Compensation for claims child developed autism from vaccine

Post Reply New Topic

- Dated 08 March 2008
- Quoted Verbatim From New Scientist Website

"JUST as the dispute over whether vaccines cause autism was dying down at last, a US government decision has added fresh fuel to the fire. Last week it emerged that the federal government is to compensate a couple who say that the regular childhood vaccines, given to their baby daughter in 2000, caused her to develop autism. Damages have not yet been set, but could exceed $1 million.

Significantly, the government's decision says nothing about whether vaccines cause autism. Instead, government lawyers concluded only that vaccines aggravated a pre-existing cellular disorder in the child, causing brain damage that included features of autism. Nonetheless, anti-vaccination campaigners are claiming vindication. "It's official," wrote one autism blogger. "The sky has fallen. The fat lady has sung. Pigs are flying."

Autism experts say it is unclear why compensation is being paid. Almost 5000 other families have lodged similar claims which are being considered by the court, but decades of research have failed to find any link between vaccines and autism and few experts thought that the government would pay up.
“It's unclear why compensation is being paid. Decades of research have failed to find any link between vaccines and autism”

Scientists say there is nothing in the medical history of the child in question to change that thinking. "I'm stunned that they decided to settle," says Jay Gargus, a paediatrician at the University of California, Irvine. Exactly why the US government did so is still being debated, as details of the decision have been sealed and the Department of Health and Human Services won't comment.

Whatever the government's thinking, the worry is that the decision may undermine public confidence in vaccines, which is just recovering after recent scares over mercury and the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) shot. On 29 February, for example, Republican presidential candidate John McCain used a query on the case as a chance to question whether mercury in vaccines could be linked to autism.

"A decision like this will definitely make parents more wary about vaccines," says Jaime DeVille, a paediatrician at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a member of the government's childhood vaccines advisory committee.

According to internet newspaper The Huffington Post, which last week published leaked details of the court case from November, the child developed a fever after receiving scheduled vaccinations in 2000 for haemophilus influenzae, chickenpox, polio, MMR, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and polio, when she was 18 months old. Autism-like symptoms, such as poor communication skills, followed. In 2001 physicians concluded that the child, who has not been named, "demonstrated features of autistic disorder".

It transpired that the child's mitochondria, the powerhouses that provide cells with energy, were not working normally, and tests revealed a mutation in a gene linked to mitochondrial function. After studying her medical history, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that the vaccines had "significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in energy metabolism", causing brain damage with "features of autism spectrum disorder".

Proponents of a link between vaccines and autism have made much of the mitochondrial disorder, in part because researchers have wondered for at least a decade whether autism could be a mitochondrial disorder. Autism runs in families and some of the genes thought to be involved play a role in mitochondrial function. Biomarkers for mitochondrial dysfunction, such as a build-up of lactic acid, are also elevated in some autistic children. David Kirby, the journalist who revealed the decision, says that in an "informal survey" of seven other children with cases pending all show signs of mitochondrial problems, though he did not reveal how he got this information.

Experts say these links do nothing to prove that autism originates in the mitochondria. "It's not surprising that mitochondrial function is abnormal," says Steven Novella, a neurologist at Yale University. "With neurodegenerative disorders almost any marker of cell health will be worse than in controls." Without more research, he adds, it is impossible to say whether the mitochondrial problems are the cause of the disease or its by-product (see "Can autism be a mitochondrial disease?"). Those who argue otherwise, are "making multiple assumptions that are not established", Novella warns.

Further complications stem from confusion over the role vaccines played in the child's condition. Severe inflammatory reactions are a rare but established side effect of vaccines, and they can damage the brain in many different ways, some of which produce symptoms similar to those seen in autism. The mitochondrial disorder might have prevented the child from dealing with her inflammation, but it is also possible that the child's mitochondrial problems caused the inflammation and that the vaccines she received were irrelevant.
“It is possible that the child's mitochondrial problems caused the inflammation and the vaccines were irrelevant”

Other experts added that parents should not be dissuaded from getting their children vaccinated just because of a court case. "What does this decision mean?" says Paul Offit, a paediatrician at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. "It doesn't mean anything. The question of whether vaccines cause autism is a scientific one, not a legal one."

