Court Rules Against Vaccine-Autism Claims Again

Posted by Soulskill on Friday March 12, 2010 @10:36AM from the but-were-any-court-members-in-playboy dept.

barnyjr writes "According to a story from Reuters, 'Vaccines that contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal cannot cause autism on their own, a special US court ruled on Friday, dealing one more blow to parents seeking to blame vaccines for their children's illness. The special US Court of Federal Claims ruled that vaccines could not have caused the autism of an Oregon boy, William Mead, ending his family's quest for reimbursement. ... While the state court determined the autism was vaccine-related, [Special Master George] Hastings said overwhelming medical evidence showed otherwise. The theory presented by the Meads and experts who testified on their behalf "was biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported," Hasting wrote.'"

2 of 416 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Litigious society by spun · 2010-03-12 11:37 · Score: 0, Redundant

No, he said, "why should the parents be entitled to "reimbursement" even if the immunization did cause the autism? "

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Litigious society by spun · 2010-03-12 11:58 · Score: 0, Redundant

I chose to read it as written, rather than reading into it something that is, frankly, just not there.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton