And We're Back! (To the Autism Vaccine Court for the Next Round of Test Cases)
C Squared Studios/Getty Images
The court heard three such cases last year - but still has made no decisions. Meanwhile, the high profile case of Hannah Poling was settled out of court - on the basis that a very large number of vaccines (9) administered in one day set off an underlying mitchondrial disorder, resulting in "autism-like" symptoms.
According to today's Associated Press story:
Two 10-year-old boys from Portland, Ore., will serve as test cases to determine whether many of the children and their families should be compensated. Attorneys for the boys will attempt to show the boys were happy, healthy and developing normally — but, after being exposed to vaccines with thimerosal, they began to regress.The question of whether vaccines are responsible for an autism diagnosis has created huge controversy and strong feelings on both sides. While activist groups like Generation Rescue are dedicated to proving a connection between vaccines and autism, the medical establishment is absolutely certain that no such connection exists.Thimerosal has been removed in recent years from standard childhood vaccines, except flu vaccines that are not packaged in single-doses. The CDC says single-dose flu shots currently are available only in limited quantities. In 2004, a committee with the Institute of Medicine concluded there was no credible evidence that vaccines containing thimerosal caused autism.
Overall, nearly 4,900 families have filed claims with the U.S. Court of Claims alleging that vaccines caused autism and other neurological problems in their children. Lawyers for the families are presenting three different theories of how vaccines caused autism.
The Office of Special Masters of the claims court has instructed the plaintiffs to designate three test cases for each of the three theories — nine cases in all — and has assigned three special masters to handle the cases. Three cases in the first category were heard last year, but no decisions have been reached.
The two cases beginning Monday are among the three that focus on the second theory of causation: that thimerosal-containing vaccines alone cause autism. The plaintiff in the third case originally scheduled for hearing this month has withdrawn and lawyers and court officials are working to agree on substitute case.
Hearings in the test cases for the third theory of causation are scheduled in mid-September.
Lawyers for the petitioning families in the cases being heard this month say they will present evidence that injections with thimerosal deposit a form of mercury in the brain. That mercury excites certain brain cells that stay chronically activated trying to get rid of the intrusion.
"In some kids, there's enough of it that it sets off this chronic neuroinflammatory pattern that can lead to regressive autism," said attorney Mike Williams.
In the end, the families' attorneys hope to convince the special master hearing their case that thimerosal belongs on the list of causes for the inflammation that leads to regressive autism.
To win, the attorneys for the two boys, William Mead and Jordan King, will have to show that it's more likely than not that the vaccine actually caused the injury.
How fierce is the controversy? The AP article goes on to cite one of the most sarcastically nasty comments I've ever seen in an article from the mainstream press: "I think that what's so endearing to me about the anti-vaccine people, is they're perfectly willing to go from one hypothesis to the next without a backward glance," said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia."
Note: Interested readers may want to read through a very informative FAQ about the legal aspects of the vaccine trials, available at the Age of Autism website.
Comments
I think you’re overstating the case with Offit’s quote. Look at what he’s saying: That anti-vaccine activists can’t keep their story straight. First it’s MMR, then thimerosal, then aluminum. Not only do their explanations shift, but they continually contradict their previous positions. And when they make a mistake (i.e., the Amish don’t vaccinate), you’ll never hear a retraction because who knows when that talking point might come in handy again? I think you’re being selective when you call out Offit’s comment – scroll down through AgeOfAutism and you’ll see lots, lots worse.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, AutismNews – there are PLENTY of mean-spirited remarks on the web, most in blogs and/or blog comments.
But this is a citation in an official AP story, made available to mainstream press around the world.
And no, of course, he’s not wrong in what he says – it’s the way he says it that’s just soooo sarcastic… Could have been taken out of context, of course… But I really do think that most folks who support the vaccine/autism connection are sincere in their beliefs – and it’s a bit distressing when someone just dismisses them with so much scorn.
Lisa
I’m more distressed by the credulity of editors who repeat baseless claims. I’m also distressed when unwarranted fears over vaccines lead to declining vaccination rates, and that we’re seeing outbreaks of preventable diseases.
A few months back, Boyd Haley, a conspiracy-minded professor of chemistry, was quoted in a mainstream news article as saying that the CDC and FDA should be held criminally liable for mismanaging vaccine safety. Where does that comment rate on your Nasty Comment Meter?
I can’t remember the last time a health professional took such a swipe at the vaccine rejectionists as Offit did in the AP article. But it wouldn’t be too hard to find a dozen examples of every sharper language, in the mainstream press, coming from the other side.
