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?"

Comments

What?

[Ssherby]

Is it April Fools day already?

Re:What?

[Kilrah_il]

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.

Re:What?

[Ssherby]

Thanks for the vindication.

But unfortunately a few anti-vaccine Nazi types with mod points burning holes in their pockets came tearing through this comment thread not long after I posted that.

When I first read this and I thought almost immediately about April Fools stories on /. primarily because an estimated 20 million award seems punitive and excessively so. And who is being punished here? You and I and everyone else who had nothing to do with this.

While I feel sorry for this girl and her family, it is not my fault this happened. And I cannot see how providing care for this girl could possibly cost this kind of money. It would have made more sense to have a reasonable pain and suffering award up front, plus some reasonable standard of living allowance annually, plus the government picking up the tab on all related medical costs. Somehow I doubt the total of which would come anywhere near 20 million

Re:What?

[Seumas]

Hare dare you question Jenny McCarthy! She has been a playboy model **AND** squirted out a child, so she is clearly far more qualified in the field of science, research, and analysis than any of us!

Re:What?

[Joce640k]

Lawyers have to be paid...it's all part of "medical expenses".

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Death is far cheaper than ongoing survival, and illness is horribly expensive.

Re:What?

[aurispector]

The current "jackpot jury" system is sot irrevocably broken it's not even remotely funny. As a "health care provider" constantly staring at the business end of lawsuits it's clear to me that serious reform is necessary. Monetary awards merely increase costs without addressing quality of care issues.

As it stands, medical experts duel in front of a layman's jury. The jury isn't qualified to evaluate the data presented and inevitably comes to ridiculous conclusions. All malpractice/medical injury claims should be decided by a committee of practicing doctors to decide if there was actually malpractice. Decision could include requirements for additional training, suspension or revocation of license. After all, the goal ought to be to improve the quality of care given to the public.

The only ones winning now are the lawyers who make a business of malpractice cases.

Re:What?

[Kilrah_il]

Yes, there is. Troll gets modded -1 Troll for a good reason, while sarcasm gets modded -1 Troll without one.

Re:What?

[Atryn]

My nephew is autistic and I can assure you the award here is FAR more than care will/would cost. Providing the family with 20% or less of that award and forcing $16M into additional research would be much more beneficial to the public good, would it not?

But then the conservatives aren't in favor of government research and would prefer less government and to let the "private sector" solve this problem.

Re:What?

[m.ducharme]

While I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment of the problem, I don't think your solution - to have doctors police themselves in malpractice claims - is a very just one. Doctors on a committee have a lot of self-interest in seeing that fewer malpractice awards get handed out, whether deserved or not. Besides, don't the professional colleges already regulate doctors, and mete out penalties including training, suspension or revocation of licenses? None of these things provide any remedy to the person who's been injured by a doctor's negligence.

Re:What?

[Invicta{HOG}]

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.

Re:What?

[Invicta{HOG}]

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.

Re:What?

[c6gunner]

Maybe it's those fucking unconstitutional required vaccinations the morons have been experimenting with us for years

*facepalm*

I am sorry that you've managed to breed.

Re:What?

[DurendalMac]

Hol-ee SHIT, are you really this fucking THICK? The entire vaccine scare was kicked off by an utter fraud who manipulated the hell out of his study and almost lost his license as a result. There is diddly squat to show a link between autism and vaccines. There is a crapload of research to show that it's all a load of crap. I remember the vaccine nutters going on about thimerasol...when it has been almost entirely absent from childhood vaccines for a decade! About the only place you'll find it is flu shots.

That and there is an utterly undeniable genetic component to autism.

Re:What?

[jeremy_fsu]

But then the conservatives aren't in favor of government research and would prefer less government and to let the "private sector" solve this problem.

I completely agree with you that the award exceeds what the care would cost. My wife is a college prof, researcher, and works with autistic children. I have family and close friends with autistic children, and you are spot on, that's way more than it would really cost. I also agree that the excess should go to research too. I'm a conservative, yet despite your perception I know that plenty of excellent research comes from state universities like the one my wife is employed by. This is putting the research in the hands of the gov't, and I'm fine with that. However, I would not trust congress with spending that money on research. Ideally I'd like to see it go directly to a good medical research school somewhere. So don't categorize all conservatives under one issue, it's foolish. You can believe in smaller government yet believe in the importance of the government's role in education (and thus research). Not all conservatives are the same, just like not all liberals are the same.

Re:What?

[Count Fenring]

I understand this is delicate, and honestly hesitate to ask, but what degree of care does your nephew require?

I've worked in special needs classrooms with autistic kids, and there's a world of difference between the kids who are mostly functional, but will randomly run off or make noises, and the kids who'll fly into a rage-like state and smash things and people.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, per se (the award might well be inflated), but depending on the child's actual condition, the cost of care could vary substantially.

Re:What?

[ScrewMaster]

Maybe it's those fucking unconstitutional required vaccinations the morons have been experimenting with us for years

*facepalm*

I am sorry that you've managed to breed.

Clearly he was affected badly as a child by one those vaccinations. People just don't get it: yes, sometimes people have bad reactions to specific vaccines (can't help it, in any large population somebody will have an issue.) The problem comes down to what the term public health means: these people are trying to prevent epidemics, which invariably result in far more deaths than those lost to the vaccines themselves. Anyone who doesn't think that the flu can kill ought to research that subject a little more thoroughly before condemning vaccines: the last flu pandemic killed a lot of people. We're actually overdue for another big one.

That's why I get pissed when I hear about parents who refuse vaccinations for their children: those walking disease factories then proceed to infect other people's kids.

Re:What?

[DurendalMac]

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.

Re:What?

[Kilrah_il]

Just because we are talking about a large population, does not mean that anythingcan happen. This is not the improbability drive.
Yes, many children get vaccines, and as such, rare reactions may occur. But Autism is not a rare reaction to vaccines that with a big enough sample size you might find some that are affected. Autism is not caused by vaccines. Your line of thinking in the first two sentences is what caused this stupid decision: "Oh, well, there's always the chance that this poor little girl is the 1 in gazillion to have autism due to vaccines".
Well, then, I'm sorry but there is not one shred of (credible) evidence linking vaccines to autism. And until there is, I will continue saying that the chance that a vaccine will cause autism is like the chance that a vaccine will make the child grow a third arm (almost said "third leg", but it would have proved fertile ground for many a pun).

Re:What?

[Atryn]

I'm not saying that you're wrong, per se (the award might well be inflated), but depending on the child's actual condition, the cost of care could vary substantially.

