Children with Autism Get Day in Court

[pnwmom]

Source: Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- The parents of 12-year-old Michelle Cedillo asked a federal court Monday to find that their child's autism was caused by common childhood vaccines, a precedent-setting case that could pave the way for thousands of autistic children to receive compensation from a government fund set up to help people injured by the shots.

SNIP

Her parents, Theresa and Michael Cedillo, allege a preservative called thimerosal that had been used in vaccines weakened their daughter's immune system and prevented her body from clearing the measles virus after she was immunized for the disease at age 15 months.

Today, Michelle suffers from a litany of health problems, including severe autism, inflammatory bowel disease, glaucoma and epilepsy.

SNIP

Special Master George Hastings Jr. thanked the family for allowing theirs to be the first of nine test cases that will help guide the resolution of some of the nearly 5,000 similar claims lodged with the government.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100404.html?hpid=sec-health

[Orrex]

1. Very dim prospects for success by the plantiffs

Even if a causitive relationship between vaccines and autism had been shown (it hasn't), then the plantiffs would still have to demonstrate that the particular vaccines that Michelle received were the cause of autism (et al) in her case.

Even if (big "if")they manage to demonstrate that one or several of her conditions were caused by her vaccinations, that will do nothing to demonstrate that her other conditions likewise resulted from them.

I feel nothing but sympathy for any family dealing with such difficulty, but the evidence simply doesn't support the contention that vaccines are the cause of autism.

[pnwmom]

7. I'm not sure you're right in the case of this special vaccine fund.

To receive coverage from this fund, children with damage caused by OTHER vaccines do not have to prove that the vaccine caused the damage in their particular cases -- only that the adverse effect suffered by a particular child is a known effect of the vaccine.

Why should it be any different in this situation?

This court will decide whether there is sufficient evidence of a causitive relationship between vaccines and autism to justify paying affected families from the already existing vaccine injury fund. If the court decides that there is, affected families will be compensated without having to prove that the vaccine was the direct and only cause of the autism in their child's case.

[Orrex]

11. Because autism isn't a "known effect" of any vaccine

It's conjecturally linked to Thimerosal, but to date no hard evidence exists. You're correct that the courts may be able to make a determination in this regard, but I would be greatly interested to see exactly which studies are put forth in support of the claim.

[Mend]

2. I am very happy that this is happening, whatever the outcome. No one should

ever forget that Eli Lily Pharmaceuticals snuck in the "you can't sue us for vaccines" into the Patriot Act in the last half hour. It was supposedly about the soldiers' vaccines but who ever heard of a soldier suing about that...this was to cover-up the autism question. My understanding is that there is no dilution of thimerosal that is safe for an infant's brain.

[anotherdrew]

3. more likely the vaccine exemption it was about SV-40, which has killed so many...

it's a monkey virus that contaminated the polio vaccine for decades. sad miserable story the came so close to hiding from light

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV-40

[Mend]

39. please see Harvard article from that time:

http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2003/Jan10_2003/forum.html

[Book Lover]

4. Thimserosal is a red herring. It has not been used in Japan for many years, for example,

yet their caseload of children diagnosed on the autism spectrum has risen just like the rates in teh US.

I highly advise this article as a good summation of what the current situation in court may lead to http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/06/03/at_risk_vaccines/

[kath]

13. Same was shown in a VERY large study in one of the Scandinavian countries

(Denmark or Norway, IIRC) - DECADES after thimerosal was removed from vaccines there, the rate of autism diagnoses continued to rise. This was a HUGE, scientificly sound study published in a major PEER-REVIEWED journal.

[Liberal Veteran]

5. I say let's do away with vaccination.

And go back to the days where the odds of living to adulthood were 50/50.

[drm604]

6. Thank you.

This hysteria against vaccines is getting to the point of being dangerous.

[Kittycat]

8. Hysteria? Really??? Then let your daughter get the new Gaurdasil Vax

The pharms are rushing through meds without proper testing and the government doesn't seem to care. They play bean counter with odds over profits, and at risk is our children. I'm not anti-vax, but I'm anti-pharma given that they've proven time and time again to fail us when it comes to proper testing, as well as the government when it comes to enforcing and testing.

