or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Link to U.S. Court of Federal Claims Vaccine Cases that are UNPUBLISHED
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Link to U.S. Court of Federal Claims Vaccine Cases that are UNPUBLISHED

post #1 of 51
Thread Starter 

Not sure if this has ever been posted, but I found this gem of a website today on Facebook and had to share:

 

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/opinions_decisions_vaccine/Unpublished

post #2 of 51

I've just spent an hour or so reading some of those cases.  huh.gif  If you click on the case name, each case comes up.  

 

What is most disturbing is that, even when there is a financial award, the Department of Health and Human Services denies that the vaccine caused the alleged complaint, even when the complainant furnishes testimony from every doctor involved with the case, saying that they could think of no other reason for the sudden severe illness except for the vaccine.

 

Now, I did see at least one case that did look pretty weak, and I wasn't surprised to see that one denied.

 

But the other cases I looked at clearly satisfied the criteria for proving causation in fact:

 

 

  1. a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury;
  2. a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury; and
  3. a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.

 

There was even one doctor who testified that he'd seen a previous case of a similar vaccine injury, which meant that that petitioner provided a theory that was both supported by medical records and was supported by a sound and reliable physician.

 

Yet the DoH, in every case, denied that the vaccine caused the illness. In many cases, they made an offer to the complainant--while still denying that the vaccine caused the illness.  In other words, they are paying the injured parties (or in some cases, the survivors) to shut up and go away.  Perhaps it's more telling that, by stipulation in these cases, the particulars of the case--the medical records, the doctors' testimony that vaccines caused had--remain sealed. 

 

Over in the Debate forum, we have someone insisting that severe vaccine reactions are vanishingly rare.  Meanwhile, the rest of us are staring at proof that our government is denying that those very reactions are happening, and engaging in a cover-up of the records, even as they agree to pay compensation for such reactions.


Edited by Taximom5 - 8/6/13 at 5:27am
post #3 of 51
If these are vaccine court claims that got granted compensation then they are in the 1 in a million statistic which has been given before. That was based on the number of compensated cases compared to the total number of vaccinations given.
post #4 of 51
Well said, Taximom5
post #5 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

If these are vaccine court claims that got granted compensation then they are in the 1 in a million statistic which has been given before. That was based on the number of compensated cases compared to the total number of vaccinations given.


The "one in a million" statistic is based on this? Compensated cases: total vaccines given........ Interesting.

post #6 of 51
I maintain that when 99% percent of folks use '1 in a million' it isn't even numerical, really, it is just a saying, one that is totally unsourced or @ best sourced from Slate magazine or some such. You can't even get a meaningful statistic from Vax Court awards because the vax injuries compensated would all have occurred in different years, with different vaxes. Plus, trying to get a statistic from these awards totally ignores the FACT that there are access & political issues with courts (and that the court denies that award = real injury). That would be like trying to get a handle on the exact number of joints smoked in the US/year from the amount of joint smoking convictions in a given calendar year, it would be laughably inaccurate because of the million & two issues that would stand between the J & a court conviction.
post #7 of 51

Here one person broke down the math. Might be helpful is determining how people get that "1 in a million" number. 

 

 

 

" There are an estimated 4 million children born (pdf) in the U.S. every year. 

 

Therefore, since the NVICP was created, approximately 87.4 million children have been vaccinated at least partially, if not completely, according to the CDC recommendations.

 

The percentage of petitions to actual vaccines administered is therefore 0.016%. One one-hundredth of one percent of cases of vaccination have resulted in a petition being filed. The percentage of compensations to actual vaccines administered is 0.003%. Three one-THOUSANDTHS of one percent of cases of vaccination have resulted in compensation for injury.

 

Additionally, the NVICP claims are not limited to children, and the above calculations are by person, not by injection, so the actual safety rate is significantly higher than 99.997%. If you included all adult vaccinations, and counted number of injections rather than number of vaccinated persons, you’d get something that probably looks like 99.9999999999999999% of child and adult vaccinations resulting in no serious adverse events." 