Absolutely. Without going into the specifics of his case, he is certainly better off than other children his mother (my sister) has worked with in the autism community. The point was, rather, that $1.5M plus over $500k per year is excessive.

Re:What?

[commodore64_love]

Has anyone noticed the summary repeats itself?

WOW. I had no idea such a system existed. Thanks for the information. A special "vaccine damage" court is a good idea, because it prevents the 1 billion awards we might otherwise see in the normal courts. Also 20 million doesn't sound high to me. If the kid lives another 80 years, that's only 250,000 a year - which is probably how much it would cost to keep the girl alive. I had no idea such a system existed. Thanks for the information. A special "vaccine damage" court is a good idea, because it prevents the 1 billion awards we might otherwise see in the normal courts. Also 20 million doesn't sound high to me. If the kid lives another 80 years, that's only 250,000 a year -

PENN & TELLER ripped a giant hole in the "vaccines are dangerous" theory using balls and bowling pins. Basically they said, even if we assume the vaccine causes autism, that's still just 1 autistic death per approximately one million children versus ~10,000 dead from communicable disease if they were Not vaccinated. Like gambling you play the odds and take the vaccine because it's less dangerous than going without.

Long Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aky-sRri-NQ
Short Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

Re:What?

[Dahamma]

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.

Yep. It's like dying in an at-fault auto accident and blaming the car. Or having a heart attack while playing basketball and blaming the ball. You'd have to be fairly insane to propose outlawing cars and basketballs for those reasons.

This seems more in line with having an allergy to an antibiotic - there is no doubt that it's a life-saving drug, but unfortunately there are always rare cases where it makes things worse. Medicine is not an exact science, and if we keep blaming doctors and drugs that harm an occasional person despite saving thousands, progress and costs will suffer (and are already, clearly).

Re:What?

[Atryn]

I'm a conservative, yet despite your perception I know that plenty of excellent research comes from state universities like the one my wife is employed by. This is putting the research in the hands of the gov't, and I'm fine with that. However, I would not trust congress with spending that money on research. Ideally I'd like to see it go directly to a good medical research school somewhere.

And how would you decide which "good medical research school somewhere" or, more specifically, which researcher/project? You need some entity to evaluate what research is being done and to decide where the money can have the most impact. Hello HHS/NIH!

From an article on the difference in administrations:

President Bill Clinton pledged to double the NIH budget in 1998 from 13.6 billion. Then Texas Gov. George W. Bush, on the campaign trail, pledged to complete Clinton’s pledge.

It was a promise he kept when Bush first came to the White House. But after that, the NIH budget precipitously dropped, Propst said. “The increases have either been below inflation or been flat-out cuts.”

Re:What?

[siride]

Only for some of the specialist. Primary care doctors are not living in luxury. The insurance companies and the hospitals are making bank, though.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not an anti-vaccine nazi but our son had a severe reaction to a vaccination when he was small.. and he is also autistic. I don't believe that the vaccination caused his autism but there are a lot of associated issues that resulted from the vaccine reaction that I do not believe would have happened eventually.

Every vaccination has some risk attached to it but the benefits of mass vaccination (herd immunity, wiping out terrible diseases) are considered to be overwhelming. Problem is that there is so much weight and force behind the vaccination campaigns and industry that parents are seldom, if ever, informed of the risks and any dissent is suppressed in no uncertain terms. My wife is a public health medicine professional and a researcher; she has some obvious concerns about vaccinations given our experience and was interested in developing a study to find and correlate some of the negative responses. She was quietly told that this was not a fruitful area to look in and that they expected a different direction for her studies. No real threat but definitely suppression.

I am not a conspiracy theory guy but I am suspicious of three things:

1. Informed consent is not being obtained because of fear of the effect on vaccination compliance.
2. Real issues are being ignored or not looked at because they are considered anomalies (like the ozone data from the Antarctic) or because the massive pro-vaccination belief suppresses research.
3. There is under reporting of issues at the public health front because of data suppression (probably unintended). That is, something happens related to the vaccination but is not reported as such because there is no belief that there is a relationship.

I doubt that true informed consent was obtained from the parents in Hanah Poling's case.

Re:What?

[IICV]

there's nothing that surprising or terrible about this case, actually.

Hannah Poling has a very very very rare mitochondrial disorder - so rare, in fact, that the usual anti-vax suspects have actually given up on claiming that maybe it's more common than we thought and thus causing this fake "autism epidemic". Winning this judgement is actually less likely than winning the lottery, if you compare the incidence of her condition to the chances of buyimg a winning lottery ticket.

Furthermore, proof means a different thing in this context. This trial's level of evidence was "more likely than not" - or in other words, if her lawyer could make the case that there was a 50+epsilon% chance that vaccines caused her autism, he won. What scientist accepts such low confidence levels?

So basically, it's not that bad in terms of the anti-vax wars.

Re:What?

[Swanktastic]

It doesn't have to be a practicing physician. In the same way that we have judges who are not practicing lawyers, perhaps there's room for medically trained jurors who are not physicians.

Bankruptcy court is an excellent example. We don't have average joes deciding on the extremely arcane law governing seniority of debt.

I wish I could point to a link, but I've read articles here and there that examined the results of jury-tried cases versus a blind analysis by panels of physicians. There's almost no correlation between who gets awards and who does not. It indicates that the legal system case is providing no service other than providing lottery tickets to people who got sick. Some win, some lose, and there's no real "fairness" in distribution.

Re:What?

[Stiletto]

To me it just doesn't make logical sense to have a $50/hour doctor doing appendectomies when a $25/hour tech could do the job just as well.

If it was your appendix, and you had a choice, which one would you choose?

Re:What?

[d3matt]

To me it just doesn't make logical sense to have a $50/hour doctor doing appendectomies when a $25/hour tech could do the job just as well.

what are you smoking? there's a damn good reason you don't have people with a bachelor's degree doing surgery! (nurses make $25-$30/hour) there are so many things that can go wrong, so many complications, so many drug interactions and allergies...

your example only holds if the technician is working on a live circuit where people DIE if he messes up!

Re:What?

[nbauman]

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.

Yeah, that I understand, but what I don't understand is why the NVICP makes irrational decisions that favor the people who claim that their injury was caused by a "plausable" mechanism.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904

Unfortunately, in recent years the VICP seems to have turned its back on science. In 2005, Margaret Althen successfully claimed that a tetanus vaccine had caused her optic neuritis. Although there was no evidence to support her claim, the VICP ruled that if a petitioner proposed a biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine could cause harm, as well as a logical sequence of cause and effect, an award should be granted. The door opened by this and other rulings...