[northzax]

15. if I had a daughter, she'd have it

ever seen what cervical cancer linked to HPV does to a 32 year old woman? someone who has had one sex partner in their entire lives? and that person just happened to be a carrier? I have.

ever seen what a luckier 30 year old woman goes through when she is rendered infertile by having too many precancerous cells removed due to HPV? I have.

[pnwmom]

17. One of my closest friends

ended up having to have a hysterectomy due to cervical cancer. She works in the medical field, but at this point in time, she would NOT recommend that her own daughter have the vaccine. Not yet, not until the research is further along.

[northzax]

21. people have different thresholds for risk

I consider it a much larger risk to be exposed to HPV than the vaccine. she, in my mind, is in a worse position, risk-wise, her daughter (real or hypothetical) has a family history of cervical cancer, which ups the risk immensly.

how many more studies does she want? doing a quick scan on google scholar, I can't find a single study that raises a serious risk quotient for the vaccine, save a piece from the Cato Institute, which has been removed from their website. at some point, you need to accept the preponderance of evidence, right?

[Liberal Veteran]

25. The real problem was mentioned in a different thread.

Thanks to cable "news" and the internet, quackery and fearmongering disguised as "science" is now writ large to a much broader degree and as such makes it harder to tell what is just the same piece of junk-science being repeated over and over again and what is really the preponderance of evidence.

[northzax]

27. well, I guess it might be too much to ask

for people to do some reading? seriously. go to scholar.google.com type in "gardasil risk analysis" and read up on it. see if you trust the publications and instutions involved. If you aren't a doctor, ask your doctor, say you have heard a, b, c, and ask her opinion of the research. Come on, people, can't we all take just a little bit of responsibility for our own health?

here's an idea. yes, there is plenty of bad science out there. as a general rule, something published in a peer reviewed journal, especially one that has had the research duplicated, is pretty sound. if it is on "vaccineskill.com" it's probably not as trustworthy as on "proceedings of the infectious disease association of America" or some such thing.

[pnwmom]

33. Is the U. of Penn. Center for Bioethics a good enough source

for you? How about the Journal of the American Medical Association?

Here is an article with links to opinions on BOTH sides of the question.

http://www.vaccineethics.org/2007/05/hpv-mandates-and-more-in-jama-and-nejm.html

"There is a lot of discussion on HPV vaccination and mandates in recent issues of the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

"In the May 2 JAMA, Lawrence Gostin -- a professor of health law at Georgetown -- and Catherine DeAngelis -- the editor of JAMA -- wrote an editorial titled "Mandatory HPV Vaccination: Public Health vs Private Wealth." Gostin and DeAngelis reject mandates for HPV at this time, referring to any use of state mandates as "a last resort." Specifically, they point to questions regarding cost/payment, long-term safety, injury compensation, and the fact that HPV is not "a highly infectious airborne disease" to support their argument against mandates.

"The latest NEJM includes seven pieces on HPV vaccines, including two commentaries, two reports, two editorials, and a letter. All are available for free here. Of note is the commentary by Alta Charo -- professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin -- titled "Politics, Parents, and Prophylaxis -- Mandating HPV Vaccination in the United States." Charo argues in favor of state mandates, pointing to the easy-to-secure exemptions available in every state in which a mandate has been explored. With essentially any parent objecting the vaccine having the ability to receive such an exemption, the overall merits of a state mandate greatly outweigh the slight inconvenience the exemption process imposes on parents seeking it, she suggests."

----------------------------------


You seem to be missing in your reading numerous articles in reputable journals and statements by physicians from academic settings who say that it is premature to mandate the vaccine.

Just because someone disagrees with your conclusion doesn't mean they aren't taking responsibility for their health.

[antigop]

37. And I guess it might be too much to ask for people to READ THE GARDASIL APPROVAL LETTER

http://www.fda.gov/cber/approvltr/hpvmer060806L.htm

>>
# You have committed to conduct a short-term safety surveillance study in a U.S. Managed Care Organization (MCO). The study will include approximately 44,000 vaccinated subjects who will be followed for 60 days for assessment of general short-term safety (i.e., emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and deaths). The subjects will also be followed for 6 months subsequent to vaccination for new autoimmune disorders, rheumatologic conditions, or thyroiditis. Also, a sufficient number of children 11-12 years of age will be studied to permit an analysis of safety outcomes. The final study protocol will be submitted by December 31, 2006. Patient accrual will be completed by December 31, 2008. The study will be completed by June 30, 2009. The final study report will be submitted by September 30, 2009.
>>

[Liberal Veteran]

40. Yawn....you've only posted this 18 times already and we already know about Phase IV testing

....it's VERY routine.

