Vaccine Court Case
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Is the recent U.S. court case concession that vaccines contributed to one child’s autism proof of a connection?
Last year the case of Hanna Polling vs. The U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, in which the plaintiff’s parents claimed that vaccines contributed to their child’s autism, was settled in favor of the plaintiff. This case was supposed to be sealed and kept confidential, but the concession report has made its way into the public eye. Several autism-related web sites and blogs have gotten hold of it and are spreading the word. Yet some of these sites are spreading misinformation and misleading the public.
According to the concession report, this case involved a toddler who was developing normally until 18 months of age. Several days after the 18 month shots her development began to decline to the point that she eventually displayed many features of autism. Doctors also discovered that the child had a mitochondrial disorder (a disorder of metabolism that makes a child pre-disposed to developmental and medical problems). The court decided that there was enough evidence to show that the vaccines may have aggravated the mitochondrial disorder and triggered problems consistent with autistic-like behavior.
I have read numerous blogs on this since the story came out. One stated that the child never actually had autism, but only had ASD (autism spectrum disorder). It made a big deal of trying to shoot down any possibility that in this one case the vaccines may have triggered autism by saying all the child had was ASD or autism-like symptoms. But my feeling is that Autism, ASD, and autistic-like symptoms are ALL THE SAME THING, especially to the parent whose child is having the symptoms. So to shove this aside and say this child never had autism, but just ASD-like behavior, does this family, and this case, a disservice.
On the other side of the spectrum, I read a blog that went way too far in the OTHER direction. It said, “U.S. Government Concedes Vaccines Cause Autism”. The report went on to state that hundreds of studies have proven a link between mercury and autism, that hundreds of doctors believe this to be true, and that the government is covering it all up. But nowhere in this case did the government or the court say that vaccines cause autism. All they said was that in this particular case a child with a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder seemed to regress into ASD-like behavior right after her 18-month vaccines. This wasn’t “a concession that vaccines cause autism”. There is a lot of research on BOTH sides of the mercury/vaccines/autism debate, a fact that this particular report left out.
Even more curious is that since this story came out about 1 week ago, I haven’t seen any regular internet news sources or print media pick it up, verify its accuracy, and help spread the word. I’m not sure if it’s because they don’t think it’s news worthy, or because it’s a sealed case, or what.
Bottom line – this child was clearly affected by something, and the timing of it is very suspicious of vaccines. And the court felt there was enough evidence to award the family compensation in a sealed deal. But all it shows is that children with mitochondrial disorders may be susceptible to vaccine injury. It doesn’t prove an overall connection between vaccines and autism.
Hopefully the publicity over this case will encourage more and more research into what is causing autism.
Last year the case of Hanna Polling vs. The U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, in which the plaintiff’s parents claimed that vaccines contributed to their child’s autism, was settled in favor of the plaintiff. This case was supposed to be sealed and kept confidential, but the concession report has made its way into the public eye. Several autism-related web sites and blogs have gotten hold of it and are spreading the word. Yet some of these sites are spreading misinformation and misleading the public.
According to the concession report, this case involved a toddler who was developing normally until 18 months of age. Several days after the 18 month shots her development began to decline to the point that she eventually displayed many features of autism. Doctors also discovered that the child had a mitochondrial disorder (a disorder of metabolism that makes a child pre-disposed to developmental and medical problems). The court decided that there was enough evidence to show that the vaccines may have aggravated the mitochondrial disorder and triggered problems consistent with autistic-like behavior.
I have read numerous blogs on this since the story came out. One stated that the child never actually had autism, but only had ASD (autism spectrum disorder). It made a big deal of trying to shoot down any possibility that in this one case the vaccines may have triggered autism by saying all the child had was ASD or autism-like symptoms. But my feeling is that Autism, ASD, and autistic-like symptoms are ALL THE SAME THING, especially to the parent whose child is having the symptoms. So to shove this aside and say this child never had autism, but just ASD-like behavior, does this family, and this case, a disservice.
On the other side of the spectrum, I read a blog that went way too far in the OTHER direction. It said, “U.S. Government Concedes Vaccines Cause Autism”. The report went on to state that hundreds of studies have proven a link between mercury and autism, that hundreds of doctors believe this to be true, and that the government is covering it all up. But nowhere in this case did the government or the court say that vaccines cause autism. All they said was that in this particular case a child with a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder seemed to regress into ASD-like behavior right after her 18-month vaccines. This wasn’t “a concession that vaccines cause autism”. There is a lot of research on BOTH sides of the mercury/vaccines/autism debate, a fact that this particular report left out.
Even more curious is that since this story came out about 1 week ago, I haven’t seen any regular internet news sources or print media pick it up, verify its accuracy, and help spread the word. I’m not sure if it’s because they don’t think it’s news worthy, or because it’s a sealed case, or what.
Bottom line – this child was clearly affected by something, and the timing of it is very suspicious of vaccines. And the court felt there was enough evidence to award the family compensation in a sealed deal. But all it shows is that children with mitochondrial disorders may be susceptible to vaccine injury. It doesn’t prove an overall connection between vaccines and autism.
Hopefully the publicity over this case will encourage more and more research into what is causing autism.
Labels: Vaccines and Autism
posted by Dr. Bob Sears @ 1:59 PM
11 Comments:
At March 5, 2008 7:52 PM ,
Shannon @ Some Fine Taters said...
Looks like the mainstream media is finally picking up the story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23488639/
At March 6, 2008 6:38 AM ,
Science Mom said...
