Yet another court decision has thrown cold water on the theory that childhood vaccines are linked to autism. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld lower court decisions that rejected such a connection in a lawsuit that was the first in a series of several test cases heard by special masters for the US Court of Federal Claims,The Legal Times writes.
Three years ago, the claims court chose several lawsuits to test various theories that were floated in about 5,000 cases alleging a link to autism and filed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The case at hand involved Michelle Cedillo, who was born in August 1994, vaccined with the MMR vaccine in December 1995 and, subsequently, experienced various reactions before being diagnosed with autism in July 1997. Her parents claimed thimerosal damaged her immune system.
But the appeals court wrote that "we see no legal error in the standards applied by the special master" in determining there was no link between the thimerosal preservative in the MMR vaccine and the girl's autism. The federal claims court, the Times notes, upheld a similar decision made last year by the special master, and today's federal circuit decision today affirms the ruling (you can read it right here). A similar ruling was made in another test case last May.
In reaching its conclusion, the appeals court noted that none of the girl's treating physicians were able to conclude the vaccine caused her autism. "The Special Master clearly articulated why he declined to afford significant weight to the notations made by Michelle’s treating physicians, and we see no error in his treatment of that evidence," the court wrote. But while agreeing with the Cedillos that "the government’s failure to produce or even to request the documentation underlying (an expert's) reports is troubling," the court ruled that the failure to do so does not justify reversal.
17 Comments
I assume that there has been a lack of fact-checking going on here. As the MMR vaccine has never contained thimerosal any claim that autism was caused by the thimerosal in that particular vaccine would have been rejected without any need to hear further evidence.
The court case that involved Michelle Cedillo was an attempt to discredit all vaccines by accusing both thimerosal and MMR of causing autism, but no lawyer would have been silly enough to combine the two.
Now that both MMR and thimerosal have been eliminated as causes of autism, both by research and by court findings, the anti-vaccination campaigners have to look for another villain.
"Special Master"? The quotes from the judge sound more like a quote from Yoda or a cult leader!
"In reaching its conclusion, the appeals court noted that none of the girl’s treating physicians were able to conclude the vaccine caused her autism."
I doubt the physicians were able to conclude the vaccine did not cause her autism either. It is an impossible burden of proof.
I also doubt that a scientist would say that ANY product is safe for everyone. What is bothersome is that some vaccines are mandated (at least to go to public school) and that broad statements about their safety are nearing a human rights violation for the minority who has a problem - because it lessens their ability to seek due process. These statements also influence doctors who might be trying to find out why someone has suddenly become ill.
You'll take it and like it. If you have a bad reaction we will not believe you and make sure no one else believes you either.
Do we really want to be that country? Evidently we do.
Must be nice to be all-knowing.
JaT, it is legally and statistically impossible to prove a negative, which is why, as you state, it would constitute an impossible burden of proof. Thus, the alternative hypothesis, i.e. that the vaccine did indeed cause the illness, is the only viable hypothesis that the court can consider.
BTW, "Special Masters" are highly experienced judges, sometimes recently retired from the bench, who are selected because of their judicial experience and temperment.
I think Tobacco, Asbestos, Lead, etc, etc, when trying to estimate when the truth will come out about the vaccine industry.
I truly enjoy you, pharmavet.
Let me clarify. It is an impossible burden EITHER WAY (to address the proving a negative thing - as I am not willing to make the assumption it IS a negative). How can anyone prove a child would or would not develop autism without a vaccine once they have had one? If we are going to mandate something then someone better make sure it will not cause disease. All we really know is that no one has yet proven or disproven the connection for all users. It seems a little irresponsible to make a definitive statement one way or the other - as if we know all there is to know.
In my experience proof doesn't matter a bit where another possibility for causation might already exists. That does not go to say that a drug did not cause a problem. Prove it? I believe I have. Big deal, that pesky little question of causation remains and the drug maker is off the hook. It surprises me that, by those standards, any drug is deemed responsible for illness.
JaT: The evidentiary standard for the Special Masters' decision is "preponderance of the evidence," which means they only have to find a greater than 50% chance there was a causal relationship between the vaccine and harm. They certainly don't have to think that there's "proof" of a causal link. This case was deemed to fall below even that standard (and rightly so).
Penn & Teller dealt with it better...
There is no doubt that vaccines prevent illness....Not only in the person who gets the vaccines, but others in the community. All drugs have risks, the benefits have to outweigh the risks. There are few drugs that provide as much benefit as vaccines.
In medicine we deal in probabilities...not possibilities. It is possible that there is something in a mother's milk could cause autism in some children. But the benefits of breast feeding far outweigh any possible risk.
I wholeheartedly agree with Sisyphus. I have never completely rejected the vaccine theory (unlike most other people with autism I know), simply because it is impossible to prove a negative. However, the benefits of vaccines far outweight the possibly very small risk that a child will develop a disability as a result.
So we are not dealing in factual data, but rather, a lack there of. Pardon my surprise. I didn't think science worked that way.
"the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" ~Dr. Spock~
:/
If anyone really wants to see the best data summary on causes of autism should check out the URL provided. It seems that a Vitamin D deficiency is more the cause than any other reason. The papers are there to back up this statement. Read for yourself!
Karl
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/autism-information.shtml
The missing URL.
Karl
JaT, By your logic, the government also should not enforce the use of seatbelts and airbags. Airbags in particular are KNOWN (not suspected) to kill many people every year. We should make their use optional, no?
(I'm being sarcastic here - the benifits of seatbels and airbags FAR outwiegh the very real risks that they pose. Same is true of vaccines -- even if the vaccine/autism link were proved real!)
Hi Nathan,
Funny you chose that example as airbags scare the crap out of me. Nothing quite like wondering, if in an accident, not certain at what velocity, something can come shooting out at you to crush your face and blind you so you can't possibly react. They are the best argument for buying an old car - or wearing a crash helmet with a full face guard (wait until they mandate those).
It gets a little tedious, invasive, and restrictive trying to protect everyone from everything. It's a real problem when we are willing to trade one injury for another. So it's only dangerous for the minority, no big deal, unless you are in the minority.
Vaccines used to make a better argument for the public good. Up until science decided to design them for protection against intestinal infections, cervical cancers, etc etc. Then it begins to look like opportunism. It is illegal to not make sure your child gets an education - so mandating vaccines to go to public school is a sure bet. No doubt you believe you are doing good in providing protective measures, and you might well be. I respectfully ask if you feel it is good to take away someone's right to their own body for the slew of possibilities you feel are important.
I found this topic interesting and problematic. If you look carefully you will see that I really didn't make a statement for or against vaccines. I only took issue in accepting safety as fact when it is not fact - and a mandated imposition with a possibility for harm.
Considering what I have been through, as government protections go, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Evelyn Pringle has done her homework. The similarities are, indeed, striking and well worth noting. Michelle Cedillo and her family deserve better.
1. Horses$&@ 2. Aluminum
MB