No case, however, represented a greater deviation from the VICP's original standards than that of Dorothy Werderitsh, who in 2006 successfully claimed that a hepatitis B vaccine had caused her multiple sclerosis. By the time of the ruling, several studies had shown that hepatitis B vaccine neither caused nor exacerbated the disease, and the Institute of Medicine had concluded that “evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis...."

What is this NVICP and why do they accept these unscientific claims of "biologically plausible mechanism"? Are they ignorant of science? Or are they required by the words of the legislation to accept claims like this?

Re:What?

[MachDelta]

If it was your wallet, and you had a choice, which one would you choose?

FTFY. ;)

Re:What?

[man_of_mr_e]

No surgery is trivial. If you're opening someone up, that requires a great deal of skill and traiing. Do you really want someone that hasn't had years of anatomy training digging around in your organs? "Hey, that looks like it might be it, let's cut it out and see!"

Even something as routine as prescribing medication can have a huge backlash if the person isn't up to date on all the latest research (that's not tto say that all doctors do keep up to date, but that's supposed to be part of their job, and what we pay them for). You often need a LOT of education for that, and is why pharmacists are nearly as well educated as doctors.

That's not to say that I don't agree with you at some level. I see no reason why a doctor should be prescribing medication. I think they should diagnose the problem, then the doctor should work with a pharmacist to develop a treatment plan. That way the specialist (the pharmacist) can be the one that specializes in medication and the doctor can specialize in the diagnosis.

Re:What?

[man_of_mr_e]

I don't think it's comparable at all. You're talking about financial professionals reviewing cases of normal people. We're talkinga bout medical professionals reviewing the actions of other medical people. There will always be a conflict of interest there because the medical professionals, even if not practicing, may remember a time when they did something like that and be biased because of it.

This is why even appeals courts concentrate on re-reviewing the details of the case, rather than (in most cases) analyzing the behavior or actions of the previous court. Unless there was gross misconduct, the appeals process will typically say something like "The previous court erred in determining this or that" and that's about it.

I think a better system would one in which the "jury" was made up of equal parts professional and non-professional "peers".

Re:What?

[Stiletto]

You can't buy your life back after a low-paid "surgery-tech" with a little formal training and with poor judgment fucks up and you bleed to death.

If it's a choice between a $100/hr doctor and a $200/hr doctor, I'll choose the cheaper one. If it's a choice between a $100/hr doctor and a $25/hr tech, I'm going with the doctor who's been through years of medical school, residency, has done the rounds and chosen his specialty, thank you.

Re:What?

[thrawn_aj]

There will always be a conflict of interest there because the medical professionals, even if not practicing, may remember a time when they did something like that and be biased because of it.

As opposed to laypeople who'll go "what the fuck does that mean?" and "Screw it. I'll just find for the plaintiff, coz' lookit at the cute little kid who suffered cuzza the big bad doctor"? If you allow for the possibility of medical professionals being biased, I don't see how the solution is getting ignorant people to decide cases where a deep knowledge of medicine is needed to even understand the issue at hand. No thank you, better to be biased by medical facts than some obscure ideology.

Justice should be blind, not stupid. Of course, my opinion is worth crap here, because any shyster who succeeded in extorting 20mil in a case like this would have had to start out by systematically eradicating any vestiges of medial knowledge from the jury. I can just see the pretrial questions: "How is babby formed?"

Re:What?

[Tacvek]

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.

Re:What?

[dogmatixpsych]

Don't lump all of us conservatives together. I am in favor of government spending on research - the more money spent the better even on research that seems stupid. Science spending is one of the most worthwhile investments the government makes. I also know many liberals who are opposed to a lot of research spending because it takes money away from social programs.

Re:What?

[yotto]

If it was your appendix, and you had a choice, which one would you choose?

The person who has done more.

Re:What?

[MachDelta]

You can't buy your life back after a low-grade "doctor" with poor judgment fucks up and you bleed to death.

Again, FTFY.

I guess my point is that people falsely equate wage with skill, particularly when the profession is poorly understood and held in high regard by society. I suppose it's soothing to the ego to think that there's a breed of ubermensch running around tackling the "really difficult" things in life, like medicine. We have so many "voodoo professions" in society where their mystery makes them appear difficult: Doctors, Mechanics, Computer techs, Engineers, etc. I know a guy who, in junior high cooking class, was asked to soften some butter, and subsequently put the tinfoil wrapper in the microwave too. He lit the microwave on fire and panicked because he didn't know what to do. Teacher put it out with a handful of baking soda. You know what this young man does now? He's a high-pressure pneumatics engineer. Builds big devices that run on thousands of psi of air pressure. "Ohmigawd that's dangerous and difficult, surely he is a genius!" Back in high school, this guy impressed everyone by putting his pants on the right way in the morning and not tripping down the stairs. Suddenly he's a valuable asset to society because he has a certificate in 'X'? Likewise, the best mechanic I ever knew (I used to work as one) had only two years of official training. But that didn't stop our 4 year "expert" journeyman (who made twice as much) from frequently deferring to his judgment because, quite frankly, the man knew his shit better than anyone in the shop. So just because wage is supposed to represent skill, I can assure you that in the real world it does not.

As a side note, i'm hopeing to get modded "-1 troll" for this post too. I love how that option is always used as a "I disagree but i'm a mod so fuck you" option. Probably too many words to fit in a drop menu. Ah well.

Re:What?

[flyneye]

That I agree with, put the bulk of the award to research.

          I am not in favor of letting the government have anything but big crayons to write with, let alone handle much outside their constitutional duties. They still barely run a post office and their record for protecting borders is pretty tell tale of the accomplishments of a bureaucracy driven by a million different agendas. Private sector research is a best bet.

N' of course all the pro vaccination chickenheads with mod points descended on my parent because I have a meta view that they don't. Typical...

Re:What?

[cetialphav]

However, unlike gambling, you are forced to play.

This is life; you are forced to gamble either way. You are taking on risks whether you take the vaccine or not. Scientific evidence suggests that the risk is greater if you do not vaccinate. The state is forcing you take take the gamble with the lowest risk. It must do this because vaccines are ineffective if a significant portion of people do not get them.

People have gotten so used to children not regularly dying of these diseases that they have taken it for granted. They have forgotten that this is not natural and that we have created this situation with our vaccination programs.

Re:What?

[sharky611aol.com]

That is incorrect. The money is not "donated". There is a VAERS tax assessed on every single vaccine administered in the country. You can argue the definition of "tax" on this one, but it is a fee required by the government, so that's a tax to me. This cost is passed on to the patient/insurance company/Medicaid. I can assure you the pharma companies aren't taking it out of their bottom line. (IAAPediatrician, btw, if that adds any validity to my post).