Dr. Sears you left out some very pertinent points of this case that your readers should be privy to as well. First, the standard of evidence for a VICP case is 50% and a feather which means that just the possibility of vaccines causing injury is in favour of the petitioner. Far from the scientific standard of evidence.
Secondly, this child did not receive a diagnosis of autism; she met 3 of the DSM criteria for autism and a minimum of 6 is required for an autism diagnosis.
Next, children with mitochondrial disorders are not always prone to vaccine reactions. The oxidative stress of a natural infection will also cause the same regressive behaviours that this child experienced. In fact, children with diagnosed mitochondrial disorders are far more vulnerable to infections than the general population and are vaccinated as is recommended by clinicians that care for them.
This is a vaccine injury case and the HHS settles them all the time. This is not a 'vaccines cause autism case' and is not representative of nearly all of the petitioners as mitochondrial disease occurs at a rate of about 1:5000.
Science Mom
At March 6, 2008 1:57 PM ,
Dr. Bob Sears said...
I see that this story IS now showing up in the media, and this family will be on Larry King.
Science Mom - I agree with everything you say here, and I think my blog is clear about that. That was my whole reason for writing about this - this is just another settlement, and it is NOT a concession that vaccines cause autism.
However, I think it may be the first case in which the court did decide in this one case the vaccines may have contributed to autism-like symptoms.
I do think that this child WAS diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, which IS autism.
However, you are right - in the court documents, they don't list enough symptoms for autism. BUT in reality, this child WAS diagnosed I believe.
At March 8, 2008 6:12 AM ,
JakeMarcusJD said...
Some more clarifications are necessary, I think. This case was not "settled." The so-called "vaccine court" is part of a legislatively created administrative process. It is administered by the Court of Claims as an arm of the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services. It is a no-fault system through which certain claims for vaccine injury must be filed before cases can be filed in state or federal court.
When a claim is filed, this administrative body can agree that the injury is a vaccine injury and agree to pay the injured person compensation. If the determination is made that the claim does NOT merit compensation, the claim goes to a hearing at which expert evidence is presented.
In the Poling case, the administrative body found that the claim MERITED compensation and therefore no hearing was necessary. This is not a settlement - this is a finding in favor of the claimant. In a settlement, each party gives something up to come to an agreement somewhere between where each party began. In the Poling case, the got what they asked for - a finding that Hannah's injuries were a result of vaccination. The case is now in the phase in which the administrative body determines what the amount of the compensation will be. Nothing in the process involves a settlement of any claim.
A previous comment mentioned the burden of proof. Hannah's injury is "off-table" - meaning it is not listed on the official table of injuries for which the administrative body ("vaccine court") provides compensation. Under the legislative act creating this process, the burden of proof for an "off-table" injury is more strict, requiring that the claimant show that "but for" the vaccination, the injury would not have occured. While the Report (and technically the document finding that Hannah is entitled to compensation is a "Rule 6(c) Report") does not discuss explicitly how they came to believe that Hannah would not have ended up with ASD "but for" the vaccinations, but that is indeed the determination.
At March 11, 2008 1:30 AM ,
Anonymous said...
"the vaccines caused autism" vs. "the vaccines caused autism-like symptoms"
sounds a lot to me like the hogwash of "the flu shot doesn't cause the flu, it only causes flu-like symptoms"
Anyways... This all is very interesting, to see this happening! Thanks, Dr. Bob, for filling us in and keeping us informed!
At March 11, 2008 12:34 PM ,
Anonymous said...
If you have ever had the real, full-blown flu (influenza), you would know that it is nothing like the mild fatigue and short-lived mild fever sometimes caused by the flu vaccine. And if you did have the real flu, I bet you would be wishing you had gotten the vaccine.
At March 11, 2008 1:46 PM ,
mommamara said...
dr. sears...it was very refreshing to FINALLY read about a doctor who doesn't claim to know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING, and who shares the facts about each side of the story. many of us moms are concerned and have questions. and there is good research on both sides. and for anyone to believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they know ABSOLUTE TRUTH about an issue like this, is just plain ignorant. thank you for being a breath of fresh air to those real and questioning parents out there.
At March 16, 2008 2:37 PM ,
mcolgan said...
What about the fact that the mercury in the shots has been replaced with aluminum? They are both metals and it could be that so many increased cases in autism could be caused by the childrens reaction to the aluminum vs. mercy.
At March 25, 2008 7:38 PM ,
AP Mom said...
The AAP says that the research shows there is no link between vaccines and autism, but what exactly is the research? What studies have been done? What are the details of those studies? I think herd immunity is very important and we don't want to see harmful diseases breaking out again, but I think the AAP and CDC are realizing that parents are very concerned about vaccines and are trying to prevent the masses from not vaccinating their children. Their recent statement released does not satisfy me.
At March 25, 2008 7:38 PM ,
AP Mom said...
The AAP says that the research shows there is no link between vaccines and autism, but what exactly is the research? What studies have been done? What are the details of those studies? I think herd immunity is very important and we don't want to see harmful diseases breaking out again, but I think the AAP and CDC are realizing that parents are very concerned about vaccines and are trying to prevent the masses from not vaccinating their children. Their recent statement released does not satisfy me.
At April 4, 2008 10:41 AM ,
Anonymous said...
SCIENCE MOM....HEY BRAIN! DID U EVER THINK THE VACCINES MIGHT OF CAUSED THE MITOCHONDRIAL ISSUE? SOMETHING IS GOING ON THAT THE GOV REFUSES TO ADMIT OR INVESTIGATE FAIRLY BECAUSE OF THE LAWSUITS THEY FEAR,,,,AGAIN ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!!1
Post a Comment
<< Home