Vaccines and Autism - Court set to rule on if there is a link

[mshheaddoc]

Article describing it

My outlook is if there isn't enough evidence for a medical professional to rule, how do you expect a non-medical professional to rule?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sdn1977]

Actually, if you check a bit further, this is not the usual way a case might go to trial.

It is actually being heard by 3 Masters, one of whom is a Federal judge & it is the Federal judge's ruling which is binding. The Masters all have some knowledge of vaccines since they are in the Office of Special Masters of the Vaccine Program.

This case is an Omnibus case - which means it is a consolidation of more than 4000 plaintiffs. They are dividing the cases into 3 trials - agreed on by both sides, with each trial having 3 test cases to present. The set of Masters, I believe, is to be different in each trial so as not to have the whole issue rest on just the case of one individual. The second trial is scheduled in 2008 & the third in late 2008 or 09.

This is the first trial. There is one case & the plaintiffs are having a hard time coming up with more than one case and the one case which is being heard is a very complicated case & does not particularly represent the actual issue being heard which is MMR & thiomerisol causing autism.

You can get more complete information here:

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/OSM/OSMAutism.htm

That link also gives you information if you want to actually listen to the proceedings live via telephone since it is a public trial, however, you must register first.

Yesterday, I believe was the first day & was just introductory & "official" court proceedings - I didn't listen, so I'm not sure.

FYI - The reason this does not proceed under normal lawsuit procedures are because vaccines are protected & all "damages" caused by them are paid out of this special fund. This also gives immunity to healthcare folks who have administered the vaccines. Without this method, there would be no vaccines at all.

 

[Miami_med]

Yeah, I'm waiting to see what happens with this one.

 

[sdn1977]

Don't hold your breath - its going to be a long wait!

 

[PBEA]

Maybe not enough evidence (although no one is allowed to access the CDC vaccine reporting file). But does it really matter? Why cant industry come up with an equally effective but less-toxic preservative then damn mercury, for pete's sake. If thimeresol is just a cheaper alternative (but a more toxic one) then I would condone the roasting of every fatcat pharma execs balls.

 

[yaah]

My outlook is if there isn't enough evidence for a medical professional to rule, how do you expect a non-medical professional to rule?

Because, sadly, non-medical professionals often take anecdotal evidence and theory more seriously than they do scientific fact. It is completely irrelevant and biasing for the parents to bring their children to court, hearings, etc, but it happens. And that is the "evidence" that people see.

As far as I can tell, the argument on the "vaccines cause autism" side is that the children were perfectly fine and healthy, and the only thing that changed is that they got their vaccines. That's not proof, but people want something to believe in. John Travolta, for example, didn't vaccinate his kids (as far as I know), yet one has autism and they are blaming it on carpet cleaner or some such nonsense.

It's part of the problem with american society - everything has to be someone's fault (other than our own, of course). And nature and medicine do not follow these rules. Most cancers and serious illnesses are not someone's fault. Just because occasional ones are does not mean that others have to be.