Re:What?

[Reaperducer]

there is so much weight and force behind the vaccination campaigns and industry that parents are seldom, if ever, informed of the risks

This is false. I have never seen a vaccine administered that didn't come with a form listing risks and side-effects that had to be signed by an adult. If you're getting shots without this form, then it's time to find another doctor. Just because you're too lazy to read the form doesn't mean you haven't been warned.

Now you know

[tsotha]

If you ever wondered why drug companies would rather work on yet another allergy medication instead of vaccines with a much bigger potential to help people, well, look no further.

Re:Now you know

[phantomcircuit]

Manufactures of vaccines are granted immunity from lawsuit. The money for this will come out of tax payers pockets. Incidentally it means that nobody involved had any benefit to fight paying these people.

Re:Now you know

[Joce640k]

Nope. It's because you need allergy medication every day of your life. Vaccines are (mostly) single-use.

Re:Now you know

[erroneus]

Wow. I thought my own thoughts were pretty extreme at times, but you've got me beat hands down. Kill the child? Seriously? If there is incentive for anything, it would be to appeal the case.

Dear Federal Government,

[mdenham]

My doctorb has proof that I have a previously unknown mitochondrial disorder that does not cause, but results in, a deep-seated need to receive large quantities of money.

$2.2 billion dollars would be appreciated as compensation.

Re:Dear Federal Government,

[Ginger Unicorn]

the B is for Bargain!

Previous condition

[Epeeist]

As was noted in the article, the girl had an underlying condition which the vaccine aggravated. It was a very specific case.

This does not validate the views of the anti-vaccination brigade.

Re:Previous condition

[WarJolt]

Don't be so sure. Think about it. Without a test your child too may have a rare mitochondrial disorder. Without a study no one knows how prevalent the disorder might be. When it comes to parents even vaccines that have a higher chance of saving a life than causing autism become something to worry about.

Re:Previous condition

[Psychotria]

This does not validate the views of the anti-vaccination brigade.

I wonder how often and loudly you'll need to repeat that in order for it to maintain its buffering effect against reality...

-FL

I have no idea what your comment means, but it's modded insightful so I have to respond. The reality is that the diseases that vaccinations prevent are far more horrible than you can imagine, probably because you've grown up in a world without them. Parents who do not vaccinate their children are irresponsible. They are blind to what these diseases do because when they grew up the diseases barely existed in countries with vaccination (if at all). By not vaccinating your children you not only risk their lives but you risk the lives of countless others. The reasoning behind the choices of not to vaccinate are largely based on pseudoscience and absurd.

Re:Previous condition

[Sir_Lewk]

He's not doubting that this doesn't vindicate the vaccine conspiracy theorists ideas. He's saying that no matter how correct you are, these nuts will still point to this as a reason why they should be given money as well.

Re:Previous condition

[Psychotria]

If that is the case, then I apologise to the OP. I still maintain that those against immunisation/vaccination are irresponsible, though.

Re:Previous condition

[PrinceAshitaka]

FTFA,

"The vaccine didn't cause the disorder, it resulted in it. "

I want to ask these parents, this judge, how many horrible deaths of young children from preventable deseases they are then liable for? The parents, lawyers and judge will not cause the deaths of these children, but thier actions certainly will result in the horrible deaths of children from preventable deseases.

Re:Previous condition

[PrinceAshitaka]

I have no problem with this family getting money to help thier child, my problem is the way it was done, it willnot be clear to many parents that this doesn't mean that vacconations cause autism.

Re:Previous condition

[Psychotria]

Well, your statement is couched in terms of the absolute, so I'll reply in the same way. [...] My children aren't vaccinated (12 and 8 respectively), and they're slender, highly active kids - the older was swim club champion last year. Actually, I can't fatten them up - I cook nearly all their food, and they don't often leave much on the plate.

It's got more to do with healthy lives and healthy immune systems than vaccines.

Well, I'll reply in the same way also. You're wrong. You're irresponsible. And it's parents like you who endanger the lives of others. Healthy lifestyle and healthy immune systems are more important than vaccines? Yes, they're important but they don't stop the disease, although they might help you recover from the disease (if the disease is actually recoverable from). You talk about healthy immune systems -- what do you actually think that immunisation does?

Re:Previous condition

[Zironic]

Healthy lives and Vaccination doesn't have much to do with eachother, the thing is that there is a very high mortality rate among unvaccinated children because there exists a lot of easily vaccinated diseases that are dangerous, I'll let Pen and Teller illustrate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

Re:Previous condition

[Duncan J Murray]

I would say you are enjoying the benefits of herd-immunity. You might not find life to be so rosy if everyone were to act in the same way.

Re:Previous condition

[TheLink]

The big difference between the mass-vaccines and normal medication is:

Mass vaccine:
1) You are not sick when you get it
2) "Everyone" gets it, very high percentages of the population in some cases.
3) So some "corner case" might get affected.

Other medication/treatment:
1) You are sick when you get it
2) Only those who are sick with the appropriate disease are supposed to get it.
3) Many of the "corner cases" might have died of something else before they got to this stage, or their mutant immune system is such that they rarely get sick except from pesky vaccines ;).

So there is actually a higher chance that the vaccine could make you worse off than you were before you got it. In contrast normal medication is more likely to make you better than worse (at least that's what those trials and studies are supposed to prove first ;) ).

As a result the safety considerations of the two are not the same.

For example: say in a study or a trial of a few thousand people, only 1% had problems and treatment had to be withdrawn for them, and it worked for 25%. This would be extremely good results for a drug for liver cancer. But terrible for a mass vaccine.

Another example: peanuts are generally recognized as safe, but if you forced all children to consume peanuts as part of a mass health program, even just once, there would certainly be problems and even fatalities.

So while I do think much of the noise about vaccines is much like that "WiFi is giving me/my children" problems, it's ridiculous to say it's so safe.

It certainly can't be 100% safe, and using the safety standards of "normal medicine/treatment" may not be good enough. You'd have to apply the percentage of potential adverse reactions and fatalities, to millions of people who weren't sick in the first place, then ask, is it worth it?

And it's not just the active ingredient of the vaccine. How about the preservatives and other components of the "productized" vaccine? People can claim thimerosal is safe, but I'm not personally confident that giving it to millions wouldn't cause problems with a few hundreds - there are all sorts of people out there. Many metabolize/"flush" things differently.

Re:Previous condition

[bertok]

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.

Re:Previous condition

[DarwinSurvivor]

First of all, the number of people who get sick from a vaccine even closely to the degree they would have with the disease it is so unbelievably small it's not even worth considering.

