“”Do you even read what you post? Those were the words used in what you posted””
The case was cited IN THE ARTICLE (not my words) calling attention to the matter which brought it to the forefront of the national vaccine controversy. Until that case, it had been kept very quiet. That is what made it very important and yes, if you prefer as the article said - “not typical”. Which meant the parents were able to seek damages and fight for them. That means it shouldn’t have been considered a viable case?
If not for that case, everyone would still be in the dark about the paying of any claims due to damages caused by vaccines never knowing that all claims against pharmaceutical companies were automatically DENIED!
Why cover up that it has NEVER been front and center in any national discussion? As you could see from the questions posed in the thread, people simply weren’t aware of the vaccine court and the numbers you cited aren’t favorable to prove that it’s all about nothing! You didn’t touch THAT 1/3 of the claims filed were approved in THIRTY YEARS!!!
You cited a statistic and that was it...
Do you read what you post. What you posted stressed and used the words this is not a typical case