Court Rules Against Anti-Vaxers: No Surprise But Still A Victory
March 13th, 2010
|
| Share |
US court rules again against vaccine-autism claims
WASHINGTON, March 12 (Reuters) – Vaccines that contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal cannot cause autism on their own, a special U.S. court ruled on Friday, dealing one more blow to parents seeking to blame vaccines for their children’s illness.
The special U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that vaccines could not have caused the autism of an Oregon boy, William Mead, ending his family’s quest for reimbursement.
“The Meads believe that thimerosal-containing vaccines caused William’s regressive autism. As explained below, the undersigned finds that the Meads have not presented a scientifically sound theory,” Special Master George Hastings, a former tax claims expert at the Department of Justice, wrote in his ruling.
In February 2009, the court ruled against three families who claimed vaccines caused their children’s autism, saying they had been “misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment”.
The families sought payment under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a no-fault system that has a $2.5 billion fund built up from a 75-cent-per-dose tax on vaccines.
Instead of judges, three “special masters” heard the three test cases representing thousands of other petitioners.
They asked whether a combination vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, plus a mercury-containing preservative called thimerosal, caused the children’s symptoms.
Well this is certainly good, if not expected news. While courts don’t always make the right decision on issues of health and science (witness the breast implant fiasco for example), in this case, the data is so compelling, so one-sided and the claims so baseless that it’s all but impossible to imagine any sane judge or jury would find for the anti-vaccine movement, which has so strongly backed this bunk idea.
Interestingly, the whole anti-vaccine movement also seems to be incapable of figuring out exactly what they’re complaining about. Is it the thimerosal containing vaccines? Is it the MMR vaccine? Is it all vaccines in general? All of thee? Such inability to even express a consistent and logical argument is very typical of such baseless claims.
Indeed, this is the fourth time a US federal court has ruled on the issue and the fourth time that a US federal court has completely dismissed the claims.
It should be noted that the court was specially created to deal with vaccine-related issues as part of The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. It’s possible that the litigants will appeal this decision and attempt to get a hearing at a higher US federal court, possibly even the Supreme Court. If the courts do consider their appeal (which they very well may not even bother hearing) then it’s hard to imagine a favorable ruling for the litigants.
Some news agencies have reported this as if it is a watershed moment in the field of immunology and autism research. For example, ABC News, which reports:
Thimerosal in Vaccine Out as Autism Cause
Millions of parents who for years had feared a vaccine was to blame for their child’s autism learned today that is not the case.At least according to a special federal court, which — while expressing sympathy for families — found no direct link between autism and the vaccine additive Thimerosal.
The ruling by the so-called vaccine court means that those families are ineligible to receive federal victim compensation.
So tonight, we ask: Is this ruling enough to convince you there is no connection between vaccination and autism?
Sadly, the ruling is not going to convince anyone that there is no connection between vaccination and autism who believes such nonsense to begin with. The court decision does not change anything in the scientific or medical community. All mainstream and credible researchers already were well aware that the whole notion of autism being linked to vaccination is entirely false. No judge or court needed to tell anyone who actually understands the data this, and for those who have convinced themselves that it’s all a big conspiracy, this will be more likely to reinforce that idea than dismiss it.
The ruling may, however, make a difference when it comes to litigation. Lawyers may like to sue, but the thing they really like is winning, and this kind of validation of the futility of any such lawsuit is going to make it not only more difficult to take it to court, but is likely to discourage most lawyers from even wasting their time trying.
Finally, it should be noted that this entire ruse is based, at least in part, on the idea that autism is rising or has become “epidemic.” A lot of numbers are being thrown around which sound quite scary. Claims that “One in 110 children have autism” or that “it’s a mystery why this condition is rising” are really based on a complete misunderstanding of the diagnostic criteria. To many in the public, the idea of someone having “autism” congers up images of profoundly disabled people who can’t take care of themselves, can barely talk and are wholly incapable of functioning in society. This is simply not the case. In years past, such individuals would be the extent of who is considered to have autism, but the modern diagnostic criteria recognize an entire “spectrum” which includes cases of fully functional individuals.