If you’re looking, that is.
you’re probably right that are other mean-spirited comments out there in the mainstream news. this one just struck me as particularly harsh – unless, of course, it was taken out of context, which is perfectly possible.
As to the whole “baseless” issue, well, I know there are plenty of folks who would agree with you wholeheartedly… I’m afraid I’m still on the fence regarding causes/cures, and suspect that we’ll find a wide array of causes/cures in the long run.
Don’t know where vaccines will stand when the dust settles…
Lisa
The NY Times ombudsman wrote a few months back that it’s time to close the door on the vaccine-autism connection. He noted the mountain of evidence against the link, and the absence of data for it. What do you think? At what point does a responsible media outlet take a stand, and “close the door” on unsubstantiated claims, especially ones as potentially destructive as this one?
AutismNews – I think that as long as the question is being seriously considered by the Federal Court of Appeals that “closing the door” would be premature. It’s not up to the news media, IMHO, to decide whether or not the plaintiffs have a case.
In addition, while I’ll certainly agree that the preponderance of data suggests that there is no link, it’s not fair to say there is an “absence” of data for it. The question is not whether the data exists, but how high its quality is…something that’s still under debate in all camps, from what I can tell…
Lisa (autism guide)
If the real question is “quality of data” (and I totally agree), then why is it important to note that a debate exists? The same can be said about creation science, global warming, 9/11 Truth, holocaust denial, and UFO Elvis.
Are you saying that you’re waiting for the outcome of a vaccine court case, with its deliberately low standard of proof, before you can determine scientific certainty?
While activist groups like Generation Rescue are dedicated to proving a connection between vaccines and autism, the medical establishment is absolutely certain that no such connection exists.
This is why it is a huge mistake to take GR seriously – the scientific method does not allow for dedicating oneself to proving a point. Either the evidence is there, or it isn’t. This is exactly what Offit was talking about with his comment on shifting, conflicting hypotheses. GR is so dedicated to proving a connection, it ignores or explains away conflicting evidence, and reinterprets or fabricates evidence it can use. Thus we have the Holmes Baby Hair study, and Olmsted’s Amish expose, and Mady Hornig’s autistic mice. And when the weight of evidence against GR proves too great a burden, they spin conspiracy tales. Do you really believe that the CDC, FDA, AAP, every drug company and every major vaccine researcher in the world is conspiring to hide the truth? When was the last time a million people could keep the same secret?
You ask: “Are you saying that you’re waiting for the outcome of a vaccine court case, with its deliberately low standard of proof, before you can determine scientific certainty?”
No, I’m saying that I think it’s inappropriate for the news media to make a decision before the court does so. What’s more, I’m saying that I think it’s inappropriate for me to do so.
No, I don’t think the entire medical establishment is in cahoots to do in our kids! But that doesn’t mean that I can say whether a particular child is or is not vaccine injured.
The vaccine program is in place for the general welfare, and to protect the public health. But the existence of the vaccine court underlies our philosophy that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
If some of these kids are, indeed, vaccine injured then they should surely be compensated.
That isn’t an indictment of the entire medical profession – but it does mean that injuries happen, intentionally or not. Surely the vaccine program is not immune (no pun intended!) from scrutiny?
Lisa (autism guide)
Frankly, I thought his comment was a well-reasoned description of reality. If there was sarcasm in it, I didn’t notice. But, then, I don’t have a woo to grind. I think, Lisa, you need to find another job. You are definitely not qualified for this one. At least not if this site supposes to support reality.
Should the 9 cases before the Court of Claims be declined, the anti-vaxers will continue, changing directions as easily as a bird in the wind. Should there be a split decision or a favorable decision, the anti-vaxers will claim a scientific win instead of a legal win without ever explaining the difference to their sycophants. OTH, whatever the win/loss score in the courts, the science will still be the same. Only the anti-vaxers will change.
I don’t believe the court will rule in favor of the petitioners. Their arguments and evidence are just not very good under scrutiny, and I suspect the special masters will see that. That said, the results of the omnibus are not scientific results. They have no bearing on the question of whether vaccines cause autism. Although realistically I know they will have significant bearing on the media and on public sentiment.
BTW, Dr. Offit is completely correct. There are clearly some people who only care about vaccines and only vaccines when it comes to autism causation. The specific means by which vaccines might cause autism are negotiable.
