Vaccine Court DID NOT decide that there was no link between vaccines and autism

[HamdenRice]

This is the point that many seem to be missing -- especially those who automatically dismiss any link between vaccines and their side effects.

The creation of the court was based on the assumption that vaccines do indeed cause injuries. The assumption was, however, that the good that vaccines do outweighs the injuries that they cause to individuals. Congress felt that the cost of compensating those injured could prevent the development and marketing of vaccines, while the process of litigating was so uncertain that people injured by vaccines might not get compensation.

So the compromise was a system that is a lot like Workman's Compensation. The court operates on a "no-fault" basis. That means that victims of vaccine side effects do not have to prove "fault" (which usually means "negligence") on the part of the vaccine maker in order to "win" and get compensation. Also compensation is paid out of a fund that is financed by an insurance-like fee levied on every vaccine, not by the particular vaccine maker.

Because the court assumes that vaccines can cause injury despite the best efforts of vaccine makers, and because victims and their families don't have to prove wrongdoing in the form of negligence, many of the usual issues of a lawsuit are not litigated, and the case is for all intent and purposes decided not by a judge, but by a panel appointed by judges; the panel members are called "Special Masters," a legal term of art that is used when a judge appoints experts to decide only damages or remedies.

The victim, being excused from having to prove negligence, is required to prove causation. But again, it's not causation in the purely deductive scientific sense; it's legal causation and in the public health sense. It's more like a casual connection, the way you might prove that ground water pollution causes cancer.

For example, in a regular lawsuit, if you know that a community's ground water is contaminated with benzene, and you know that a particular child drank ground water all her life, and you know that the child developed intestinal cancer and died, you nevertheless could never prove in a purely deductive, scientific form of causation, that that particular tumor was caused by the child's drinking the benzene in the ground water; in other words, the victim could never prove that a particular molecule from the polluter's factor was leaked underground, went into the groundwater, was pumped up in a glass of water, drunk by the victim, and damaged a cancer gene. But as a society, we've decided that the child can collect against the polluter because of the likelihood of causation. So in some environmental cases, the child's family only has to prove that there was benzene in the water, that she drank it, that benzene causes cancer and that the child got cancer.

In the Vaccine Court, similarly, the victim similarly only has to show that there is a valid scientific theory about the relationship between vaccines and the injury, a logical explanation of how the vaccine caused the injury, and a chronological relationship between the vaccine and the injury.

The recent case in which the Vaccine Court found that a vaccine did not cause autism does not mean that the Vaccine Court has decided that there is no relationship between vaccines and autism.

In the recently decided case, the Special Master rejected the specific scientific theory that an individual victim's family had presented -- the theory that thimerosal weakened the child's immune system, making her susceptible to viruses in the vaccine, which in turn caused autism. The Special Masters only rejected the thimerosal-immune system injury-measles theory -- and in this particular case. It does not mean that the Court or the Special Master determined, for example, that there was no possible causal or undiscovered statistical link between vaccines and autism; it didn't decide that broader issue, because that broader issue wasn't what the case was about, nor was it the claim that the victim's family was making.

The closest that the Special Master came to making a broad finding is that in this case, the petitioners did not prove that the thimerosal in the MMR vaccine can damage the immune system of infants. The opinion says nothing about whether there is some other way that thimerosal injures infants, and moreover, the Special Master emphasized several times, that this finding only applies to this case.

I realize that the legal concepts are somewhat opaque, but it is important to try to understand what happened. Because the system is difficult to understand, the press is incorrectly reporting that the case proves that there is no connection between vaccines and autism. And of course those who already have a fixed, unchangeable view that vaccines have no side effects have latched onto this decision and the press's misunderstanding of its significance. I don't consider myself to be a partisan in the vaccine wars, but I have to admit I'm a bit appalled at how badly this case is being described both in the press.

<This was first posted as a response in another thread, but I think it's important enough to be viewed as an OP.>

[tabatha]

1. There is a lot of research out there, and it should not be decided by a court.

It should be decided by a body of scientists, none of whom are involved in the research either way.

[Fireweed247]

4. certainly not decided by a court appointed by the Congress to protect Big Pharma from liability

n/t

[HamdenRice]

8. No, it has to be decided legally, not by scientists. The issue is liability

As the Special Masters themselves point out, liability is not based on epidemiology.

For example, I could come up with a hypothetical situation in which there would be liability without epidemiological correlation. I'll give you this NOT as a theory (I don't have one), but as an explanation of how legal cause and liability work -- and how they are different from epidemiology.

It might turn out, for example, that autism can be triggered in a certain vulnerable genetic subset of the population by exposure to measles through the course of an infection. The MMR vaccine prevents measles for most children. Let's imagine that a vaccine maker markets an MMR vaccine that uses live attenuated measles virus. Therefore we would expect to see that kind of autism at lower rates among children who have the MMR vaccine. But if some subset of children who get the MMR vaccine get an extended measles infection from the live virus vaccine, then we might see some children follow the course that their parents report anecdotally -- namely, they got the vaccine and then became autistic.

