising the revolving door between Federal health agencies and pharmaceutical company boardrooms, is simply an untenable position.
Further, Republicans generally oppose any increased spending and/or expansion of existing government programs. For these lawmakers, the compensation program reform bill’s projected $10-$20 billion price tag is alone objectionable beyond serious consideration.
In an attempt to force progress, React19 joined other key plaintiffs in Smith v. Health Resources and Services Administration, a federal case seeking to strike down the PREP Act’s CICP immunity provisions. For strategic reasons, React19 was dropped as a plaintiff but the others remained. Subsequently, Smith v. United States of America was filed. In that case, React19 co-chair Dr. Joel Wallskog joined three fellow plaintiffs in another challenge to CICP. The second CICP case brings the same and additional claims as those raised in the preceding Smith case.
Both cases specifically allege that the PREP Act violates the Covid-19 vaccine-injured’s due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The second case also alleges a violation of the right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment and a violation of the Takings Clause under the Fifth Amendment. The cases are currently pending in the United States District Courts of the Western District of Louisiana and the Northern District of Texas, respectively.
Should the cases succeed, the Covid-19 vaccine-injured would be either eligible to directly sue the pharmaceutical companies, or the government would be forced to provide a “reasonable alternative remedy” through comprehensive vaccine injury compensation program reform.
Serving in a volunteer capacity as React19’s Legal Affairs Director, I have had the honor of working alongside other members of our government affairs team meeting personally with lawmakers, their staffers, and other government officials, advocating on behalf of our fellow injured. Conservatively, as an organization, we have participated in over 150 such meetings.
In these meetings, not a single official has disagreed with our core position that (1) the government has abysmally failed the Covid-19 vaccine-injured and (2) the injured deserve meaningful comprehensive reform. In light of the CICP’s abysmal statistics presented above, any argument to the contrary would be disingenuous at best. And yet, not one of the four bills introduced on behalf of the injured has moved beyond the initial subcommittee level. Not surprisingly, Democrats continue to point the finger at Republicans while Republicans consistently return the accusation. Meanwhile, their constituents suffer.
The Solution
“The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it.”
-Norman Schwarzkopf
By and large, many in the Covid-19 vaccine-injured community were pleased with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s appointment to serve as our nation’s next Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)—not surprising in light of his articulated concerns over vaccine safety in general.
Certainly, Mr. Kennedy’s appointment represents a changing political landscape in terms of acknowledging vaccine injuries in Washington, D.C., and an opportunity for action. However, it also presents a potential pitfall.
At this critical moment, it is crucial that the Covid-19 vaccine-injured community does not let its collective optimism lead to complacency. No single official, elected or appointed, has ever achieved meaningful reform without consistent, outside-the-beltway pressure from those personally affected by particular legislation.
Significantly, while the Secretary of HHS may determine policy, he or she is powerless to reform law. The authority to enact legislation, such as that required to negate the PREP Act’s CICP immunity provisions, is reserved for Congress.
In short, rooting for a champion is not enough.
Therefore, as the swearing-in of the 119th Congress draws near, those of us suffering from debilitating adverse Covid-19 vaccine reactions, as well as our non-injured supporters, must prepare to push harder than ever before. We cannot be satisfied by our prior progress. At the same time, we must not abandon the fundamental argument that has brought us this far—that pain has no party.
Regardless of their political affiliation, we must hold our elected officials publicly accountable. Silence in the face of blatant corruption, such as extending PREP Act immunity provisions to satisfy the corporate interests of pharmaceutical companies, at the expense of those permanently debilitated by their products, is simply unacceptable. Thanks to the work of React19, and other advocates for the vaccine-injured, claiming ignorance of this injustice is no longer a viable excuse for inaction.
We must offer members of the 119th Congress a choice—either commit to meaningful bipartisan negotiations on behalf of the Covid-19 vaccine-injured, or be outed as corrupt enablers at best.
The choice is simple. The right thing to do is clear. Now comes the hard part.
Congress’s Golden Opportunity for Reform
by Christopher Dreisbach at Brownstone Institute – Daily Economics, Policy, Public Health, Society