Numerous scientific studies have addressed the question, adds Offit, and all concluded that there is no link. Government officials, including those at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, also insisted the decision does nothing to change their thinking.

These caveats may, however, get lost as reaction to the decision evolves. Kevin Conway of Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan in Boston, whose firm represents around 1200 autistic children with court cases pending, says he will start getting his clients tested for mitochondrial dysfunction. And Thomas Power, an attorney based in Portland, Oregon, says he would also like to see full details of the case, as they could help his cases of autistic children seeking compensation."

interesting. The mitochondrial connection is thought provoking.

and as they point out, the legal precedent set will inevitably have an impact!

Thanks for link.

So, if we start enough threads about this SAME FLIPPING DISCREDITED STORY, will her mitochondrial disorder suddenly become autism? Will aggravation become cause? And will a government attorney deciding it's cheaper to pay the family off than continue to fight the case become some sort of admission of guilt? Because this is about the FOURTH thread about this story.

The girl does not have autism. Her mitochodrial problem can present SOME of the same symptoms, but saying that makes it autism is equivalent to saying that since both acid reflux and intestinal cancer cause massive heartburn and stomach pain, they are the same disorder.

Her disorder was NOT caused by the vaccination; it is POSSIBLE, although NOT PROVEN, that her disorder was aggravated by this shot, but it would have developed at some point in any event. This is why aggravation is not proven; it is within the realm of possibility that it would have presented at this point without the vaccine.

No one has admitted guilt; the attorney for the US Government agreed to pay the amount requested, as it would be less expensive than continuing the court fight. No legal precedent of any sort has been established by this case.

Now, can we drop this one and find something NEW to perseverate on?

There could be the matter of jurisprudence, whereby parents in a similar situation claim an entitlement to compensation, on the grounds that the state has done it before, even if that's not really proof of a link or problem.

We recently found out that our son has Mito. Looking back, the most we can say is that the vaccinations didn't really help him, neurologically speaking. Sure, he doesn't have the diseases that they prevent, but the shots were rough on him. We have suspected AS on both my side and my husband's side. However, I cannot directly link the timing of his vaccinations with neurologic decline. It wasn't overnight.

In terms of mito vs. vaccinations, it can be more of a chicken and egg question with our son. Did the vaccines somehow trigger the Mito to be expressed at a heightened level? That, I am unsure.

So what is autism? Do you know the exact causes, triggers, and physiological signs that are present in all autistics to guarantee that we know EXACTLY what autism is? Because last I heard, autism was a syndrome. A cluster of symptoms present in a group of people of unknown origin. So how can you say she doesn't have autism? There is no autism-like; don't buy into the manipulative language being used here. It either is or it isn't a group of symptoms common to a group of people, triggered by something or some things of unknown origin.

The fact is, nobody knows exactly what autism is. So you cannot say she doesn't have it based on the fact that she has another disorder as well, and that she has symptoms of it too. You don't have to exclusively display autistic symptoms and nothing else to have it; goodness, does the fact that I have an egg allergy but not all autistics do mean that I'm not, because perhaps that allergy is triggering the autism? Or the fact that someone else with it might also have asthma, and because of that they can't be autistic, they only display signs of autism? No, of course not. Same thing here. Why can't someone have a mitochondrial disorder AND autism, or have that as a cause of autism?

Again, autism is a group of symptoms of unknown origin. That doesn't mean there is only ONE cause and ONE origin and ONE thing that causes it - it's perfectly possible that there are several things that could trigger it, especially given its primarily neurological symptoms and signs, as opposed to purely straight-forward 'physical' ones...

Kiwi,

If she was autistic, she would've been diagnosed when she started showing signs, SIX YEARS AGO.

But she's not diagnosed. She doesn't even meet the criteria for PDD-NOS. She's NOT autistic.