 

http://www.doublexscience.org/calculating-vaccine-risk/

post #8 of 51

Oh, for heaven's sake, the number of petitions has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the rate of severe adverse reactions.

 

Only a tiny fraction--estimates range from 1-10%--of severe adverse reactions are actually reported to VAERS.

 

Only a tiny fraction of those cases are ever entered as petitions.

 

For one thing, there is a 3-year statute of limitations. That's 3 years from the date of injury. Onset of symptoms can be significantly later than the actual injection, which means that in many cases, the doctors don't realize or can't confirm that it was indeed a vaccine injury for months or even years.  Patients and/or their guardians (or their survivors) often don't realize that they can enter a petition, and often don't wish to be engaged in any kind of court proceeding.  Those who have been through it, without exception, report that it is an extremely time-consuming and emotionally grueling process, during which they report being treated like criminals.

 

It is grossly misleading to attempt to paint the number of petitions as the number of events.

post #9 of 51
Oh my gosh I didn't literally mean 'go get the number directly from Slate magazine!'
post #10 of 51
You just canNOT conclude that no compensated petition equals no serious adverse event unless you are practicing something other than science (like maybe politics).

Not all serious adverse events even require ongoing care, which is the only reason to ever file a petition, because it is ONLY to pay for ongoing care & medical bills.

The author of that casual calculation has a BA & an MA. Neither of those degrees require any significant coursework in the sciences or in medicine. One wonders why she was even tapped to write 'Your Baby's Best Shot'.
Edited by dinahx - 8/6/13 at 7:53am
post #11 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

You just canNOT conclude that no compensated petition equals no serious adverse event unless you are practicing something other than science (like maybe politics).

Not all serious adverse events even require ongoing care, which is the only reason to ever file a petition, because it is ONLY to pay for ongoing care & medical bills.

The author of that casual calculation has a BA & an MA. Neither of those degrees require any significant coursework in the sciences or in medicine. One wonders why she was even tapped to write 'Your Baby's Best Shot'.


The scientists DO NOT conclude that. They conclude that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP. Since they can't prove no causal relationship we can't say there is a causal relationship either. The most rational interpretation is that even if there is a causal relationship the effect may be so rare that it is difficult to quantify. Hence their estimate of no more than 1 in a million from a combination of reports, compensation and research findings.

 

Just because something was reported after a vaccine, it does not mean it was caused by it!!

post #12 of 51
Um, everyone here gets that, that is like 8th grade. But it doesn't mean it was a coincidence either. Science is collecting all the data & examining it, not steadfastly proclaiming your 'client's' innocence by any means necessary. That's why active data collection might help. But this author is using something even less effective than passive data collection, it is data collection by court cases?

No need for all caps. What scientists? The woman (so if anything scienTIST) doing this calculation (in the media, not in a peer reviewed journal or academic paper) is not a scientist in any way. Her highest degree is a Master of ARTS.
post #13 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Oh, for heaven's sake, the number of petitions has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the rate of severe adverse reactions.

 

Only a tiny fraction--estimates range from 1-10%--of severe adverse reactions are actually reported to VAERS.

 

Only a tiny fraction of those cases are ever entered as petitions.

 

For one thing, there is a 3-year statute of limitations. That's 3 years from the date of injury. Onset of symptoms can be significantly later than the actual injection, which means that in many cases, the doctors don't realize or can't confirm that it was indeed a vaccine injury for months or even years.  Patients and/or their guardians (or their survivors) often don't realize that they can enter a petition, and often don't wish to be engaged in any kind of court proceeding.  Those who have been through it, without exception, report that it is an extremely time-consuming and emotionally grueling process, during which they report being treated like criminals.

 

It is grossly misleading to attempt to paint the number of petitions as the number of events.

 

And? Even if you multiply that number many many times over it still would not come anywhere close to being considered not safe.

 

In the 25 years that the NVICP has been around how many vaccines do you think have been given to children and adults combined?  Hundreds of millions.  So even if that was a "tiny fraction" of reports  the number of people who don't have a severe reaction to a vaccine would still be 99.9999..... etc. 

