Slashdot Mirror
Family To Receive $1.5M+ In Vaccine-Autism Award
An anonymous reader, quoting from CBS News, writes "'The first court award in a vaccine-autism claim is a big one. CBS News has learned the family of Hannah Poling will receive more than $1.5 million for her life care, lost earnings, and pain and suffering for the first year alone. In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah's care. Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million over the child's lifetime. ... In acknowledging Hannah's injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn't 'cause' her autism, but 'resulted' in it. It's unknown how many other children have similar undiagnosed mitochondrial disorders. All other autism 'test cases' have been defeated at trial. Approximately 4,800 are awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court.' How did this happen when all the scientific data points otherwise?"
The parent was modded troll, but sadly he has a point. The only research linking MMR vaccines to Autism (or Autistic-like symptoms) was proven a fake, while countless studies have shown that there is no link (correction: no link was shown. I know the difference). Yet, now we have the government admiting that the vaccine resulted in what happened to the girl.
The girl had a mithochondrial disease. Although unspecified, many of them cause encephalopathy that can be aggrevated due to many causes. If she had not been given the vaccine, the same would have happened a week/month/a few month later due to the common cold/gatroenteritis/ear infection/ whatever. To say that without the vaccine she would have been fine to this day is naive at best and deceptive at worst.
So yes, it sounds like a bad April Fools story. Sadly enough, it ain't.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Well apperently those sums can lump up to quite a fortune:
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services set up the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) in 1988 to compensate individuals and families of individuals injured by covered childhood vaccines. The VICP was adopted in response to a scare over the pertussis portion of the DPT vaccine. These claims were later generally discredited, but some U.S. lawsuits against vaccine makers won substantial awards; most makers ceased production, and the last remaining major manufacturer threatened to do so.
From: Vaccine court.
It seems, that if you open up the flood gate, you can get to the point where it is not financially possible to continue producing the vaccine. And then we have problems.
And another point, according to the above article, The VICP will compensate every case in which a condition listed in the Vaccine Injury Table is proven to have happened after a vaccine was given (by showing a casual connection). The table does not list autism, so my question is: how did they get the claim to be accepted? I guess maybe it was by being regarded as encephalitis/encephalopathy and not autism, and it is only tauted as autism to draw headlines. So we may have another case of bad reporting? If any one has a link to the original ruling, it may be interesting to find out what is being compensated - encephalopathy or autism.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
It's called Herd Immunity. While you and your children aren't well protected against the infections that moderns societies vaccinate against, everyone else is, providing indirect protection. The people around you aren't sick, so they can't pass on infection to you, even though you are vulnerable. You live in a country where the negative impact of you foregoing vaccination is minimised because everyone else did get vaccinated. Hardly a solid argument against vaccination.
Most vaccines don't provide total protection to any one individual anyway, so many people that think they are protected aren't, and get by, just like you, because of the immunity of the population as a whole. As long as enough people are immune, diseases won't spread. The problem is that some vaccines are only just barely effective enough to establish herd immunity. If enough people decide to forego vaccination, there could be a real problem. Diseases that have been nearly wiped out could make a comeback, imported by tourists or immigrants from the third world. Even people who been vaccinated might die or become paralysed by their thousands, because of a small, foolish minority of people like yourself.
The following article from the New England Journal of Medicine has a good summary of why the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program exists, and why some of its recent decisions, including the award in the Poling case, have been problematic. Basically, since 2005 the policy has been to concede cases where petitioners establish a plausible theory by which their injury could have been caused by the vaccine, rather than requiring proof or even scientific evidence that the vaccine caused said injury.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904
See also the Wikipedia article on the program, which also discusses the Poling case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court
Recently on Penn & Teller's Bullshit, how the anti-vaccination movement is bullshit.
Part 1/2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aky-sRri-NQ
Part 2/2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnxci5tezZY
I strongly suggest you have a look at it.
You said something fascinating that caught my eye:
> So there is actually a higher chance that the vaccine could make you worse off than you were before you got it.
This doesn't seem to be correct. Applying any medication to someone who is already ill is riskier than applying it to a healthy person: between allergies, mistakes in dosage, infections from visiting a hospital or mishandling needles, and allergic reactions that are far more dangerous in an ill person, the risk seems higher.
The problem is in the "benefit" side. The risk of getting polio or German measles today is small, so for an individual to refuse the vaccine significantly reduces their risk of such negative consequences, and creates only a miniscule risk for them of infection. The problem is when enough personally cautious people refuse the vaccine that a threshold of vulnerability is crossed and the disease becomes far more common, and the risk is increased, and especially if the disease mutates slightly and becomes drug-resistant or requires new vaccines. We do not want to see polio or German measles become rampant again.