[pnwmom]

45. There are people here who obviously don't realize that

the testing for young girls is still ongoing. Just because you are familiar with the fact doesn't mean that everybody is.

[antigop]

48. We must be striking a nerve, pnwmom! n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

50. I think you meant "getting on people's nerves".

Having to constantly answer the fearmongering about Gardasil from the same 5 people over and over ad nauseum.

[antigop]

51. NOpe -- just posting the truth -- sorry if you don't like it n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

53. Posting selective truths to try to further an agenda.

Let's be real honest here. You think Gardasil is going to have some kind of terrible side-effect and despite the fact that this vaccine has gone through one of the largest clinical trials BEFORE approval and approved in nearly every first world country, you are going to stick by your fears and continue to selectively cut and paste to try to convince others.

[antigop]

54. I am posting the Gardasil approval letter so PEOPLE READ IT n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

57. Again....this is ROUTINE. Why make it sound like it's not?

For example, from Taxol's approval letter: Phase 4 study for info. on the metabolic fate of taxol in humans, the characterizing of the active metabolite and the mass balance of the drug.

Or from the rotavirus vaccine:

We acknowledge the postmarketing clinical commitments outlined in your submissions to the BLA as follows:

1. Your submission dated January 25, 2006, included a commitment to conduct a large-scale observational post-licensure safety study to evaluate the incidence of intussusception and other safety parameters in recipients of Rotateq in approximately 44,000 subjects (adjustments to the sample size will be made based on the background rate of intussusception). The study will be designed to detect an increased risk of intussusception due to vaccine of 2.5 or greater with 80% probability. The final study protocol will be submitted by May 5, 2006. The study will be initiated no later than the third quarter of 2006, sooner if possible. The study will be completed by the fourth quarter of 2008.

Or one from a tetanus vaccine:

Postmarketing Studies subject to reporting requirements of 21 CFR 601.70.

1. You have agreed to conduct a safety and immunogenicity postmarketing study in approximately 3000 subjects receiving your Tetanus and Diphtheria Toxoids Adsorbed For Adult Use vaccine under IND, to include a subset of subjects 60 years of age and older. You have agreed to submit a final study protocol by December 2003, and to initiate this study by April 2004 or 2 weeks after CBER releases the first commercial batch of Tetanus and Diphtheria Toxoids Adsorbed For Adult Use, whichever is later. In addition, you have agreed to complete patient accrual 20 months after the first patient is enrolled in the study and to complete the study 6 months after the last patient has been enrolled in the study. The final study report will be submitted 1 year after the last patient has completed the study.

Or one from the varicella vaccine:

Your commitment to perform post-licensure studies over at least a 15 year period, following the outline in your submission to the Product License Application dated August 19, 1994, with modifications specified in submissions of February 24, 1995, and March 10, 1995 is acknowledged to be an integral part of the basis for approval. It is understood that Merck will provide CBER with copies of the appropriate protocols, and CBER will have the opportunity to comment on these protocols prior to initiation of any studies. It is further understood that Merck will provide CBER with annual reports on the progress of these studies. These commitments have been made a part of your Product License Application for this product.

It is requested that adverse experience reports for Varicella Virus Vaccine Live be submitted in accordance with the adverse experience reporting requirements for licensed biological products (21 CFR 600.80) and that distribution reports be submitted as described (21 CFR 600.81). Since your product is categorized as a vaccine, it is our recommendation that these reports be submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) using the pre-addressed form VAERS-1. The toll-free number for VAERS forms and information is 800-822-7967.

Or one from the pneumococcal vaccine:

We acknowledge your commitments dated November 2, 1999, December 10, 1999, and February 14, 2000, for the following manufacturing issue, as well as Phase 4 clinical studies and data:

1. You have agreed to establish alert and action limits for the amount of residual <____________________________________> in the final polysaccharides. The data justifying alert and action limits will be submitted to CBER by the 1st Quarter of 2001.

