Vaccine/autism lawsuit

[Cactus Wren]

Video at CNN

KYRA PHILLIPS: The debate over autism and vaccines picks up in court today. Nearly 4900 cases have been filed by families who say their children's autism was caused by vaccinations. But according to the National Institute for Health {sic}, quote, 'To date there is no definite, scientific proof that any vaccine or combination of vaccines can cause autism. It's important to know that vaccines actually help the immune system to defend the body.'

Our legal analyst Sunny Hostin now joins us. So, if there is no confirmed link, where is the case?

HOSTIN: Well, that is what the parents have to prove. They have to prove that there is causation between, sort of, this mercury-preservative-laden vaccination and what happened to their children.

I'm reminded of a Usenetter I dealt with, a vaccination opponent (and active measles-party organizer) who claimed that the human species had spontaneously developed a natural resistance to smallpox -- and that it had, just by coincidence, happened at the time smallpox vaccination became widespread.

 

[fls]

I'm reminded of a Usenetter I dealt with, a vaccination opponent (and active measles-party organizer) who claimed that the human species had spontaneously developed a natural resistance to smallpox -- and that it had, just by coincidence, happened at the time smallpox vaccination became widespread.

Yet spontaneously developing a natural case of autism that just by coincidence happened at the time of measles vaccination...

Linda

 

[rjh01]

There are better anti smallpox vaccination arguments than that. One I heard was that the death rate was going down even before vaccination started because people were healthier and so able to use more of their reserves of energy to fight smallpox.


Autism and vaccinations have one thing in common. You are vaccinated at about the same age as you are diagnosed with autism. It does not matter if you are vaccinated or not.

 

[KingMerv00]

This could be a good thing. Watching the anti-vaxers get smacked down in court will be fun for us and informative for the general public.

I do feel bad for the vax companies though.

 

[ectoplasm]

This could be a good thing. Watching the anti-vaxers get smacked down in court will be fun for us and informative for the general public.

I do feel bad for the vax companies though.

The standard of proof is so low, that the anti-vaxers could easily win.
Then all hell breaks loose.

 

[KingMerv00]

The standard of proof is so low, that the anti-vaxers could easily win.
Then all hell breaks loose.

Assuming we are talking product liability law here...they could win...but not easily.

In a case like this, the only evidence available to the anti-vax crowd is expert testimony. For an expert to testify, he will have to get through a hearing to determine whether or not his opinion is scientifically valid. The hearing will no doubt be filled with laughter at the expense of the kooks.

Without evidence, they'll have their case dismissed.

 

[Viper Daimao]

Let's just hope they don't have Erin Brockovich.

 

[blutoski]

This could be a good thing. Watching the anti-vaxers get smacked down in court will be fun for us and informative for the general public.

I do feel bad for the vax companies though.

It should be noted that this is not a regular lawsuit or class action suit being heard by a conventional court. This is being heard by a special mandate established so that these cases don't have to go through the conventional legal system. Vaccine manufacturers are protected from lawsuits by legislation. The purpose was to ensure their funds and operations would not be bogged down in perpetual legals. The compromise was a special government board to examine damage claims.

There was one claim that was found plausible enough by this board to be awarded damages a couple of months ago. However, it was a special situation, and that's why it was handled first, before these other 5,000.

 

[ectoplasm]

It should be noted that this is not a regular lawsuit or class action suit being heard by a conventional court. This is being heard by a special mandate established so that these cases don't have to go through the conventional legal system. Vaccine manufacturers are protected from lawsuits by legislation. The purpose was to ensure their funds and operations would not be bogged down in perpetual legals. The compromise was a special government board to examine damage claims.

There was one claim that was found plausible enough by this board to be awarded damages a couple of months ago. However, it was a special situation, and that's why it was handled first, before these other 5,000.

I read somewhere that the standard of proof needed for the plaintiffs to win in the special court is "50% plus a feather".
If the plaintiffs win, you can imagine the media storm that will occur, based on what happened after the Hannah Poling case. It will be difficult to convince the general public that vaccines are safe.

 

[Slimething]

It will be difficult to convince the general public that vaccines are safe.

I hate to be so mean but I'd say that job was up to nature. But at what price? Seems kids usually pay for our adult idiocies.

 

[blutoski]

I read somewhere that the standard of proof needed for the plaintiffs to win in the special court is "50% plus a feather".
If the plaintiffs win, you can imagine the media storm that will occur, based on what happened after the Hannah Poling case. It will be difficult to convince the general public that vaccines are safe.

For those who didn't understand the reference, there's a timely editorial in NEJM: [Vaccines and Autism Revisited — The Hannah Poling Case]

 

[KingMerv00]

I read somewhere that the standard of proof needed for the plaintiffs to win in the special court is "50% plus a feather".

You are talking about "preponderance of the evidence". The scales start off tipped in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff has to tip them back.

This is a good thing...most product liability cases are determined under strict liability, a much lower burdern of proof. The government treats vaccine cases differently for public policy reasons.

 

[KingMerv00]

For those who didn't understand the reference, there's a timely editorial in NEJM: [Vaccines and Autism Revisited — The Hannah Poling Case]

Thanks, but something about this doesn't seem right (outcome aside). Can't put my finger on it.

It doesn't look like the Poling case has been published in Westlaw or Lexis Nexus yet. I can only find civil procedure rulings so far...zzz. I'll check back every once in a while.

 

[ectoplasm]

From the Washington Times:

One of the leading plaintiff attorneys crowed about how, while science required a burden of proof in the 95 percent range, to win in the current proceedings requires "only 50 percent plus a feather" -- meaning autistic children can be presumed to have been injured by vaccines if two of the three judges can be convinced by a slight preponderance of evidence. That is a slender thread with which to support our vaccine infrastructure, not only in this country, but worldwide.

 

[balrog666]

I read somewhere that the standard of proof needed for the plaintiffs to win in the special court is "50% plus a feather".
If the plaintiffs win, you can imagine the media storm that will occur, based on what happened after the Hannah Poling case. It will be difficult to convince the general public that vaccines are safe.

The usual standard of proof is seven ignorant jurors.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The standard of proof is so low, that the anti-vaxers could easily win.
Then all hell breaks loose.

If the anti-vaxers win in this "special" court, not only will the media have a hey-day over it, but I think the medical community had better be prepared for an assault the likes of which we've never seen.

There will be legislation presented in states all over the country demanding that we "teach the controversy" about vaccinations in biology class and medical schools. The anti-vaxxer equivalent of the creationist Discovery Institute will form and begin to receive large amounts of funding. Medical schools will be pressured into "teaching all views" on vaccines & autism through the threat of losing funding. The CDC will be seen as part of a conspiracy to cover up the dangers of vaccines, and so on...

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see crowds marching in the streets demanding an end to mandatory childhood vaccinations, given enough time & hysteria.

Of course, I think I'm painting a worst-case scenario here, but given how irrational people can be (especially when they're scared for their children)...

 

[godless dave]

There will be legislation presented in states all over the country demanding that we "teach the controversy" about vaccinations in biology class and medical schools. The anti-vaxxer equivalent of the creationist Discovery Institute will form and begin to receive large amounts of funding. Medical schools will be pressured into "teaching all views" on vaccines & autism through the threat of losing funding. The CDC will be seen as part of a conspiracy to cover up the dangers of vaccines, and so on...

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see crowds marching in the streets demanding an end to mandatory childhood vaccinations, given enough time & hysteria.

And then, when a few thousand kids get disfigured by childhood polio and few thousand more go blind because of German measles, their parents will somehow find a way to blame doctors and scientists.