If you did the epidemiology, you would find that MMR vaccine actually lowers the incidence of that kind of autism; but the vaccine maker would still be liable for having "caused" autism in certain individual children. Moreover, the vaccine maker might be negligent for having used a live virus instead of a virus fragment.

Epidemiology and legal responsibility are two different things.

[pnwmom]

14. In this case it must be. This Court was set up so that people injured by vaccines

would have compensation, even though vaccine manufacturers have been made exempt from liability.

[Occam Bandage]

2. I don't "automatically dismiss any link."

I simply don't assume that things exist without data showing they exist, and I certainly don't assume they exist when numerous studies strongly suggest they do not. In order for me to "dismiss a link," there needs to be some evidence of a link to dismiss.

Preferably evidence that was not falsified by Wakefield.

[HamdenRice]

6. Any falsified evidence would actually argue in favor of remaining claims

That's because it means that this case is even less valid as precedent. If you go into court and it turns out that you main witness was lying (let's say about a polluter), then your loss is sui generis and not precedent that the polluter wasn't polluting.

Perhaps that's why the Special Master decided to render a decision on the general theory rather than on the basis of any claim of faked evidence.

[aquart]

3. Thank you.

I thought all I heard was what amounted to Not Proven. I'd be interested in the incidence of autism in all nations that do NOT require this cocktail of vaccines.

[Fireweed247]

5. Thank you for this OP!

:applause:
Very helpful and informative.

[4 t 4]

7. Thank You

for posting this again. No matter what any of us thinks the jury is still out.

[jljamison]

9. what is still in question?

They stopped making vaccines with thimerosol a long time ago. have the autism rates declined correspondingly? No.

[tabatha]

10. Association of American Physicians and Surgeons March 6, 2006

Autism Rates Fall With the Removal of Mercury

The increase in reported cases of autism has not only slowed, but actually reversed now that thimerosal, a mercury-based vaccine preservative, has finally been removed from childhood vaccines.

Studies of two government databases indicate that autism rates went up as thimerosal dosages increased, then began to decline as thimerosal was removed.

From 240 to Close to Zero
The average exposure of a young child to thimerosal dropped from 240 micrograms in 1999 to almost nothing four years later. Autism rates among children declined at a similar rate.
Dr. Robert Davis, director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) immunization safety group, argues that this cannot "... really be taken to provide any evidence one way or the other." Solid evidence of a link between thimerosal and autism could result in serious repercussions for government agencies and drug companies.
If new recommendations requiring annual influenza vaccinations for children are followed, their average dose could increase back to 60 micrograms.

Behind the Scenes
Documents newly released under the Freedom of Information Act indicate that the CDC was actually discouraging thimerosal's removal behind the scenes, despite their public call for removal. The CDC at one point rejected a proposal by drugmaker SmithKline Beecham to produce thimerosal-free vaccines, and the CDC's commitment to banning thimerosal has often seemed half-hearted since that time.
Protecting Industry
A federal health official, who has requested anonymity, believes that there were other considerations besides safety guiding the CDC's actions, including protecting the economic interests of drug industry partners. The industry's stockpiled thimerosal-based vaccines would have become worthless had there been an immediate ban on the substance.

Huffington Post March 1, 2006
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Spring 2006
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons March 6, 2006

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. "almost nothing four years later. Autism rates ...declined at a similar rate" - so autism has gone?

That's news. Can you give us a link to the study you're quoting from, and not just the Huffington Post, please?

[KamaAina]

16. The original article from the Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons is here

http://www.jpands.org/vol11no1/geier.pdf

[pnwmom]

18. Thank you. I hadn't seen it. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. Government data shows autism diagnoses have continued to steadily increase

https://www.ideadata.org/tables29th%5Car_1-9.htm
https://www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-11.xls
graph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism

An extensive look at the libertarian bent of that 'Journal': http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/91/strange-bedfellows

A long list of why the Geier family and its patents for autism treatments are untrustworthy: http://www.neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/109

and then, of course, there's that quote from Dr. Davis from teh CDC saying that data shows no such thing as the Geiers claim.

[KamaAina]

20. I had no idea

you requested a link that wasn't from HuffPo, and I provided it.

One wonders what, exactly, it takes to get a publication classified as a peer-reviewed journal.

[KamaAina]

22. Wow! This I had not heard.

Hopefully this Lupron thing won't become the next Treatment of the Month(TM)!

I heard Jaquelyn McCandless present here last year (she lives part-time on Big Island), and she did mention the low-dose naltrexone (which raised a red flag), but not this anti-testosterone med Lupron (which would have raised every red flag in Beijing!) Maybe they've stopped pushing it?