Olfart (seriously! love the name!) – you say “Lisa, you need to find another job. You are definitely not qualified for this one. At least not if this site supposes to support reality.”
My job on this site doesn’t require me to take sides relative to a Federal Claims Court trial – though I do, of course, write enough about the subject to make readers aware that the trials are ongoing, and to let them know what they’re about.
If you’d care to explore the site a bit, you’ll see that there are over 300 articles (so far, with information on subjects ranging from camp programs for kids with autism to info about special needs trusts.
Fact is that these trials are news, so I blog about them. Sometimes I blog about questions parents ask – requesting ideas from readers. Sometimes I interview experts in specific areas related to autism (authors, researchers, etc.) – and often I include bits of those interviews in articles and/or blog entries.
In short, I’m a writer who writes about autism and related topics – not a guru!
Cheers,
Lisa
But that doesn’t mean that I can say whether a particular child is or is not vaccine injured.
Nobody is denying that vaccines injuries don’t exist. That was admitted 22 years ago.
The issue is whether vaccines cause autism, and if so is it anywhere near the extent that anti-vaccine activists claim. The evidence says no. Why can’t you at least admit as much? A statement of fact cannot be insolent, and stating such a plain fact will not brand you as biased one way or the other. And if it does, so what? I’d rather shill for Galileo than David Kirby.
Generation Rescue misleads the public as to how many vaccines are given. They base their ads on an exaggeration of the facts and print it for all the public to view. If there was such evidence out there, one would not have to mislead the public on the amount of childhood vaccines given to children to prove their points.
JMO, Dr. Paul Offit isn’t so much sarcastic as it is a bold statement. Anyone who has been in this community for any length of time is well aware of the changing positions on how the vaccines have to be the cause. All parents know is a change after a vaccine and when it is thought to be one thing about the vaccines, after many tests seem to disprove that, other theories arise. It does seem to the public that they’ll prove vaccines cause autism no matter what. But the real more interesting thing is, the evidence. I want to know why, the specific reason and it has to have some genetic link since many receive vaccines and are never injured or have autism. Without that evidence, there will never be prevention. So what ever happens in these vaccines courts, to me, has no real bearing on the long term goal.
The fact is these hearings do not have to prove cause, just a probability. This hearing will not tell us why these certain children have autism due to vaccines. It is the same old ‘he said she said’ and who believes who. Thimerosal has been in vaccines for there around 70 years, yet during that time you did not see a epidemic of autism, do you see it today with a trace amount of thimerosal? Yet, kids are still being diagnosed with autism today with regressive autism, with or without any vaccines or trace amounts. That inflammation factor should had been there 70 years ago, if we’re going with the 2nd theory, that thimerosal-containing vaccines alone cause autism.
These court hearings are news, and people do want to talk about them. It also depends on whose reality you’re looking at, those of a parent who seen a sure change in their child after a vaccine, or those who oppose the whole theory in general. If one needs qualifications for that, we’re all in the wrong place. My child did not experience such a change however these things are interesting to me, since I am interested in the science behind the autism rates. Just because my child was not vaccine injured does not mean another child wasn’t. However my personal opinion is this is very valid, only it’s a brain assault/ injury where as autism has no known assaults or injuries.
Is it still possible to get involved in this? I have a four year old brother who is autistic. If anyone would like to share information about what is needed to qualify for this or how to get involved it would be greatly appreciated
My email:
cobrien@mathworks.com
I must be on a different planet or my TV gets stations that no one else gets.I’m reading these comments, and it seems as if I’m sitting in on a Cono Board meeting. I think we should all stop pointing it serves NO useful perpose. To address one of the comments in particular that the drug companies, etc are trying to hide the truth, I for one do not think so,now ask me if there looking fot the truth? Am I the only one that watched the interview with a high ranking doctor who left the FDA? who stated there wasn’t enough research done to eliminate vaccine shots, Some of the questions unanswered were. Do some children have a low tollerance to vaccine injections especially the month there given, the combination and wether there spaced out or not, the similarities in the children that develope Autism after vaccine, including research into there families. I’m a lay person that knows S#*#**T about medical research so how come I ” THATS WITH A CAPITAL I ” ask questions that no one can answer in depth. O by the way I know it costs $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
okay i mite just bea kid but i a have few things that im not quite gettin, .. now y is every one serrchin fer this cure fer autism .. huh?. … what every one wnt a cure fer thee smart kid?. n i bet every ones usuin thee autistc children to try there “kewl” new drug on huh? … no need fera cure people, there already genouises.
.