(Rob Schneider: "Bill Gates says there's too many of us. His thing, by 2030, is to depopulate the planet... and one of the ways to do that is using vaccines”)
The Vaccine Injury Compensation Programme (VICP) was introduced in 1986 to shield pharmaceutical companies from civil liability related to vaccine injury. Its origin lies in the refusal of major manufacturers to continue vaccine production unless granted immunity from lawsuits. Wyeth, now part of Pfizer, warned the Reagan administration that it would exit the vaccine market unless protected by law. When questioned about safer products, Wyeth replied that vaccines were inherently unsafe and that injury was unavoidable. The law was passed on this basis, transferring responsibility from manufacturers to the federal government and promising families fair compensation in return. That promise was not honoured.
For nearly four decades, the government has overseen a scheme that delivers neither justice nor efficiency. Families must file claims against the United States Department of Health and Human Services. They are not allowed to sue the manufacturers directly. The court uses Special Masters to decide outcomes, many of whom have prior roles in government or politically aligned legal work. These officials rarely side with petitioners. They operate without the standard rules of evidence and without full transparency. Petitioners do not have access to discovery and are routinely blocked from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains the most relevant data. Compensation is rare. Delays are long. The legal process is designed to discourage claimants and protect the financial solvency of the trust fund, not to compensate the injured.
Twelve thousand petitioners have received awards since the programme’s inception. That number stands against hundreds of millions of doses administered. The fund has paid out just over $5 billion, a figure that understates the true scale of injury by a wide margin. Victims often wait five years or more to have their cases heard. Many wait over a decade, while dealing with permanent and often severe disabilities in their children. The burden is placed entirely on the families. The government’s legal team resists claims, delays proceedings, and limits access to information. Medical experts who support injured families report harassment, professional threats, and loss of funding. The process is hostile by design.
The same companies that produce these vaccines hold immunity from civil suit. There is no financial penalty for harm caused. These profit above everything else corporations face no regulatory pressure to improve product safety. The phrase “unavoidably unsafe” remains central to the legal justification and provides cover for predictable injury. That phrase also reflects a deeper policy failure, where the state places national immunisation policy above individual medical outcomes. Manufacturers rely on legal protection to continue producing vaccines despite known risks. Families who experience harm are left without full legal remedy or open recourse. The current legal framework permits this arrangement to continue without change.
Communities such as the Amish, who do not follow vaccination schedules, have drawn attention for their markedly different health outcomes. Chronic illness, behavioural disorders, and autoimmune conditions occur at a far lower rate. The contrast is well documented but largely ignored. Public health officials do not engage with these comparisons. They continue to treat vaccine injury as rare, unconnected, or coincidental. That position is legally supported by the structure of the VICP, which filters out most claims and limits public scrutiny. The narrative of safety depends on suppressing evidence and limiting accountability. The numbers from the compensation fund reflect systemic denial rather than absence of harm.
The 1986 Act created a legal and commercial model that has drawn considerable private interest as it eliminated litigation risk while preserving market access. This allowed new entrants to view vaccines as an asset class where high returns were secured through legal immunity, public funding, and mandates. Companies could invest without fear of liability and public programmes absorbed the consequences, while private firms collected the profit. This was the incentive structure that drew figures such as psychopath eugenicist Bill Gates into vaccine development. The expansion came through legal immunity and guaranteed market access. Safety, efficiency, and scientific progress played no determining role.
The recent handling of COVID-19 claims followed the same pattern, only more extreme. The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Programme (CICP), introduced in 2020, blocks access to appeals and limits damages to a fixed amount. The cap stands at fifty thousand dollars per claim. There are no hearings, no open records, and no independent review. The fund relies on carryover funds and faces no public accounting. During the COVID response, the Trump administration further attempted to remove protections for shoulder injuries and fainting, overruling both doctors and manufacturers. Thousands of claims remain unresolved. Few have been compensated and the federal budget now allocates no new money for this programme. It exists in name only, but offers no meaningful remedy.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now Secretary of Health and Human Services, has described the Vaccine Court as a system hollowed out by bias, inefficiency, and systemic failure. He has pledged to reform it as he has acknowledged the damage it has caused and the institutional resistance to change. The promises made in 1986 have not been met. The court operates in a manner that does not align with its stated purpose and fails to deliver the outcomes originally promised by legislation. Victims face state lawyers, government-appointed officials, and a process designed to minimise public liability. The law, in effect, placed corporate protection above child welfare and has not been revisited despite mounting evidence of widespread injury.