The lack of understanding and misconceptions about the diagnostic criteria and the spectrum of autism disorders has only served to make the situation worse for those with autism spectrum disorders and those caring for children with these conditions. If that’s not bad enough, many of the same groups and individuals who spread this misinformation are also active in encouraging dangerous and sometimes torturous “treatments” ranging from locking kids in hyperbaric chambers to subjecting them to harsh chelation agents via IV.
Make no mistake, many of these “autism advocacy” groups are not helping the situation and are no friend to the families they may have managed to woo. The perpetuation of lies, stigma, dangerous and ineffective treatments is shameful and destructive.
This entry was posted on Saturday, March 13th, 2010 at 10:00 am and is filed under Bad Science, Good Science, Obfuscation, Politics, Quackery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
March 13th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
No surprise, nobody’s mind will be changed, but still one more small victory. Nice job attacking the anti-vaxers for what they really do to health and even autistic. This is more than a disagreement. They’re hurting people. They should get no free ride. Time to go on the offense.
Quote Comment
March 13th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
So what you’re saying then is that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Special Sessions, has been bought out by Big Phama.
(I thought I’d get it in first before the crazes show up, foaming at the mouth)
Quote Comment
March 13th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
DV82XL said:
That is what some would say. Although it seems a little more crazy every time it is said.
This is the 4th time that a US Federal Court has made this kind of ruling and all in all this is like the seventh or eighth time a federal court has ruled on vaccine safety/autism (counting other cases like suits against the FDA and attempts to get injunctions).
What was pointed out in an editorial (New York Times I think, but I might be wrong) is that all the courts have been unanimous and if you total that all up it comes out to almost 20 different federal judges, all generally respected ruling the same on this. These judges being appointed by Bush, Clinton, Bush 1, Regan and Carter and all of them with excellent judicial records.
Seems a bit suspect that the entire court system of a big country could be bought top to bottom, even given how profitable drug companies are.
It was noted that this will be appealed and if the appeals court hears it there’s the possibility it could go all the way to the supreme court. Actually, if the supreme court decides not to hear it and thereby confirms the lower court or if the supreme court does decide to hear it and rules against it (I’m sure they would, they’re pretty smart up there) then it amounts to the same. That basally is saying that the entirety of government up to the highest levels is involved in an autism conspiracy. Think anyone would really believe that?
Quote Comment
March 13th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Rusty said:
We’re not talking about anyone here, we’re talking about antivaccers…
Quote Comment
March 13th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Rusty said:
Drug companies spending countless billions to buy off every major scientific organization, national government regulatory agency, court and judge in order to make millions? Yeah, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
However, there are people who will believe it.
Quote Comment
March 13th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Well the whole thing is bullocks to begin with, but to add to that, as I understand it, drug companies do, of course, make some money on vaccines, but they’re not the most lucrative cash cows they sell, because you only get one or two doses per person which is not a lot of product pushing.
I mean, if you believe anti-vaxers, the drug companies are going to extreme lengths to buy off people and spent until millions or billions on a vast conspiracy and probably losing money on the equation. If a vaccine makes one hundred million dollars a year and it costs 200 million to buy off every major government, court and doctor on the face of the earth (and it probably costs more) then you lose out by 100 million. Doesn’t make much buisiness sense.
Quote Comment
March 13th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Magic Donuts said:
Well, yes and no… it depends on the company and the vaccine being sold. If it’s something that has a lot of competitors or is specialized, that cuts down on how much they make. It should be noted that some drug companies focus more on one sector than another. Also, a big thing is whether it’s new or not. As a general rule, once the patents run out and a drug goes generic, it;s no longer a huge money maker. It continues to make a respectable amount, but not the huge returns it can have when it’s exclusive.
Many vaccines are high volume, low profit per unit – they generate a steady income but nothing spectacular.
