Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court - Now What?

[Metasequoia]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...i_b_88323.html

After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Metasequoia

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...i_b_88323.html

This article is from a year ago....given the latest rulings that seem to deny the link between autism and the MMR, this just illustrates that this will be an ongoing issue. Each case must be considered indivdually. This issue is not going away.

[Metasequoia]

Originally Posted by Marnica

This article is from a year ago....given the latest rulings that seem to deny the link between autism and the MMR, this just illustrates that this will be an ongoing issue. Each case must be considered indivdually. This issue is not going away.

Sorry, that's not the article I was trying to link to - the url is so long, it's taking me a while to bring it up.

[Metasequoia]

I think this is the correct link - I should correct the title.

Thanks for catching that.

[Marnica]

Yup...this happens more than we know. I read about another case Benjamin something (can't remember his last name) who also won in courtthis past July that his MMR caused massive neurological damage. I'm not sure if it was on the ASD but personally I could care less. Brain damage is brain damage. Call it whatever you want, the damage being done is real and families are being compensated. These cases never receive a lot of press in ainstream media. Hmm I wonder why that is????

[carriebft]

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/...S.02-0738V.pdf

I don't think this ruling says what they think it does....the petitioners did win, and rightly so, but the rest is a little fabricated and stretched.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by carriebft

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/...S.02-0738V.pdf

I don't think this ruling says what they think it does....the petitioners did win, and rightly so, but the rest is a little fabricated and stretched.

Not sure what you mean? and who is "they"? and what is fabricated? the article posted by OP?

[carriebft]

it was not conceded that the vaccine caused autism in this case.

eta: "they" = authors of huffington post article

[carriebft]

because this is a publically released federal document, i assume I can quote more than 100 words?

In sum, the Court’s factual findings are fourfold:
1. Bailey did show evidence of ataxia in the period surrounding his seizure, following his
vaccination;

2. Such ataxia, when considered in conjunction with the radiological results and some other
“soft indicia”, together support the Court’s finding that Bailey did, in fact, suffer from ADEM.

3. Bailey’s ADEM was caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is wellunderstood
that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court finds, on the record filed
herein, that it did actually cause the ADEM.


4. Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his
developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental
Delay, or PDD. Additionally, this chain of causation was not too remote, but was rather a proximate
sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

Dr. Lopez’s diagnosis appears to conflict with the diagnosis given by Bailey’s pediatrician
on 20 May 2004, who saddled Bailey’s condition with the generalized term “autism”;7 however, that
pediatrician later acknowledged that use of the term autism was used merely as a simplification for
non-medical school personnel, and that pervasive developmental delay “is the correct [i.e. technical]
diagnosis.” Pet Ex. 35. Another pediatrician’s diagnosis noted that Bailey’s condition “seems to
be a global developmental delay with autistic features as opposed to an actual autistic spectrum
disorder.” Pet. Ex. 30 at 4.

Respondent seems to have abandoned the earlier argument that Bailey suffered from 12 autism, instead of PDD.
The Court notes the various similarities between Bailey’s condition and autism as defined above, but nonetheless rules
that PDD better and more precisely describes Bailey’s condition and symptoms than does autism. Respondent’s
acknowledgment serves to reaffirm the Court’s conclusion on this point.

As a preliminary matter, even though Respondent conceded during briefing that Bailey
suffers from PDD, Respondent’s expert, Dr. MacDonald characterized Bailey’s condition as autism;
however, he at one point conflated the two as of one or of like kind. Tr. at 84-86. Despite his
comments to that effect, the Court is inclined to view Bailey’s condition as accurately as the medical
records will allow; that is, to find that Bailey more likely than not suffers from PDD, and not from
autism.

[Marnica]

I think this is the authors point....that is why many families are steerling clear of the buzz word "austism". and filing based on the actual symptoms.

I find that is why these arguements become tiresome. People split hairs. Is this case saying that the MMR caused Bailey to have "classic autism"? NO. Are they saying it caused "atypical autism" or PPD NOS? Yes. I'm not interested in the tiny details they use to avoid classifying him as clasically austistic. The bottom line is that the MMR caused him to be this way, whatever you want to call it....the court recognizes this and is awarding compensation (as they should!).

[Ophelia]

I'm getting ticked off that news outlets do not appear to be reporting this, yet just a couple weeks ago the 3 cases that were dismissed were ALL OVER the news. Yet when vaccines ARE to blame - NOTHING. I checked CNN and Yahoo news.

Did the associated press release anything? I know this case was decided last year (?) but it's just coming out in the news now.