 

I see all the time in comments, blogs, and forums anti vaccine proponents try to use the numbers from the NVICP as meaning that vaccines are dangerous when in actuality it shows the exact opposite. 


Edited by teacozy - 8/6/13 at 9:58am
post #14 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Um, everyone here gets that, that is like 8th grade. But it doesn't mean it was a coincidence either. Science is collecting all the data & examining it, not steadfastly proclaiming your 'client's' innocence by any means necessary. That's why active data collection might help. But this author is using something even less effective than passive data collection, it is data collection by court cases?

No need for all caps. What scientists? The woman (so if anything scienTIST) doing this calculation (in the media, not in a peer reviewed journal or academic paper) is not a scientist in any way. Her highest degree is a Master of ARTS.


I'm referring to the issue in general not the specific findings reported by the lady

post #15 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Here one person broke down the math. Might be helpful is determining how people get that "1 in a million" number. 

 

[... deleted ...]

 

The percentage of petitions to actual vaccines administered is therefore 0.016%. One one-hundredth of one percent of cases of vaccination have resulted in a petition being filed. The percentage of compensations to actual vaccines administered is 0.003%. Three one-THOUSANDTHS of one percent of cases of vaccination have resulted in compensation for injury.

 

[.... deleted ...]

 

http://www.doublexscience.org/calculating-vaccine-risk/

 

.016% = 160 / million = vax petitions filed

.003% = 30 / million = vax injuries compensation

 

Putting the above numbers in context, using:

- Trends in Infectious Disease Mortality in the United States During the 20th Century
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=768249

- Measles Mortality in the United States 1971-1975
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1619577/pdf/amjph00684-0032.pdf

- HPV rate from this thread

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1387395/more-hpv-news

 

 

So, roughly, the figures in per million are:

0.2    - average annual measles mortality in 1971-1975

1       - official vax adverse side effect rate

10     - pre-vax polio mortality circa 1940
20     - pre-vax measles mortality ca 1940
30     - number of vax injury compensations
30     - pre-vax pertussis mortality ca 1940
30     - pre-vax diphtheria mortality ca 1940
100   - pre-vax measles mortality ca 1900
100   - pre-vax pertussis mortality ca 1900
160   - number of vax petitions filed
400   - diphtheria mortality ca 1900, pre-vax era
800   - pneumonia and influenza mortality ca 1940

1000 - HPV vax adverse events
6000 - pneumonia and influenza mortality, 1917 flu pandemic

 

 

Personally, these numbers give me a pause ... and they do - not - even include the possible under-reporting of vax side effects.


Edited by MamaMunchkin - 8/7/13 at 3:25am
post #16 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

 

.016% = 160 / million = vax petitions filed

.003% = 30 / million = vax injuries compensation

 

Putting the above numbers in context, using:

- Trends in Infectious Disease Mortality in the United States During the 20th Century
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=768249

- Measles Mortality in the United States 1971-1975
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1619577/pdf/amjph00684-0032.pdf

- HPV rate from this thread

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1387395/more-hpv-news

 

 

So, roughly, the figures in per million are:

0.2    - average annual measles mortality in 1971-1975

1       - official vax adverse side effect rate

10     - pre-vax polio mortality circa 1940
20     - pre-vax measles mortality ca 1940
30     - number of vax injury compensations
30     - pre-vax pertussis mortality ca 1940
30     - pre-vax diphtheria mortality ca 1940
100   - pre-vax measles mortality ca 1900
100   - pre-vax pertussis mortality ca 1900
160   - number of vax petitions filed
400   - diphtheria mortality ca 1900, pre-vax era
800   - pneumonia and influenza mortality ca 1940

1000 - HPV vax adverse events
6000 - pneumonia and influenza mortality, 1917 flu pandemic

 

 

Personally, these numbers give me a pause ... and they do - not - even include the possible under-reporting of vax side effects.