Not necessarily - there are plenty of kids I know who are blatantly autistic or AS and who either haven't been diagnosed or have parents refusing to get them diagnosed. I wasn't until I was 14 and I'm about as textbook a case as you can get (not so much these days, but during childhood definitely). Awareness is growing, but it's not huge everywhere yet, so there are still thousands of kids who may never get that diagnosis because people/doctors/family simply don't know what it is. Doesn't mean they don't have it though.

She didn't have enough of the traits, Le Kiwi. Simple! You HAVE to have a certain number of traits under the DSM-IV - otherwise, you are not on the Spectrum.

How many times do you have to be told this before it will sink in??

So what of the autistc adults who've learned to cope, as many do, and are simply referred to as 'quirky'? Would you deny them support they need (speaking theoretically here), purely because the DSM-IV says they aren't?

My point - that doesn't seem to be sinking in here - is that there are still places in the world - GASP - the DEVELOPED world, the western world, where awareness of autism and asperger's isn't particularly high yet, and where there are plenty of children slipping through the gaps because people simply don't realise what it is they have. My mother is forever seeing children and passing them on for diagnosis because parents and teachers just think they're strange or ADHD. My point is, again, just because someone doesn't have the diagnosis doesn't mean they aren't autistic. It can very, very easily mean they ARE autistic but nobody's picked up on it, whether that be the doctors or teachers or parents or whoever. Just because nobody's evaluated them for it and said 'voila diagnosis' does not mean they aren't on the spectrum.

If they don't have enough traits - they are NOT autistic!!



And your insistence along these lines is NOT helping that understanding! It's holding it back - and the sooner THAT sinks in the better!

My 'insistence' is fact. You can't be diagnosed if the person who would diagnose you isn't aware the condition exists. Believe it or not, this is the case in many, many places still.

No awareness of syndrome in person who would diagnose it = no diagnosis; that does NOT mean the person doesn't have it.


Most people - including doctors - I speak to have no idea what AS is, and the only concept of autism they have is of the low-functioning savant (thank you, Rain man). The very vast majority have no idea I have it as they don't even know what the syndrome is. I mentioned it to one doctor who got out a medical textbook to look it up as she'd not actually heard of it. This was last year - 2007!! Awareness is growing, yes, but there are still plenty of places where it's not known.

I think one thing that happened in this case is the same thing I've seen in other court cases involving money and liability: there was enough evidence that the child suffered ill effects from the vaccine (the diagnosis being irrelevant) for the court to wish to cover the family in the compensation program. Sometimes the court takes a conclusion and then goes in search of the question, to validate the answer they wish to provide. It isn't very scientific. It's a matter of sympathy more than anything.

There IS awareness in this case. She does not have a diagnsis because she is NOT autistic. That's why the government accepted the out of court settlement here - because this was NOT a case of the old "vaccines cause autism" BS.

Anyway - there is NO western country in this world that is not aware of Autism!!

So much for your "insistence" being "fact". Your grip on fact has already been proven to be lacking on several fronts!

I'm not talking about the girl in this case in particular, I was responding to a comment made by Beau99. I don't know enough about the girl in this case in particular to comment fully, and I'm not too concerned about it either.

You're right, most countries are aware of it. But not all doctors IN those countries, and not all towns IN those countries. I still see so many cases of people who very clearly have AS with no idea of what it is, let alone that they have it. Why? Their doctors simply don't know what they're looking at and miss the signs. The awareness isn't there. If you haven't encountered this then you're lucky, and clearly live in a more autism-enlightened place than most of the towns I've been to. But the fact remains, it still happens.

Beau was talking about the girl, so what did you expect me to think?

Doctors know when there's a problem. The procedure is to refer them to a psychiatrist or a psychologist. Now if they aren't doing that it's not that the doctor doesn't know specifics. He's not a psychiatrist. The blame then switches to the parents for not insisting on a referral - no matter if it's Autism or some other psychological problem.

There are no excuses, and in Australia certainly it doesn't happen because doctors get into trouble for doing the wrong thing (something that doesn't happen in the US which for me is BS) so they take no chances and refer.

And parents can report psych's who do the wrong thing here, so again - it just doesn't happen anymore. And if it does it's not always the fault of the medical profession.