Here’s a little piece about U.S. pharmaceutical legislation, from my own research.
First, an excerpt from the U.S: legal code governing vaccines (emphasis mine):
42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22.Standards of responsibility
(a) General rule
Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (e) State law shall apply to a civil action brought for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death.
(b) Unavoidable adverse side effects; warnings
(1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
( full text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22 )
In other words, in the U.S, as long as you put a warning of possible side effects on the packet, you can’t be prosecuted for selling a dangerous vaccine.
This legislation was passed following a “scare” about alleged side effects of whooping cough vaccine (DPT), which had resulted in big payouts from some vaccine manufacturers, and the consequent threatened withdrawal of all of them from the DPT vaccine market.
With this in place, is it possible that some pharmaceutical corporations (all of which have a legal requirement to direct their efforts to best serve the interests of their shareholders) might try to promote vaccines of dubious worth and/or potentially suspect safety? I’d say it’s not just possible, it’s inevitable.
But all is not lost – there is a Federal “Vaccine Program” to which you can apply for monetary recompense if you have been harmed by a vaccine. Since 1990, it has awarded 3.9 billion dollars in damages.
This money comes from taxpayers. Pharmaceutical companies don’t even contribute to it.
In other words, the U.S. system of market-driven pharmaceuticals and litigation-driven liability resolution simply doesn’t work, justifying the intervention of the state. However, rather than fix the real issue, the state’s chosen intervention is to use taxpayers money to protect corporations from any damaging effects of their irresponsible behaviour.
Phew.