Looking at the stats is definitely the way to go. However, there is grave issues with many of the numbers provided:

1 in a million - estimated upper bound of serious adverse events of a given vaccine (say MMR but this differs by vaccine)

30/ million - estimated rate of compensation FOR ALL vaccine related injuries since the NVICP was created (25 years)

 

I haven't checked the adequacy of the 30/million estimated, but for proper comparison with MMR you would need to use the total compensation numbers of MMR and then divide by 25 (years). Assuming each vaccine has the same chance of causing leading to compensation (which is NOT TRUE but for the sake of this argument is fine), the yearly compensation is 30/25/number of vaccines that required compensation. Assuming the compensation was required from the use of 10 vaccines leaves use with a 0.12/million year compensation for MMR, far below the estimated risk provided by CDC.

 

Other numbers also have some issues. Like proscience commented in the referenced mothering link, the HPV numbers of the website are incorrect.

Finally, many of the rates you provided (without checking for accuracy), say the measles mortality rate in 1940, are rates by year. But the 30/million estimated is not by year and it's a lump sum of all vaccines.

 

The results provided in your reference http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=768249 are wildly considered as the effect of 20th century medicine. Two technologies dramatically increased the life expectancy of people (which roamed around the 30s for thousands of years): antibiotics and vaccines.

 

It is important to stay on top of things when it comes to vaccines (yes companies are greedy), but up until now, vaccines have provided more benefit than harm

post #17 of 51

Compensation &/or Petitions do and canNOT again NOT equal serious adverse events. Not all that experience serious adverse events will ever seek compensation or could necessarily benefit from it, even those who receive medical treatment. Not all serious adverse events require follow up medical treatment. Like a seizure is a serious adverse event, but it might not ever require treatment or follow up care. Or if my kid's seizure did require some follow up care, but didn't have lasting sequelae AND I had decent insurance, why would I go after the VICP for compensation? It would still be defined as a 'serious adverse event'. 

 

For example the ENTIRE Anabaptist faith does NOT resort to the state courts for redress, almost ever. There are just a million and one ;) reasons that someone might not even file a VAERS report for a Vaccine Injury (starting with the fact that many either don't believe in them or believe they are 'vanishingly rare'.)  But VAERS reports are a more reliable data collection device (even if it is passive rather than active) than ONLY considering cases that appear before the court. Do you think, for example, you could get a reliable handle on Domestic Violence in the US by ONLY looking @ cases where assault charges are filed? Of course not, that would be totally laughable! 

 

I posted a 14 year study that attempted to determine the actual rate of serious adverse reactions to MMR and it NOWHERE ever mentioned 1 in a million as any type of number, let alone an upper limit. The number they stated as a 'upper limit' was 3.2/100G, or roughly 32 in a million vax doses. I was generous and didn't list the 5.4/100G vaccinees that that paper also established.


Edited by dinahx - 8/7/13 at 6:58am
post #18 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Compensation &/or Petitions do and canNOT again NOT equal serious adverse events. Not all that experience serious adverse events will ever seek compensation or could necessarily benefit from it, even those who receive medical treatment. Not all serious adverse events require follow up medical treatment. Like a seizure is a serious adverse event, but it might not ever require treatment or follow up care.

 

For example the ENTIRE Anabaptist faith does NOT resort to the state courts for redress, almost ever. There are just a million and one ;) reasons that someone might not even file a VAERS report for a Vaccine Injury (starting with the fact that many either don't believe in them or believe they are 'vanishingly rare'.)  But VAERS reports are a more reliable data collection device (even if it is passive rather than active) than ONLY considering cases that appear before the court. Do you think, for example, you could get a reliable handle on Domestic Violence in the US by ONLY looking @ cases where assault charges are filed? Of course not, that would be totally laughable! 

 

I posted a 14 year study that attempted to determine the actual rate of serious adverse reactions to MMR and it NOWHERE ever mentioned 1 in a million as any type of number, let alone an upper limit. The number they stated as a 'upper limit' was 3.2/100G, or roughly 32 in a million vax doses. I was generous and didn't list the 5.4/100G vaccinees that that paper also established.