Second of all, you are completely ignoring the social side of this. If nobody gets vaccinated, some people will get sick. Without vaccines the disease spreads quickly and eventually (it doesn't take long) a large majority of the population starts getting sick. With vaccines however, the disease is not able to survive further than a few victims and eventually (5 years or so) if nearly everyone is vaccinated, the disease DIES.

This is exactly what they did to smallpox in North America. They vaccinated so many people (pretty much everyone over 30-40 has the scar from it) that the disease is almost unheard of in North America. In fact, if it's so much as suspected at a hospital, the entire place is put into lockdown.

1 person out of 5000 getting sick from a vaccine (generously bad number) is nothing compared to what happens when people don't get vaccinated and the disease hits everyone. Remember, if you don't get vaccinated for something, the main reason is probably that most people around you DID. So stop being selfish and help SOLVE the problem!

Re:Previous condition

[TapeCutter]

Anecdotes are useless. The diseases you mention are all killers, over half a million kids die every year from measles alone. Your infectious spawn should be kept out of public schools.

Re:Previous condition

[Antique Geekmeister]

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.

Re:Previous condition

[Psychotria]

Umm, and why are you telling me this, considering I said the same thing with (almost) less emotion?

Re:Previous condition

[makomk]

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.

Re:Previous condition

[Qzukk]

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.

Re:Previous condition

[ScrewMaster]

The parents in the US are actually just being selfish. They rightfully understand that in order to keep a disease at bay, you really only need to have a certain percentage of the population immune. They are therefore able to reap the rewards of herd immunity (their child does not get the disease) while avoiding the small risk posed by the vaccine. If there are enough free riders, the system falls apart.

Yes, I agree, and that's an excellent way to describe the situation. When I was a kid back in the sixties, I was vaccinated for everything. My father was physicist, and understood the probabilities here more clearly than most, and still had me vaccinated because it was the right thing to do. I think America has lost something in the past few decades. Call it social consciousness, whatever ... we're far more of a "me first" culture than we used to be.

And when the system falls apart, as you say, and those parents are either dying themselves from a flu pandemic, or lose their kids anyway to a real bona-fide infection, I hope they realize what they've done. Probably they won't: selfish people usually have a good reason to justify their selfishness.

Re:Previous condition

[ScrewMaster]

Umm, and why are you telling me this, considering I said the same thing with (almost) less emotion?

It would have been a reasonably informative and less offensive comment if he hadn't preceeded it with "Huh? Are you stupid?".

Still, he's right. Parents who believe the human immune system (especially that of a child, which is still being "trained") can withstand the onslaught of every single infectious disease in existence simply because they feed their kids well are dangerously complacent. Well, you know what they say about those who forget history. The problem is, when they repeat that history they're likely to take the rest of us with them. Pandemics are no joke, and any parent considering withholding vaccination for their children should thoroughly research the subject first. Frankly, if I found out that my neighbors weren't vaccinating their kids I'd have a few words with them.

Re:Previous condition

[JavaRob]

Another factor is that diseases evolve.

Every infected person -- even if they're a healthy child who will probably be fine after a bit of misery -- is a little disease factory and laboratory. Some of the virus they produce will be the same as what they caught. Some of it will be slightly different. Some of the different strains will be the same, or less potent/communicable/etc.. Some of them will be worse, or even much much worse.

And another hint for the grandparent poster: not every child is in good health when they get a given disease. Did you have any classmates who were out all the time due to health problems? Did you pass on your measles or rubella to any of them? Or hell, just pass on your germs to a newborn infant, or a pregnant woman, etc..

Re:Previous condition

[psin psycle]

A few things about whooping cough:
1) Some of my friends have recently had it.
2) Some of them were not vaccinated against it.
3) It's only dangerous for infants.
4) It is treatable with antibiotics and as soon as you start taking them you are no longer contagious.
5) My children have not been vaccinated against it, it's present in our small community and we have yet to become infected.
6) The cough sounds pretty nasty and goes on for months.

Re:Previous condition

[u38cg]

I'm not sure what you are thinking of. The smallpox eradication effort was global and was so successful that, not counting two samples held by the US and Russian governments, it is the first and only species humans have chosen to deliberately make extinct. If a suspected case arose, it would be presumed to be monkeypox or another related disease (which are on the increase since smallpox vaccination stopped).

Re:Previous condition

[PeterM from Berkeley]

"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

Legal outcomes include luck

[Mathinker]

> How did this happen .... ?

Every time you go to court, there will be a certain amount of randomness in the outcome, because the legal system isn't run by mathematical logic, it is run by humans (lawyers, judges, juries) and they are notoriously unpredictable.

Re:Legal outcomes include luck

[phantomcircuit]

They didn't sue the drug company. They sued in a special court where the payout comes from the tax payers.

They won because nobody had any incentive at all to fight them.

Re:Legal outcomes include luck

[Hognoxious]

it is run by humans, lawyers, and judges.

FTFY.

Re:Legal outcomes include luck

[zippthorne]

As a taxpayer, I feel like I should've been notified of my right to face my accuser. Who can I sue over this?

Re:All scientific data?!?

[Dahan]

Yes--all of the ones that are published in peer-reviewed journals, at least.

Another great step backwards...

[Anonymous Coward]

I truly feel for people who have complications as the result of taking any medicine, but if you consider the vast numbers of people who receive vaccinations with no issues at all, the side-effect cases are extremely minute. Like everything else the American health care system ails from these days, all these successful lawsuits will do is push researchers and pharmaceutical companies to cease development and production of vaccinations as their insurance rates etc go up. Only when people have to see their child die from what would have been an easily prevented disease, or watch his/her body broken by something like polio, will they realize how much vaccines are needed and how f'ed up our lawsuit happy country has gotten.

Re:Another great step backwards...

[ShakaUVM]

>>but if you consider the vast numbers of people who receive vaccinations with no issues at all, the side-effect cases are extremely minute

Are they? A friend of mine had her baby immunized, took it home, and then it went into seizures a few hours later. Nearly died.

The asked the doctor in the ER if it could have been caused by the vaccines. He said, "Not a chance, there's no evidence they cause seizures." And then promptly didn't file it as a possible complication from the vaccine.

Chicken. Egg.

Re:Another great step backwards...

[ShakaUVM]

Interesting, but the kid's EEG was all over the place, which means that it wasn't a typical febrile seizure. It also lasted too long.

The pediatrician actually didn't know what was going on, only that it absolutely, positively, couldn't have been caused by the vaccine administered a few hours earlier.

Re:Another great step backwards...

[Kilrah_il]

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.