Merk sells about a billion dollars to a billion and a half of the HPV vaccine each year. From that they probably make a couple hundred million in profit.
It is sizable, but not enormous, not when you compare it to the major money makers: antidepressants, cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs. That is where the BIG BIG BIG bucks are.
But one must keep in mind, a lot of these drug companies are enormously profitable because they have many products that each make a few tens of millions – not because they have any one that makes it all.
Still, I mean, do vaccines generate enough income to buy every politician, MD and scientist on the face of the earth? Absolutely not.
Quote Comment
March 14th, 2010 at 1:58 am
Well, not only just that, but if drug companies were part of a huge conspiracy it’d probably be more to their advantage to get us all sick and then sell antivirals and stuff like that. Vaccines prevent illness and therefore, don’t necessarily serve the bottom line, for those who believe that drug companies want us to all have cancer.
Of course, you could counter that by saying that in terms of product revenue and return, it’s actually to their advantage to have us live long lives that are reasonably healthy but require anti blood-clotters and cholesterol drugs and that kind of thing. The drugs for a non-acute condition.
But then there are some who are believe vaccines don’t even prevent illness. It takes all kinds.
Quote Comment
March 14th, 2010 at 4:11 am
Magic Donuts said:
I have nothing to add to this. Crazy nuts, conspriacies, quacks, it’s all been said. Just one small point – it’s not bullocks, as in cattle, it’s bollocks. As in testicles.
Quote Comment
March 14th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Gordon said:
For the pharmaceutical industry, the ideal customer is someone who is between the ages of 50 and 80, is in relatively descent health – meaning they don’t have any acute critical problems, but suffers from a number of chronic conditions of mild to moderate severity that can be controlled to some degree by medication. Basically someone who’s has slightly high blood pressure, high cholesterol, seasonal allergies, moderate arthritis – stuff like that.
(You could argue that high blood pressure and cholesterol are critical, because they can kill you – however, not over night. They’re a long term thing.)
That’s the ideal customer because it’s someone who is likely to provide steady, continuous, consumption of drugs for maybe 30 years. Business wise, that’s perfect. Cancer drugs may be expensive, and so per dose they may give some good returns, but the market is limited and the people who take them either die or recover and then stop taking them.
The demographic where drug companies make the most money is in the 50 to 80 age range – the time in one’s life where persistent non-critical health issues begin to become a major issue. Of course, younger consumers with allergies, depression, anxiety or any other condition that needs continuous therapeutic pharmaceuticals are great too.
It actually benefits the pharmaceutical companies for people to live as long as possible. The older one gets the more money the drug companies tend to make from their various health issues that come with age.
I’m not going to say that they don’t make money on specialty and drugs, cancer drugs, short-term things and so on. They do, and a lot of their profits do come down to the fact that all their products do add up and contribute to the bottom line. But the BIG BIG BIG money, the ones that can make a drug company rich are ones like cholesterol drugs, allergy drugs, antidepressants.
The most profitable drugs are:
Lipitor (cholesterol), Plavix (anti-clotting, for high risk of stroke and heart attack), Nexium (acid blocker – treats persistent heartburn and acid reflux), Seretide/Advair (asthma), Zocor (cholesteral), Norvasc (blood pressure), Zyprexa (anti-psychotic and bi-polar), Risperdal (anti-psychotic and bi-polar), Prevacid (acid blocker), Effexor (anti-depressant)
Of course, pharmaceutical companies will sell any product they develop that has a market and will generate a return. Sometimes they end up stumbling onto something or discovering something through the general-purpose research being conducted. Viagra, for example (erectile dysfunction drugs are another highly lucrative area) was originally intended as a heart medication, they were researching compounds that would stimulate blood vessels to increase local blood flow. It turned out to have an unexpected effect.
Quote Comment
March 15th, 2010 at 3:46 am
Stuff like this just won’t die. It’s sad really, and no of course it does not help those with autism.
Quote Comment