Talk:History of warning labels in the US

Interesting side-topic to article: Vaccine/Immunization Manufacturers are currently exempt from liability/prosecution due to damages from their products
I'm still looking into this but i believe it is in a grey because the 'product' is neither a food, (?) or alcohol/tobacco product, but a 'medication/drug'. Why do the vaccine manufacturers shy away from honesty, and have literally been SOMEHOW protected legally from prosecution/liability, when it comes to not PUBLICLY acknowledging the fallibility (and therefore strange occurrence of being not liable to damages caused by their products) and the claims against of their widely used and marketed products? Obviously no product in infallible among ALL populations, ages, demographics, etc therefore why is it mandated to all? Why is the ability to attend school or volunteer military service held hostage against those who choose (within their rights to disagree and oppose tyranny in all forms, in the USA) to disagree with medical orthodoxy of the day (similiar to not wanting electroshock therapy or leeches, ex of old school medical orthodoxy)?

Interesting to note is that: in many countries, the label may contain regulatory restrictions and warnings against vaccination of specific population groups (e.g. pregnant women) due to a lack of evidence of safety from controlled trials at the time of initial licensure of the vaccine, while public health authorities may recommend the same vaccine for that group, based on additional post-marketing data and benefit risk analyses. 

See also: - (USA) Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938