Re:Another great step backwards...

[Fumus]

Call me a bastard, but it would save the family $20 million if that child just died. Sure, helping a child without a leg, or allergic to glucose even, is much more reasonable, because they will eventually get to be adults who have some kind of job and generally can 'have a life' that they can support. But if you spend $500 thousand per year on someone, how do you justify it? For that much money you could keep a lot more children in perfect health and give them an 'ideal' upbringing so that they will have an enjoyable and full life on their own.
Life ain't fair. Shame we don't have natural predators to kill such people like me and her.

Re:Another great step backwards...

[moortak]

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.

does not contradict previous studies

[mayberry42]

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?"

I'm certainly not a doctor and may be misunderstanding this, but the way i think of it is this: when you execute someone, you provide with them a "lethal dose" of poison. In reality, there is no such thing as a "lethal dose", but rather it's defined as something that is 99.9999% (or whatever) percent likely that you'll kill someone given his/her physical conditions. Yet naturally, some survive - but that doesn't make it any good for you. Same with vaccination: yes, some rare people may have developed some condition that counteracts the benefits of the vaccines, but that doesn't mean it's bad for you.

So, ultimately, this in itself doesnt contradict previous studies - in this case we're dealing with an isolated case (the so-called statistical "outlier"), whereas before you were (presumably) dealing with a random selection of individuals, representative of the general population

what really concerns me more, however, are the possible repercussions of this asinine decision. They get so obsessed over isolated cases that they completely neglect the larger picture. To quote another poster:

If you ever wondered why drug companies would rather work on yet another allergy medication instead of vaccines with a much bigger potential to help people, well, look no further.

Terrible...

[16K Ram Pack]

Five years later, the government settled the case before trial and had it sealed.

In just about every way imaginable, this is the wrong thing to do. We're now going to have more fear-mongering about vaccines with everyone pointing at this case, and because it's sealed, no-one will know why.

It sounds terrible that vaccine + undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder can result in autism, but what happened should be open so that we can learn from it.

Re:All scientific data?!?

[Sir_Lewk]

That's not how you properly challenge that claim. This is a subject that a lot of people care about, and have spent a lot of time (failing) trying to find studies that support a connection between Autism and Vaccination. If you want to do it correctly, you find a peer reviewed study that 1) shows a connection, and 2) hasn't been already shown to be a crock of shit. The ball is in your court.

Go ahead, we're waiting...

Re:bitter batter

[Sir_Lewk]

Way to find a way to stretch this into an attempt to start yet another healthcare flamewar on slashdot.

Personally, I think I'll abstain, and not take your very obvious bate. I'll continue finding this settlement flat out absurd, but for none of the strawman reasons you suggest. I do not deserve that kind of money for a bullshit 'medical accident', and neither do they.

Re:Vaccines are a great idea.

[Sir_Lewk]

But a rational examination and sifting through all the mountains of history and empirical evidence tells us that we simply cannot trust the people who make, promote, sell and administer these drugs.

Right. All that documented history of vaccines wiping out smallpox, and nearly wiping out polio, and all those mountains of empirical evidence showing no correlation between vaccines and autism really suggests that we can't trust vaccines. Gotcha.

Re:vaccines

[Sir_Lewk]

who knows what shit's in there?

Anyone who can be irked to actually research it. These things are highly scrutinized by countless people during their development process. You might not understand it, but that doesn't mean you should try to burn it for being a witch.

Re:Vaccines are a great idea.

[Ssherby]

But there is no greed in Star Trek, and no psychopaths in power and no survival of the sneakiest doctrine in effect at all times.

-FL

I beg to differ. Q was definitely a psychopath if I ever saw one

Re:One more time... ...with feeling...

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

On the other hand this is the first dupe in the summary I've seen in over a decade...

Re:vaccines

[Kilrah_il]

Hey, there are stuff in there with many letters and more than 3 syllables. Many of them contain Duhydrogen monooxide, which is a known "bad stuff". Anything with that many letters must be bad.

Oh, and on a more serious note:

chances are with a few minutes of research you are smarter than your doctor...

You might be smarter than your doctor, but I assure you that even after an hour of intensive googling, he is better informed than you are in medicine. Yes, you should not blindly do whatever the doctor says - you should ask questions, ask for a second/third/... opinion, research for yourself, etc. But to think that after a few minutes' research you would be more knowledgeable than him is a bit insulting.

Every parent wants some explanation

[mykos]

There are book authors, researchers, and television commentators who build their entire careers on the fears of parents.

When someone, anyone, comes along and offers a cut-and-dried explanation to a common problem ("Tour child is autistic? It was vaccines!"), they cling to the idea. The author/commentator/researcher has given them a target for their fears and misunderstandings. Like and angry lynch mob, they will accept the first target they can, regardless of the facts. They are blinded by their desperation to know what went wrong with their child's health, and their threshold for truth is set very, very low.

Re:One more time... ...with feeling...

[Ssherby]

Oh the irony!

I got moderated as redundant. By the Department of Redundancy Department no doubt.

I got moderated as redundant. By the Department of Redundancy Department no doubt.

How ironic is that?

Re:vaccines

[Duncan J Murray]

chances are with a few minutes of research you are smarter than your doctor...

A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing...

Background on the case

[jaffray]

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

Bullshit

[RenHoek]

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.

Oh for crying out loud

[BlueParrot]

I'm taking estradiol valerate for hormone replacement therapy. Now it's quite possible that I might have some undiagnosed predisposition to breast cancer or some other disease that is dependent on estrogen or even just the compounds used in its delivery, but if this turns out to be the case I'd be a bloody fool to start suing people for it, because it's not as if I would have gone without the medication if I knew there was a 1 in 10.000 chance it could kill me. No, seriously, between people smoking, driving without a seatbelt and eating garbage, I just don't believe that any rational person would abstain from important medical treatment due to a very minor chance of complications, unless of course they've been pressured to do so by the kind of fear mongering nonsense you've seen against the MMR vaccine.

Re:How did this happen when all the scientific dat

[j0nb0y]

that they know is dangerous

BZZZT Wrong. Please keep your fiction off /.

Case settled before trial - no crazy jury involved

[sartin]

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.

Re:Vaccines are a great idea.

[zippthorne]

They're not fecking stocks, ruled by brownian motion and the machinations of a shadowy, powerful group of elite monkeys.

The diseases they prevent aren't gone, merely suppressed. If you stop suppressing them, they'll come right back to the levels they had before.

And the only way in which the vaccines are different is that about 30 years ago, they removed the junk in them that the hysterical antivaccinites were claiming causes autism, with no effect on the actual autism rates...

