Who Pays for VICP?

There is a lot of misinformation out there about vaccines and, well, pretty much anything related to them. People like myself that take a science-based approach to vaccines to counter myths are "pharma shills" (we're not). Manufacturers have absolutely no liability (they can be sued for some liability claims). If vaccines work, it doesn't matter whether my kid is vaccinated or not (it does matter), or the variation, why do so many outbreaks include the vaccinated (it's a numbers game; see previous link). The government is scared to do a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the vaccine schedule (such a study would be unethical and possible illegal). VAERS is a reliable source for drawing conclusions (it's unreliable for conclusions, but can be a springboard for research ideas).

And then there's something that came up yesterday in a CDC twitter chat about vaccines. The chat (#CDCvax) was crashed by a bunch of anti-vaccine activists spouting all kinds of nonsense, including all of the myths mentioned above. One other claim popped up that I have not written about before. It involves the funding of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Basically, one anti-vaccine proponent made the oft-repeated, but never correct, claim that taxpayers fund the VICP compensation fund. Here's one example of this claim:

Here's a clue, they aren't.

The short response is: Taxpayers do not pay for vaccine court payouts. But I'll go into a bit more detail.

Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

An argument that is heard with near light speed rapidity in discussions of anti-vaccine sentiments is "I'm not anti-vaccine. I'm pro-safe vaccine." This typically comes either immediately following or preceding a diatribe about how evil and dangerous vaccines are. The speaker/author generally declaims how every vaccine is dangerous and God forbid they should ever subject their child to such monstrous poisons (in their eyes). Present them with a series of vaccines and, more likely than not, they will describe some issue which, in their opinion, makes the vaccine "not safe," rendering it anathema. While they are not, in their words, "anti-vaccine," they are "anti-all-currently-used-vaccines."

Whatever. Tomato, tomahto. I'm not going to argue semantics. Instead, I'm issuing a challenge to anyone who says they are "not anti-vaccine, but pro-safe vaccine" (as if those who support vaccines are pro-dangerous vaccine). It is really a simple thing: don't just talk the talk; walk the walk.