Frighteningly, Offit argues that Cutter should have been exonerated from liability for killing and maiming children because it was found to have followed government requirements in the manufacture of vaccine found to be harmful, EVEN THOUGH, despite having "followed the right instructions" it KNEW the vaccine still contained live virus and thus was harmful. This is analogous to manufacturing cars that meet all safety requirements stipulated by the government, but then having knowledge that the cars will blow up ANYWAY, and thinking it is still o.k. to put them on the market.Paul Offit likes to think that science should be left to the "experts". Fair enough. I would suggest he leave legal analysis of the concept of negligence to the lawyers.Mary Tiesenga