That girl needs a financial guardian

[davidwr]

Minors and mentally incapacitated adults who are awarded large damage awards for health care should be assigned a neutral financial guardian to make sure the award goes to its intended purpose and that no third party benefits unless that benefit is an inherent side effect of the treatment for the beneficiary. For example, if the beneficiary gets a wheelchair-accessible van, it's okay for the rest of the family and other third parties to benefit from having a van.

Anyone family member, anyone who would have been financially impacted by person's care absent the award, and anyone living in the same household should not be eligible due to an obvious conflict of interest.

Re:Case settled before trial - no crazy jury invol

[WillDraven]

Our tax dollars at work, paying off nutcases $20,000,000 to avoid a $10,000 trial. Brilliant.

(Yes I pulled that trial cost right out of my ass, but I doubt it would be anywhere near the 20 mil they settled for)

Re:Penn & Teller on autism

[b1t r0t]

What exactly is the anti-vaccinationists' expertise in this field?

Re:Millions of parents are having their kids teste

[Convector]

Yes, that's it! Everyone wants the big payout, so they'll get their kids vaccinated. Ha! That'll show the medical industry! Soon our kids will be immune to all kinds of diseases and live longer and healthier lives! Oh, wait...

Re:vaccines

[Skater]

People don't care about relevant studies. They care about what their friend Nancy's brother's ex-wife's uncle said.

Personal attacks have no bearing

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, a Slashdot reader believes that a personal attack will pass muster with this community. We are too smart for that. When doctors talk of obesity they often state, our genetics didn't change, so environmental factors must be contributing to the rise in obesity. The same must be said for Autism. Our genetics did not change, so there must be an environmental factor (or factors). The thing that bothers me is that people become polarized over the issue.

The parents of Autistic children (I am one) tend to focus too much on one environmental factor (Vaccines) when there are plenty of other factors. They also discount the benefits that vaccines have provided to our society in general. The "informed" community ignores research that does not concur with their point of view while making character attacks by associating those parents with Playboy.

Both groups have some valid points, but will never make progress while pointing the finger at each other. My hope is that a group will come together with open minds to research Autism no matter where the evidence leads them. For instance:

The industry that I work in (computers & electronics) seems to be the worst at contaminating the environment. According to National Geographic, electronics account for less than 2% of landfill waste while contributing 70% of landfill toxicity.

http://s.ngm.com/2008/01/high-tech-trash/computer-interactive

Funny how the rise in Autism closely matches the rise of this industry. Are there any statisticians interested in looking into this?

There is also a factor of chemical contamination, which is largely undocumented in public records. Companies can register various chemicals as perfumes, apply for trademark protection, and withhold the chemical composition based on trade secrets.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/01/by_scott_hensley_debates_rage.html

When it comes to vaccines, however, I am still wary of the methods of sterilization, including the addition of Formaldehyde, Aluminum, and Mercury (still in the multi-dose flu shot). Although I am not a health professional, I understand that many diseases have been mitigated through vaccination, and that vaccines have been very effective. Personally, I would hope that vaccine sterilization is best achieved through gamma radiation of single dose vials. Then again, some people go crazy with the word "radiation".

I have followed Dr. Wakefield's ethical case, and understand that his methods were at question, and his results have not been duplicated in humans. Although there is a new study which calls the vaccine regimen of the 1990s into question.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20628439

I also understand that it is not in the interest of vaccine manufacturers to find a link with Autism.

http://www.askdrsears.com/thevaccinebook/labels/Vaccines%20and%20Autism.asp

I also suspect that there is a link to the bowel. I don't know an Autistic kid who doesn't have bowel problems, but that is a limited view. For my son, treatment for Candida and the use of probiotics has helped enormously.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/33/14691

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-1862v1

When he stops taking probiotics, however, his symptoms reappear. Stool samples have been used to verify the issues. A gluten free / casein free diet helps both Stephen, and the family member with MS.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/07/21/toxic.trio.identified.basis.celiac.disease

http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/full/182/7/4158#TI

I seem to recall a recent Slashdot article about Gluten, but cant find it anymore.

So what this really comes down to for me is, "You are what you eat, drink, breathe, etc." Autism appears to have both a genetic and environmental component. We have to stop bickering over this crap and start working to resolve the issue. Anybody interested?

Re:Personal attacks have no bearing

[Dragonslicer]

hen doctors talk of obesity they often state, our genetics didn't change, so environmental factors must be contributing to the rise in obesity. The same must be said for Autism. Our genetics did not change, so there must be an environmental factor (or factors).

You're forgetting a third possibility, that it's being diagnosed more frequently (whether correctly or incorrectly is an issue that I'll leave to biological and medical experts). A hundred years ago, we didn't know that Pluto existed, but that doesn't mean that it didn't exist before then.

Re:Personal attacks have no bearing

[tgibbs]

I have followed Dr. Wakefield's ethical case, and understand that his methods were at question, and his results have not been duplicated in humans. Although there is a new study which calls the vaccine regimen of the 1990s into question.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20628439

That's putting it mildly. Not only did Wakefield conceal conflicts of interest, but it has been shown that the description of the work and how it was done was false. Your statement that it has not been duplicated "in humans" is technically correct--others have tried to reproduce Wakefield's claimed results and have gotten contrary results--but it could be misunderstood as indicating that it has been duplicated in nonhumans. This is not true.

And the study you cite was originally co- authored by Wakefield (although they demoted him to an acknowledgment when the extent of his scientific malfeasance and unethical behavior became widespread public knowledge), and also has major scientific problems.

Re:Personal attacks have no bearing

[winwar]

"Autism appears to have both a genetic and environmental component. We have to stop bickering over this crap and start working to resolve the issue. Anybody interested?"

The scientists doing actual science are working to resolve the issue. People who are anti vaccine are not. People who think that Jenny McCarthy or Wakefield have credibility are part of the problem.

"Funny how the rise in Autism closely matches the rise of this industry. Are there any statisticians interested in looking into this?"

This perfectly illustrates the level of critical and logical thinking present in the anti vaccine crowd. As well as research ability. There isn't much. We might as well look at the correlation to population, CO2, girl scouts, HFCS, etc. Correlation does not equal causation (oops). Then there has to be a biologically plausible mechanism for exposure (oops). And there has been research (oops). And what you are suggesting is heavy metal poisoning, not autism (oops).

The rise in autism has everything to do with diagnostics. The definition has expanded, so more people are diagnosed. More services are available for people with autism, so it is beneficial have the diagnosis. There is less stigma for autism, so it is not hidden. Autism was separated from other mental disorders. Etc.