We've had this discussion about the 3.2/100,000 before here http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1384366/bioethicist-says-parents-who-dont-vaccinate-should-face-liability-for-consequences/160 (post 164)

The original paper can be found here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11144371/ That paper is very clear: "giving an incidence of serious adverse events with possible or indeterminate causal relation with .....3.2 per 100,000 vaccine doses".

"events with possible or indeterminate causal relation with MMR vaccination" they mean its INCONCLUSIVE. The KEY phrase is "or indeterminate" meaning it could be one or the other BUT THEY CAN'T EXPLAIN WHICH. After that paper written in 2000, STILL NO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN PROVEN

 

In another post in that thread (post 191) I also brought another important point:

"The[re] is also something important that has gone amiss in the argument. On the 1999 paper I referred to in post 159 (only one year before the 2000 paper), it was stated that: unvaccinated children age 5-9 had a 10.62/100000 rate of contracting measles http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=190649

Therefore, even with the 3.2/100,000 you are using of serious side effects (which is wrong), CLEARLY the benefits outweigh the risks. Doesn't that jama paper (one of the most prestigious medicine journals by the way) make the benefit quite clear?"

post #19 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post


Looking at the stats is definitely the way to go. However, there is grave issues with many of the numbers provided:

1 in a million - estimated upper bound of serious adverse events of a given vaccine (say MMR but this differs by vaccine)

 

If one considers the possibility of under-reporting, then 1/million would be a lowerbound.

 

 

30/ million - estimated rate of compensation FOR ALL vaccine related injuries since the NVICP was created (25 years)

 

This was the rate given in post #7 above.

 

 

I haven't checked the adequacy of the 30/million estimated, but for proper comparison with MMR you would need to use the total compensation numbers of MMR and then divide by 25 (years). Assuming each vaccine has the same chance of causing leading to compensation (which is NOT TRUE but for the sake of this argument is fine), the yearly compensation is 30/25/number of vaccines that required compensation. Assuming the compensation was required from the use of 10 vaccines leaves use with a 0.12/million year compensation for MMR, far below the estimated risk provided by CDC.

 

The stats are given to provide some context - it's not about MMR. 

 

If one were to follow the full-vax schedule, the rate of compensation for all vaxes may be useful.

 

 

Other numbers also have some issues. Like proscience commented in the referenced mothering link, the HPV numbers of the website are incorrect.

Finally, many of the rates you provided (without checking for accuracy), say the measles mortality rate in 1940, are rates by year. But the 30/million estimated is not by year and it's a lump sum of all vaccines.

 

Rate by year - one can do rates by decades, by months, by weeks - all valid as long as the numerator and denominator are from the same time period. 

 

The HPV rate, 6000/6 million = 1000/million, was from this post by prosciencemom in the referenced link - it's from post #3 in the "More HPV news thread" ...

quoting as posted by prosciencemom

...

"It's my opinion that this is fear mongering rubbish - distoring the truth to try to give people references which say HPV is more dangerous that all the credible reports say it is. I'll repeat again - over 4 years of routine HPV vaccination in the UK, 6 million doses have been given with 6000 reports of adverse events - that means 99.9% of girls get this potentially life saving vaccine with absolutely no problem at all....."

...

end quote

...


Edited by MamaMunchkin - 8/7/13 at 8:52am
post #20 of 51

There has been NO paper published that established 1 in 1 million as any type of rate of anything. There was an ARTICLE published in a subsection of Slate Magazine, by a Psychology MA. Sorry, doesn't count.

 

Yes, they didn't definitely establish a casual relationship, they used SCIENCE to eliminate all the adverse events that could possibly be attributed to ANYTHING else or have ANY other contributing factor. Otherwise the rate would have been like 70/100G! (Or 700 in 1 million doses).

 

The number of adverse reactions to measles doesn't TRULY matter here, what matters is that some posters are engaging in an erroneous campaign of vaccine injury denialism. No one is attempting to block distribution or lower the rate of vaccination, what I am trying to do is establish that there IS a reaction rate, it HAS been studied, and it has nothing to do with any fictional number comparing the overall rate of vaccination with the number of cases that actually make it through the VICP.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Link to U.S. Court of Federal Claims Vaccine Cases that are UNPUBLISHED