2. You have agreed to obtain additional safety data for previously unvaccinated children who receive Pneumococcal 7-valent Conjugate Vaccine (Diphtheria CRM197 Protein) according to recommendations for "catch-up" immunization. A study(s) will evaluate reactogenicity of vaccination for the age groups 7 months to less than 2 years, 2 years to less than 5 years, and 5 years to <___> years. This study will be initiated in April 2000.

3. You have agreed to initiate a Phase 4 study to evaluate less common adverse events in <_______> children who will receive <____> doses of Pneumococcal 7-valent Conjugate Vaccine (Diphtheria cRM197 Protein) concomitantly with routinely recommended childhood vaccines, e.g., DTaP, Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine, IPV and hepatitis B vaccine. This study will be initiated in April 2000.

4. You have agreed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of concomitantly administered vaccines, e.g., DTaP, Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine, MMR and varicella vaccines, with a fourth dose of Pneumococcal 7-valent Conjugate Vaccine (Diphtheria CRM197 Protein) in 12-15-month old children who previously received three doses of DTaP, IPV, Haemophllus lnfluenzae type b conjugate vaccine and Pneumococcal 7-valent Conjugate Vaccine (Diphtheria CRMl97 Protein). This study will be initiated in January 2001 as subjects in the Phase 4 safety study reach 12-15 months of age.

5. You have agreed to continue surveiilance for invasive pneumococcal disease in children who received Pneumococcal 7-valent Conjugate Vaccine (Diphtheria CRM197 Protein) in the efficacy study conducted at Northern California Kaiser Permanente.

6. You have agreed to provide comparative immunogenicity data for pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) and poliovirus responses for children who received DTaP, Hib, IPV and Pneumococcal 7-valent Conjugate Vaccine (Diphtheria CRM197 Protein) during the primary immunization series. We acknowledge your commitment to provide these data from a study performed in <_________> These data will be submitted to CBER in April 2000.

7. You have agreed to provide safety and immunogenicity data for Pneumococcal 7-valent Conjugate Vaccine (Diphtheria CRMl97 Protein) administered to high-risk children, e.g., HIV-infected infants, subjects with sickle cell disease and bone marrow transplant recipients.

Or from the meningitis vaccine:

Postmarketing Studies subject to reporting requirements of 21 CFR 601.70.

3. To conduct an open label, descriptive, epidemiological, safety surveillance study that enrolls 20,000 subjects or enrolls for 1 year, whichever results in the larger enrollment. The study protocol will be submitted by May 2005. The study will be initiated by July 2005. The final study report will be submitted 1 year after the last subject has completed the study, July 2008.

4. To conduct a randomized, modified double-blind, comparative study evaluating safety and immunogenicity when Menactra vaccine is given concomitantly with Tetanus and Reduced Diphtheria and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine, Adsorbed (Tdap). The study will be conducted in approximately 1400 adolescents aged 11-17 years. The study protocol will be submitted by March 2005. The study will be initiated by April 2005. The final study report will be submitted by December 2006.

5. To conduct an open label study that enrolls approximately 400 participants to evaluate the duration of the antibody response in participants who had received a single dose of Menactra vaccine or Menomune vaccine 5 and 10 years earlier. Enrollees will be between 16 and 23 years of age when they are 5 years post vaccination. The study protocol will be submitted by September 2005 with study initiation for the 5 year follow up by November 2005. Study initiation for the 10 year follow up is planned by November 2010. The clinical study reports will be submitted as two reports, one report will be submitted for the 5 year follow up study and one report will be submitted for the 10 year follow up. The first report will be submitted 1 year after the last patient has completed the 5 year follow up, May 2007, and the second report will be submitted 1 year after the last patient has completed the 10 year follow up, May 2012.

6. To conduct a multi-center, modified double blind, active controlled clinical study to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of Menactra vaccine in subjects greater than 55 years of age. The study protocol will be submitted by October 2005 and the study initiated by January 2006. The final study report will be submitted by January 2008.



Do I have to continue or do you get that this is not out of the ordinary?

[antigop]

59. I'm not making it "sound" like anything -- people can read it for themselves n/t

[pnwmom]

60. As you point out, ANY recently released drug or vaccine

is in the final stages of testing AFTER its release.

That is precisely why many thoughtful medical professionals are arguing against an early mandate of this vaccine. Long experience has shown that when a new drug or vaccine is released into the general population, information may be gained that wasn't available during earlier testing. We should wait until we have much more experience with the HPV vaccine before we consider its mandate.

Merck, obviously, wanted the mandate immediately in order to get the jump on its competition. That shouldn't have any bearing on any state's decision, however.

[pnwmom]

58. At #33, I posted a link to an authoritative site with links to

well-reasoned opinions on BOTH sides of the issue.

Here it is again, the U.Penn Center on Bioethics:

http://www.vaccineethics.org/2007/05/hpv-mandates-and-more-in-jama-and-nejm.html

Thoughtful, educated people are coming to different conclusions on the mandate. You shouldn't cast aspersions on those who don't happen to agree with you.

[antigop]

47. And what part of the following don't you understand?

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/17/1921

>>
The ACIP recommendation supports making quadrivalent vaccination the standard of clinical care. However, it is important to emphasize that the vaccine is supported by limited efficacy and safety data. Clinical trials have thus far involved a relatively small population (<12 000 participants) for a limited period of follow-up (5 years). The vaccine has not been evaluated for efficacy among younger girls (aged 9 to 15 years). Yet, if the vaccine were required nationwide, it would be administered to some 2 million girls and young women, most of them between 11 and 12 years old and some as young as 9 years old. The longer-term effectiveness and safety of the vaccine still need to be evaluated among a large population, and particularly among younger girls.

>>

[Liberal Veteran]

49. The part that you seem to see that there is something sinister in this.

When in actuality, this is very routine. This kind of follow-up allows for companies to actually improve on already successful pharmaceuticals.

[antigop]

52. GEEZ! What part don't you understand? n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

55. Your insistance that this vaccine was inadequately tested and poses a danger.

It's that simple.

I find it hard to believe that an intelligent adult believes that not only is the FDA corrupt, but so are the health officials of nearly every first world country who are more than satisfied by the results of a very large and very long clinical trial to bring this vaccine to market.

[antigop]

56. NO! What part of the JAMA Editorial don't you understand? DID YOU READ IT? n/t

[pnwmom]

61. It is well tested for a new vaccine, but it is too early for a mandate.

Aren't you curious why the meningitis vaccine that is recommended for college students, and was released several years ago, hasn't been mandated in Texas -- the same state that was about to mandate the HPV vaccine months after its release?

Don't you think that could have had something to do with the Merck lobbyist connected with the Governor?

[pnwmom]

29. It is not "junk science" to say that the major studies on

young girls have not begun yet. It is a fact.

[northzax]

46. Well, the one study on 11-12 year olds

Was stopped for ethical reasons because 200 subjects were getting the placebo

[pnwmom]

62. They're still taking in subjects for the major studies

among young girls, and will be doing so into 2008.

[pnwmom]

28. The major studies on young girls haven't even begun yet.

They're still enrolling subjects into 2008.

That's why quite a number of University affiliated physicians, including a group in the California system, are recommending against the vaccine being mandated now.

[LeighAnn]

22. Why not make the boys get it?

Seems to me like girls aren't getting HPV from other females. Sounds like the poor 32 year old woman you mentioned got it from a man. They should be the ones to get the vaccine.

[northzax]

23. sure, but at this point

it isn't indicated for boys. and frankly, leaving sexual health issues to your partner is simply stupid.

[Kittycat]

24. It's not about refusing it outright, it's about pushing for proper testing`

Because if you allow your child to have it now, you're basically signing them up to be a guinea pig for the pharma testing. The drug was pushed through far too quickly, and children have already died from receiving it. But you'd okay possible death vs. waiting a while longer to ensure the safety of the drug?

[pnwmom]

34. Exactly. Anyone who has the vaccine now is participating

in the final stages of testing. Which is fine -- as long as it's voluntary.

[silverojo]

30. Wait till you see what this untested vaccine does to girls

A few years from now, we're going to see these headlines all over LBN here on DU.

The vaccine does NOT protect against all forms of cervical cancer. It's being given to girls who are still in their formative years. This has disaster written all over it.

[Liberal Veteran]

41. And what would those nebulous things be?

I've heard everything from birth defects to sterility posed as an "unknown side effect".

Of course, not one person has bothered to posit how any of these things are supposed to happen.