"When it comes to vaccines, however, I am still wary of the methods of sterilization, including the addition of Formaldehyde, Aluminum, and Mercury (still in the multi-dose flu shot)."

This perfectly illustrates the level of critical and logical thinking present in the anti vaccine crowd. As well as research ability. There isn't much.
Formaldehyde is present in the human body at greater levels than present in any vaccine (oops). Aluminum is perfectly safe (oops). The mercury in the shot is not dangerous (oops). Note that a can of tuna has more mercury of a dangerous variety than does any flu shot (oops).

"I also understand that it is not in the interest of vaccine manufacturers to find a link with Autism."

I also understand that you are ignorant and lazy. And creating a strawman.

"I also suspect that there is a link to the bowel. I don't know an Autistic kid who doesn't have bowel problems, but that is a limited view."

And your point is what? That you think the plural of anecdote is data? That fixing a bowel problem will magically fix a brain problem? That you are clueless and ignorant?

Re:Motives

[moortak]

It was a point mutation in the gene for the 16S ribosomal RNA (T2387C) according to http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=66 . Unknown in this case means unknown at the time of vaccination, not unknown currently.

The child is not autistic

[ishobo]

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/09/cbs_news_resident_anti-vaccine_propagand.php#comments

This sums it up

I can't believe that any sentient being would take the Hannah Poling case as an indication that vaccines cuase autism.

To begin with, Ms. Poling has a mitochondrial abnormality - which preceded any vaccination, not to mention her birth - which makes her inordinately sensitive to - among other things - fever. In this case, the government has conceded that the vaccine(s) she received caused a fever (which is a common side effect of vaccines) which more likely than not (50% plus a feather) was the proximal cause of a neurological injury.

Secondly, Ms. Poling - while she may have many aspects of autism - is not similar to the vast majority of autistic children (and adults). She is acknowledged to have an atypical case of autism. Also, technically, it can't be "autism" if there is a known neurological injury.

Finally, vaccines are not unique in their ability to cause Ms. Poling's neurological injury. Any febrile illness (including, I must add, all vaccine-preventable illnesses) could have done the same. This is analogous to a person struck while crossing a busy freeway - there are numerous vehicles which could have done the injury, but the unlucky chap who hits the pedestrian gets the blame.

If Ms. Poling had come down with influenza or even a nasty adenovirus prior to getting her vaccinations, she would be just as "autistic" as she is now, but she wouldn't be exploited by the anti-vaccination movement. I suppose I can't blame her parents for using the established legal process to get money for her care, but I do find opportunists like Mr. Doherty highly offensive./blockquote>

Where did these quotes come from?

[UnknowingFool]

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

I read the actual decision and I think the "resulting" part is a misinterpretation . What the decision said was:

"Respondent has conceded that petitioners are entitled to compensation due to significant aggravation of Child Doe/77's pre-existing mitochondrial disorder based on MMR vaccine Table presumptive injury of encephalopathy which eventually manifested as a chronic encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder and a complex partial seizure disorder as a sequela

My reading of that is the vaccine aggravated a mithochondrial disorder that the child had and that the child now has chronic encephalopathy with symptoms like autism. The keyword is "like". It is similar to someone I know who was in a motorcycle accident. If a doctor were describe his injuries it would be something along the lines of "brain injury with loss of some motor and speech functions with features of a stroke." He didn't have a stroke but that's the best way to describe it.

Re:Vaccines are a great idea.

[ceoyoyo]

Uh, right. Here are the numbers for Polio. It went into sharp decline all right. Twice in fact. Once after the first vaccine was introduced, and again after it was refined.

http://www.post-polio.org/ir-usa.html

Why the VICP tilts toward the plaintiff

[tgibbs]

Yeah, that I understand, but what I don't understand is why the NVICP makes irrational decisions that favor the people who claim that their injury was caused by a "plausable" mechanism.

Indeed, the Vaccine Court tilts toward the plaintiff in multiple ways. The government pays the plaintiff's lawyers, win or lose, so there is a big incentive for lawyers to take such cases, even if the chance of winning is slim. And the standard of evidence is lower in the Vaccine Court--basically, compensation is awarded if it is at all plausible that a person's injury could have been caused by the vaccination. And if the plaintiff loses, they still have the option of suing in regular court.

However, I think that this is reasonable. Vaccination does not just benefit the person being vaccinated, it benefits society, because the main way in which vaccination prevents disease is not by protecting the individual from infection, but rather by making it impossible for an epidemic to get started in the first place. Immunity to disease (whether from vaccination or previous exposure to the disease) is not absolute--the risk of contracting the disease is reduced, but not to zero. The reason most people do not contract diseases like measles, whooping cough, or polio is that an infection is unable to spread through the population, because on the average an infected person ends up infecting less than one other person. When that is the case, the disease cannot spread, and simply peters out.

But when immunization is successful, the disease is virtually eradicated from the entire population. Vaccines are some of the safest effective medical treatments known to man, but they do have risks, albeit very small. But when a disease is nearly eradicated, the risk of the disease to each individual is less than the risk of the vaccine--so long as all of his neighbors are properly vaccinated. So the situation is tailor-made for a "tragedy of the commons," in which each individual pursues his own selfish self interest, and as a result, everybody suffers far more than would have been the case if everybody had cooperated to share a small risk in order to avert a much greater one.

So it makes sense to provide a public safety net to compensate everybody who suffers a genuine vaccine injury--because people who get vaccinated are performing a public service. Yes, this will means some people will be compensated who would have gotten sick anyway, and Hannah Poling is very likely one of these. Mitochondrial diseases can be triggered by many stressors, including very minor illnesses, so there is a good chance that something or other would have triggered Hannah's illness even if she hadn't been vaccinated. Indeed, children like Hannah may well be at greater risk if they are not vaccinated, but that is obviously of little comfort to anybody after the fact.

So just as our criminal justice system occasionally lets real criminals go free to protect the innocent, the Vaccine Court sometimes rewards unscrupulous lawyers who exploit parents of autistic children, and sometimes provides compensation to people who probably aren't really entitled to it. But that is a small price to pay for providing just compensation for those who actually do suffer genuine harm from vaccination

False and false

[tgibbs]

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.

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)

Re:National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

[daveime]

Ah yes, this old chestnut ...

The rate of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) varies by region but is generally about 1 case per 750,000 vaccine recipients.

So to save the 1 person who had a bad reaction to a vaccine, you would put another 750,000 at risk of infection with the WILD version of the virus because they DIDN'T get the vaccination ?

So hey buddy, screw you too. Knee-jerk reactionary morons like you should be sterilized to avoid further contamination of the gene pool.