And we had the opportunity, several times now, to entirely eliminate polio. The vaccine was ready, the last active strains of it could have been wiped off the planet (with digital storage of the DNA, just in case a sample was hidden somewhere). The remaining nations with transmitted cases are Nigeria, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to WHO. Why does the disease still exist there? Because of war and fear of poison, especially of sterilizing poisons administered by foreign governments to control native population. By the time natives who understood enough biochemistry to attest to the vaccine's effectiveness and safety could be gathered, the stockpiles of vaccine for Nigeria, for example, had expired and were a complete waste of UN money.
Parents in the US refusing vaccines are doing the same thing. They're actually extending the lifespan of the particular diseases by leaving infectable children as a significant part of the population, enough to keep the diseases active.
1/5000 getting sick from a mass vaccine is pretty bad when you're dealing with millions or even billions of people.
It's still generally better than the alternative. For example, before smallpox was eradicated by vaccination, it was highly infectious, had a 30% mortality rate, killed more people in the 20th century alone than both world wars (and possibly more than every single war in the 20th century), and left most of the survivors permanently scarred. Or take whooping cough - sounds amusing, but it actually causes infants to cough so hard that they can't keep down food, and has lovely complications such as seizures and death.
According to the fine article the case was settled. There was no trial. There was no jury. This is what the government agreed to in order to avoid a trial.
This money will actually come from a pool of money donated by the vaccine companies in order to pay for known or proven complications of vaccination that was set up so that they are immune from direct litigation. This is not taxpayer money. It doesn't mean it's not a bad decision, however. Or that lawyers aren't trying their hardest to break the current system of vaccination litigation awards so they can make more money in regular courts.
This is not how vaccination rewards are decided. They are a part of the special VAERS program which is decided by a "vaccine" court NVICP (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/). There are actually experts who decide compensation. This is all a part of an agreement that recognizes that vaccine makers would not make them if they were liable for litigation in the traditional sense. As a result, the US has set up a special system that pays patients out of a pool of money given by the vaccine makers so that they are protected from the litigation.
The trial lawyers would love to break this system - this is why you see so much misinformation on the internet. It is a potential bonanza for lawyers and patients and as a result there is a lot of pressure to allow open litigation. This would obviously drive up vaccination costs and possibly lead to shortages or incomplete coverage due to the higher costs of providing care.
Or take whooping cough
Funny you should mention that... the vaccine for whooping cough does not prevent the spread of whooping cough, it simply allows the immune system to destroy the toxin it produces that attacks the lungs, so you don't whoop. Everyone skipping the vaccine for this one in hopes of the "herd" protecting them is in for a nasty surprise.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
According to the NEJM it is encephalopathy. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904#ref2 The catch is that the ruling mentions autism in the heading as that was the allegation. http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELLSMITH.%20DOE77082710.pdf The government settled with calling it encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
Seeing as how mercury was almost entirely removed from childhood vaccines 10 years ago (about the only place you'll find it is a flu shot) and there was no accompanying drop in autism rates, I don't think you'd need to bother with that mercury test.
The keeping up on research is a large part of the reason for pharmacists. Pharmacists are experts in drugs. They are expected to be more familiar with drugs than even doctors. The doctor's job is primarily to make a diagnosis, and find possible courses of treatment, including medication. Ideally they should be consulting with a pharmacist in determining the best medication to try, but practically that does not happen, mostly because many conditions have one drug that generally works best, so that is the first one tried, and then a second one. If anfter several tries none have work, but the doctor is confident in his diagnosis, would a pharmacist likely be consulted by the doctor.
Do remember that the job of the pharmacist has evolved over time from previous jobs. It started out as a medicine maker, combining ingredients right there to produce the medication. These days most medications are pre-manufactured, although there are some remnants, like some particularly short-lived medications that the pharmacist creates on the spot by combining two or more substances purchased from a pharmaceutical manufacturer. These days though the pharmacist mostly dispenses medications prescribed by the doctor, and provides advice on OTC medication selection, and the taking of any medication.
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
"Only dangerous for infants" minimizes the nastiness of this.
Imagine coughing so bad, for months at a time, that you:
1) Can't sleep
2) Throw up regularly from coughing fits
3) Break your own ribs from coughing
4) Burst the blood vessels in the whites of your eyes, giving you a solid-red-eyes demon look
5) Can't work
Despite having had a childhood vaccination to whooping cough, I had 1) 2) 4) and 5).
Lucky for me I had more than a month of vacation + sick leave at my job, or I might have had some nasty economic side effects from having had the whooping cough.
Get your shots people, even though you probably won't die of whopping cough, YOU DO NOT WANT IT.
--PM
False in two respects. First, it is not true that the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine only immunizes against the toxin. Second it is not true that immunizing only against the toxin does not reduce the spread of the disease. (hardly surprising that preventing a symptom--coughing--that spreads disease would reduce the spread of that disease)