Are we supposed to believe that having your immune system primed to fight exposure to HPV is somehow different than actually getting exposed to the real thing? Is your body going to produce antibodies that cause birth defects and shrivel the wombs of girls into barren wastelands?

[northzax]

63. Does anyone know why polio hasn't been eradicated yet?

Anti-science yahoos who think the polio vaccine is a conspiracy to cause sterility and birth defects. Sound familiar? This is why, ten years after it should have been eradicated globally, it's still around. We were on track, globally, to be able to stop giving Polio vaccines, with their small side effects, to anyone, by 2012. Now we are looking at 2025 at the earliest. Just a comment.

[drm604]

19. My post was in reference to the subject of this thread. Vaccines for childhood diseases. N/T

[Tyler Durden]

64. Both already have had it.

AND the Heptavax, and all of the other wide spectrum vaccinations.

I've also had every single vaccination booster I've needed, right on time.

As have the two boys.

Meds are one thing they are forcing through: I agree with you there.

VACCINES are old technology, and I've seen all the international studies.

As a member of NSAC (National Society for Autistic Children) in the 70's, I wish it were as simple as Thimerosol, but I don't believe so. It's been used extensively in everything from Contact Lens supplies to mouthwash, and now that it's been removed from so many items here and internationally, I see this as a non-issue.

I understand your pain, I saw much of it in person; I understand the grasping at straws, but efforts and money would be better spent elsewhere. I'm very sorry.

[Stuckinthebush]

9. It really is

While there may be some good theories surrounding vaccines and autism, it doesn't seem that the scientific evidence supports the theories.

There are a lot of (understandably) frustrated parents out there who are looking for an explanation for autism. One's search for the truth can get sidetracked by taking a path not supported by scientific evidence. Hopefully we can find the reason(s) behind autism using good scientific methods.

[pnwmom]

14. "This hysteria"? Could you be more specific?

Do you understand that the purpose of the vaccine injury fund is BOTH to compensate families for injuries caused by vaccines AND to encourage drug companies to continue to produce vaccines without the fear of liability lawsuits? Because of this special court, and this fund, the drug companies do not have to be worried about being sued themselves.

"The court is being asked to decide whether there is a link between autism and childhood vaccines. If it finds one exists, the families could be eligible for compensation under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund, a program established by Congress to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines by safeguarding manufacturers from lawsuits. Under the program, people injured by vaccines receive compensation through a special trust fund."

[maddezmom]

10. no thanks

And I'm saying that as a mom of an autistic son who has lived overseas quite a bit. I'm glad they are getting their day in court and any publicity on this subject is good news to me, but we're a vax family.

PS: I know your post was pure sarcasm :)

[pnwmom]

12. The whole point of the vaccine injury fund is to encourage

vaccinations, not to discourage them. And to encourage drug companies to continue to develop vaccines, without the constant fear of liability lawsuits hanging over their heads.

Though vaccines have represented a great advance in public health, there have always been some individuals who have ended up suffering ill effects -- or even dying -- from vaccines that have benefited the population as a whole. My sister, for example, died of encephalitis after having the old DTP vaccine. Countless other babies have benefited from the fact that most children are vaccinated against whooping cough, tetanus, and diptheria.

The government, recognizing the potential though rare cases of serious vaccine injuries, has set up a fund to compensate families who have borne the burden for the rest of us.

[northzax]

16. and this is a good thing (the compensation)

no vaccine is 100% safe, no medicine is 100% safe. we are all slightly different, and the technology does not exist to effectively customize vaccines and medications for individuals. maybe someday it will, but until then, as you say, we need to look to the greater good. if there is a one in a million chance of something going wrong, that is a calculus we need to make. it doesn't change the agony and heartbreak of the one, but it must be done.

[Mend]

35. it is not either/or....the vets are changing the way our dogs and cats are

vaccinated, why can't we. It mean getting rid of that preservative and using mercury-free vaccines and spreading them out instead of loading up with triple shots. If we can do it for the animals, why not humans?

[happygoluckytoyou]

18. WHEN AUTISM IS CURED AND MOST ARE DEAD...

JUST LIKE AGENT ORANGE... IGNORED BY THE MILITARY UNTIL THEY COULD BE OF NO HELP AND FEW REMAINED...

JUST LIKE POST-TRAMATIC-STRESS... DON'T BRING THEM HOME UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE TO HELP...

JUST LIKE STARVING CHILDREN IN AMERICA... SORRY I'D HELP BUT I PROTESTING ABORTION

JUST LIKE KATRINA..... OH? DO THEY NEED HELP... DAMN, HOW MANY ARE LEFT... CALL ME WHEN THERE ARE ONLY 100



AUTISM IS IN YOUR FACE BUT THERE IS LITTLE CHANCE THE HELP WILL BE PROVIDED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS IT WILL DO NO GOOD


----------------- IT DOESN'T GO AWAY IF YOU IGNORE IT? SURE IT DOES

[Holly_Hobby]

20. The UK recognizes and pays for vaccine damage

If you're severely disabled as a result of a vaccination against certain diseases, you may be able to get a Vaccine Damage Payment, a one-off tax-free payment of £100,000.

Who can claim?

You may be able to get a Vaccine Damage Payment if you think you're severely disabled and your disability was caused by vaccination against any of these diseases:

* diphtheria
* tetanus
* pertussis (whooping cough)
* poliomyelitis
* measles
* mumps
* rubella (German measles)
* tuberculosis (TB)
* haemophilus influenzae type B (HIB)
* meningococcal group C (meningitis C)
* pneumococcal infection
* smallpox (up to 1 August 1971)

You may have had a combined vaccination against a number of the diseases listed, for example DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) or MMR (measles, mumps and rubella).

You may also be able to get a payment if you're thought to be severely disabled because either:

* your mother was vaccinated against one of the diseases in the list while she was pregnant
* you've been in close physical contact with someone who's been vaccinated against poliomyelitis with a vaccine that was given orally

...

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/OtherBenefitsAndSupport/DG_10026664

[pnwmom]

31. That appears to be a system similar to ours.

The reason for these cases is that our vaccine injury fund has not been recognizing autism as a possible effect of any vaccine or vaccine ingredient.

Do you know if the issue of vaccines and autism has come up in the UK, and whether any payments have been made?

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. In the UK, vaccines were blamed for autism for a completely different reason

It was a huge controversy - a gastroenterologist, Andrew Wakefield, claimed a link between the MMR vaccine (which does not contain thimerosal in the UK), bowel disease, and autism, in a paper published in The Lancet, a leading medical journal. His findings were highly disputed; MMR vaccination rates dropped significantly; most of his co-authors, and The Lancet, withdrew the paper, and he is currently awaiting charges of professional misconduct by the General Medical Council. He apparently personally received hundreds of thousands of pounds from the fund for autism law suits. See the links from wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield .

As a result of his claims, cases of measles have risen sharply in the UK, including the first death from it since 1992 - http://www2.nphs.wales.nhs.uk/icds/page.cfm?pid=383 .

[youngdem]

26. No evidence autism is caused by vaccines

The increase in autism is mostly due to better diagnosis and an huge increase in the number of people who fit an expanded definition of autism.

Sorry for this woman's pain, but there is no good evidence that autism was caused by the vaccine.

[pnwmom]

32. This court will decide whether there is SUFFICIENT evidence

to link autism and vaccines.

That is the whole purpose of the 9 cases.

Without doubt, there is SOME evidence, and that is the evidence that these families are bringing to the court.

And by the way, the standard in this court will not be "beyond a reasonable doubt." It will be "by the preponderance of the evidence."

Only time will tell.

[Mend]

36. and time will tell why the drug companies are so against a look into the

matter...if there is nothing to see, why not bring it out in court. I remember the Congressional hearings where they swore cigarettes didn't cause lung cancer.

[depakid]

38. The "battle of the experts" is often like he said/she said journalism

While I don't mind cases going to court with proper evidence, I do worry that judges and jurors can't always sort through technical evidence and come to objective conclusions.

[Liberal Veteran]

42. Yep....remember the evils of silicone breast implants and Norplant.

Lot's of cash for the lawyers and little real science.

[pnwmom]

44. These won't be jurors. They'll be "special masters."

And, as the article says, the standard used will be a legal one, not a scientific one. So the people who expect some sort of scientific closure or proof on this will come away unsatisfied. That isn't the purpose of these cases. It is merely to determine whether these plaintiffs are eligible for compensation from the vaccine injury fund.