The medical profession is subject to the same pressures. Doctors are discouraged from reporting adverse events. Researchers who support vaccine-injured families often face loss of funding, while institutions deny collaboration to avoid association with contested findings. These pressures contribute to a public health narrative that remains disconnected from the firsthand experiences reported by parents. The legal system denies those outcomes through delay, suppression, and procedural advantage. The manufacturers are not affected and they continue to produce, sell, and profit without consequence.
The structure does not support transparency, accountability, or reform. It was created to shield industry from civil suit, and that remains its core function. Reforms may improve process but cannot change the foundation. The programme operates in conflict with its stated goals. Compensation is withheld, and legal recourse is systematically restricted. Scientific discourse is regulated through institutional and policy mechanisms. Affected families bear the financial burden without structural support. Economic product categories are not granted liability protections of this magnitude. Industries do not retain immunity of this extent despite potential for harm. The consequences extend beyond financial compensation, influencing broader societal dynamics. Public trust is significantly shaped by perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness. When families witness injury followed by institutional denial, the resulting harm is not merely material but deeply systemic. That loss cannot be repaired by administrative adjustments, as it requires a return to first principles, where no business can operate above the law and no child can be harmed without redress. A legal framework that protects products over people cannot survive scrutiny. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Programme has had decades to prove its value. The programme continues to operate without meeting its intended purpose. Its structure prevents fair outcomes for claimants seeking compensation. Injured individuals and their families receive little recognition or support. The policy remains in effect despite clear evidence of systemic failure
( Bill Gates is not a philanthropist, he is a mass murderer)
Humanity does not need vaccines, people were tricked, brainwashed, indoctrinated and propandised to believe in them. Bill Gates, the psychopathic eugenicist is not vaccinated and his own daughter is not vaccinated either, yet he is telling you to get vaccinated, and to vaccinate your children. He is on record saying if a good job is done with mass vaccinations the global population can be reduced by up to 15℅ but their real agenda is to reduce it to 3 billion. Nowhere on the planet have vaccines been most affective than Africa. The colonised mindset of the African has been the easiest to sell the vaccine agenda to and the population has been kept at the lowest despite Africa being the largest of continent. The little peninsula called Europe has almost half the population of Africa. Zimbabwe has about 16 million people, larger country than little Britain which has almost 65 million people. The same way Africans bought into religion, is the same depth of belief they have in these biological weapons. Vaccines were introduced in their modern form just over one hundred years ago, despite humans surviving on this planet for over three hundred thousand years. The notion that humanity cannot endure without pharmaceutical immunisation contradicts both historical record and observable natural resilience. Before widespread vaccination, populations relied on innate immunity, environmental adaptation, and traditional public health measures. Life expectancy and survival improved most significantly through sanitation, nutrition, and basic hygiene, not medical injections. The largest gains in mortality reduction during the twentieth century occurred before mass vaccination campaigns, as documented in data from Western health agencies. These improvements were linked to clean water, reduced overcrowding, and improved living standards, not pharmaceutical intervention.
Legal structures surrounding vaccination further undermine the claim that vaccines are safe and essential. The United States granted vaccine manufacturers full legal immunity in 1986, shielding them from liability through the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. This law transferred responsibility for vaccine injury compensation to the government while recognising that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.” Over thirty years later, only twelve thousand awards have been granted, while millions of doses have been administered. This outcome suggests that injury reporting is suppressed or denied, not that harm is absent. The existence of a special court, removed from standard legal protections, confirms that vaccines carry a risk profile that the industry refuses to manage transparently. No other consumer product enjoys this level of immunity, and no public health measure should operate without legal accountability.
(RFK Jnr On Bill Gates DTP vaccine that's killing millions of African children)
Communities that reject vaccines provide direct evidence against the claim that vaccination is essential. The Amish population in North America, which does not follow the national immunisation schedule, has shown significantly lower rates of autism, chronic illness, and autoimmune disorders. Their life expectancy does not fall behind national averages. These outcomes challenge the assertion that vaccines are necessary for public health. If a population with low or no vaccine uptake demonstrates strong health outcomes, then compulsion lacks scientific basis. Public health policy must be grounded in evidence, not assumption. Coercion in medicine cannot be justified where risk exists and benefit remains unproven across populations. The choice to refuse vaccination should be protected as a rational decision supported by biological history, legal precedent, and current population data.
Authored By:
If you think my voice should be heard louder then PLEASE support by becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER. I’m here for your raw, straight, and dedicated analyses. Your support is appreciated. Thank you.
buymeacoffee.com/ggtv
Share this post