[pnwmom]

17. There are probably a number of causes of autism,

just as there are a number of causes of SIDS. If eliminating unnecessary thimerosal has REDUCED the number of cases (just as the "back to sleep" campaign reduced but did not eliminate SIDS), that's great.

[tabatha]

11. Other comments:

Well we have had enough time pass since the EPA requested that mercury be removed from vaccines to generate enough data to determine if removing mercury from some (not all) of the vaccines has made a difference. What a surprise, autism rates have indeed declined.
We have a term for this in medicine, it is called a clue.

It's no surprise that the diminishment of thimerosal in childhood vaccines has coincided with a reversal in autism rates.
There are many reasons why a toxic poison like mercury would cause this type of neurological damage. If you have any doubt at all about what mercury can do to your child, I urge you to review some of the pieces I've posted on mercury's damaging connection to autism.

Mercury exposure can cause a devastating array of problems, including:

Multiple Sclerosis
Central Nervous System Disorders
Autism
Alzheimer's Disease

Perhaps it's not a great mystery why the Amish don't have autistic children ...

Of course, the CDC disputes the evidence; in response to the studies above, they called one of the databases researchers used in building their case "skewed" and not unlike "fluctuations in the stock market."

You may remember the awesome article I shared with you last summer about mercury's presence in vaccines, written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., that described how hard the CDC worked at burying and debunking the truth about thimerosal.

It should come as no major surprise that the CDC still defends the use of thimerosal, sending representatives to various state legislatures to testify against their removal. The real reasons they do so is to protect their true partners, the mega-drug companies, from countless millions in losses.

In the meantime, play it safe, and avoid useless flu vaccinations for yourself and your children. They're still loaded with mercury.

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/168370.html

[pnwmom]

15. There are still many autism cases still to be decided by this court and many don't

have anything to do with thimerosal. The court has already ruled that one girl's autism was probably connected to the vaccine, due to her preexisting mitochondrial disorder. There could well be other children with conditions that make them susceptible to injury from the vaccine. Under the no-fault compensation fund, they would be due compensation.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. Ding, ding, ding

We have a winner, ladies and gentlemen.

[pnwmom]

13. Thank you for a clear explanation. n/t

[K Gardner]

21. Thank you. K&R.

[KamaAina]

23. Someone on an autism board just posted the converse hypothesis

to wit, that kids with pre-existing (not yet diagnosed) autism tend to have bad reactions to vaccines.

(smacks forehead with palm) D'oh!

Any way to test that? Not only would that help us cancel this long-running series (that jumped the shark a couple of seasons ago), but if there's anything to that, it would be an important clue that could actually move research forward, for once.

[HuckleB]

24. Luckily, some research has continued.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/31/magazines/fortune/autism_roots.fortune/index.htm

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. Seems to me like a distinction without a difference.

If the bad reaction to the vaccine turns a child with clinically-insignificant manifestations of autism into a child with obvious autism...

[KamaAina]

33. That is actually yet another distinct hypothesis

that the vaccine, or an adverse reaction to same, serves as a "trigger" in those who are susceptible to autism to begin with.

Confused? You won't be, after this week's episode of "Soap"! :-)

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. Careful, with that kind of crazy talk, you're gonna get kicked out of the health forum.

:hi:

[Mike 03]

26. Thank you for cross posting from the Health forum. I was hoping you would.

This is a fascinating topic. I may disagree, but your posts here at DU are brilliant and always have merit and deserve serious consideration.

Thanks

[Mike 03]

27. Kick and Rec! NT

[bunny planet]

29. Thank you so much for this post.

As someone who has had a child suffer consequences (not autism but a range of other problems) from a reaction to thimerasol in vaccines 16 years ago I appreciate your pointing this out.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Legally, one denial can't disprove a link. One damage award, on the other hand, proves it.

Autism is simply a collection of features, which, if present in the appropriate degree and combination, and provided no better alternative explanation exists merit a diagnosis of autism.

Hannah Poling has those features, and the case indicates that they are of a nature and to a degree that would merit the diagnosis. Her actual diagnosis, however, is that she has the features of autism, but the features are from a preexisting mitochondrial disorder. Studies suggest that perhaps 10-20% of people with autism also have mitochondrial disorders.

I'd bet that legal advice played into that alternative diagnosis. The vaccine court might be willing to compensate for some odd exotic disorder, but is unwilling to open the floodgates. If so, it was good legal advice for the client because her family was awarded damages for injuries she sustained from vaccines.

[jillan]

31. I have been thinking that something fishy is going on here.

I know people whose kids are autistic and they all feel that it is from the vaccine.

So I question what they are now saying, and even more so after reading your op.

[BrklynLiberal]

32. Bookmark

[earth mom]

34. Interesting how there are few naysayers screeching their pharma giant propaganda on this thread.

Score one for truth.

[Hanse]

35. This is the part of grief known as "denial."

You'll soon move on to "anger."