Thimerosal-Autism Test Cases Dismissed · 2010-03-12 22:00

This afternoon, the issued decisions in King v. Secretary of HHS (Case No. 03-584V), Mead v. Secretary of HHS (Case No. 03-215V), and Dwyer v. Secretary of HHS (No. 03-1202V), the three Vaccine Injury Compensation Program claims chosen by the Omnibus Autism Proceeding Petitioners’ Steering Committee for the presentation of evidence supporting the hypothesis that autism can be caused by the administration of vaccines containing the mercury-based antifungal thimerosal.

All three claims have been dismissed for failure to demonstrate that thimerosal-containing vaccines can cause autism, or that they did cause autism in any individual case.

Arguments in King and Mead were presented at a joint hearing held in Washington, D.C., from May 12 through May 30, 2008, before Special Master George L. Hastings and Special Master Patricia Campbell-Smith. A hearing in Dwyer was held on June 21-22, 2008, before Special Master Denise K. Vowell.

The ruling in King was written by Special Master George L. Hastings; in Mead by Special Master Patricia Campbell-Smith; and in Dwyer by Special Master Denise K. Vowell.

The following passages have been excerpted from the King ruling. Excerpts from Mead and Dwyer, will be published on this weblog over the next few days.


From King v. Secretary of HHS (Case No. 03-584V)

Issued March 12, 2010

Introduction (p. 2)

The petitioners in this case have advanced the theory that thimerosal-containing vaccines can substantially contribute to the causation of autism, and that such vaccines did contribute to the causation of Jordan King’s autism. However, as to each of those issues, I conclude that the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to the petitioners’ contentions. The expert witnesses presented by the respondent were far better qualified, far more experienced, and far more persuasive than the petitioners’ experts, concerning the key points. The numerous medical studies concerning the issue of whether thimerosal causes autism, performed by medical scientists worldwide, have come down strongly against the petitioners’ contentions. Considering all of the evidence, I find that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that thimerosal-containing vaccines can contribute to the causation of autism. I further conclude that while Jordan King has tragically suffered from autism, the petitioners have also failed to demonstrate that his vaccinations played any role at all in causing that condition.

The scope of the record (p. 15)

[T]he evidentiary record, based upon which I have decided this case, is massive. This record far exceeds any evidentiary record that I have seen in other Program cases, with the exception of the record in the three test cases concerning the PSC’s first theory of autism causation. A few statistics may give a flavor of the amount of material involved. The parties filed a total of 26 expert reports in this King case and the companion Mead and Dwyer cases. At the evidentiary hearings, expert witnesses testified during the combined King/Mead hearing, and two during the Dwyer hearing. The hearing transcripts totaled more than 3200 pages for the King/Mead hearing, plus more than 300 pages in Dwyer. And the petitioners filed more than 1000 pages of Jordan King’s medical records in this King case alone.

In addition, the amount of medical literature filed into the records of the three cases was staggering. In the three cases, the parties filed more than 1200 medical journal articles, medical textbook excerpts, or other items of medical literature (even after excluding from the count those documents that were filed in more than one case). Some of those items were extremely lengthy. The total number of pages of those documents runs well into the tens of thousands of pages. And most of those documents are densely packed with technical information.

Petitioners’ theory summarized (p. 19)

As noted above, the petitioners’ overall “general causation” theory in this case can be summarized as follows. Petitioners note that the thimerosal in thimerosal-containing vaccines, received by infants during their early months of life, after entering the body breaks down into its component parts, one of which is ethylmercury; some of that ethylmercury then makes its way into the brain and is converted into inorganic mercury. They contend that such inorganic mercury can, in susceptible individuals, trigger a process of “neuroinflammation,” including “oxidative stress,” in the infant’s brain. The neuroinflammation, they contend, can impair and disrupt the infant’s brain function, resulting in autistic symptoms.

The petitioners contend that such an autism causation process has occurred in many children. They do not argue that the thimerosal is the sole cause of the autism in such cases, but that the thimerosal substantially contributes to the causation of autism, in individuals who for genetic reasons are especially susceptible to that causation process. They contend that this causation process occurs in individuals who suffer from a particular subcategory of autism known as “regressive autism.”

Respondent’s argument, and points in dispute, summarized (p. 20)

Respondent’s experts explained that all humans have some amount of mercury in their brains from a number of non-vaccine sources, without harm, and those experts argued that there is no evidence that the extremely small amounts of mercury in thimerosal-containing vaccines would make any significant difference in the overall amount of mercury in a child’s brain, or can cause any harm to the brain.

Respondent’s experts also pointed out what they believe to be many gaps, inaccuracies, and errors in the individual parts of the petitioners’ theories, and in the testimony offered by each of the petitioners’ expert witnesses. For example, respondent’s experts explained that while evidence of neuroinflammation has been found in the brains of some autistic children, medical researchers have as yet not discovered whether such inflammation plays a role in causing autism. Those experts also argued that there is no evidence that inorganic mercury in the brain causes neuroinflammation, and that even if inorganic mercury in the brain could cause autism, the evidence shows that infants have substantially more inorganic mercury in the brain from other sources than from the very small amounts of mercury in thimerosal-containing vaccines.

Respondent’s experts also pointed out that the petitioners’ theory seems unlikely in light of certain basic scientific understandings about the causation of autism, including the facts (1) that autism is very strongly genetic in origin, (2) that the only established non-genetic factors in causing autism are prenatal exposures, and (3) that autopsy studies indicate that the abnormal features of autistic brains are features that of necessity would arise during the early prenatal period.

Respondent’s experts argued further that when, on occasions in the past, mercury exposure (involving much greater amounts of mercury) has been harmful to the human brain, the actual symptoms involved have been nothing like autism.

Respondent’s experts also stressed that the theory that thimerosal-containing vaccines can contribute to the causation of autism has been addressed by many “epidemiologic” studies performed by researchers around the world, and that all of the competent studies have found no association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.

Summary concerning qualifications of experts (p. 31)

I must stress that the weighing of the relative credentials of the respective parties’ experts is not necessarily a determinative factor in any Vaccine Act case. To the contrary, a Vaccine Act factfinder need not automatically adopt the view of the expert or experts with more experience or more striking academic credentials. Sometimes an expert with lesser experience or credentials may offer superior analysis, and may therefore prove to be more persuasive.

In this case, the superiority in expert credentials is certainly not the decisive factor in my analysis. In this case, the testimony of the respondent’s experts, concerning virtually every issue, was simply better explained, more logical, and backed by far greater scientific evidence than that of the petitioners’ experts. Accordingly, the outcome of my analysis would be the same regardless of the credentials of the experts.

Nevertheless, in this case it is simply noteworthy that respondent’s experts, in addition to offering more persuasive testimony, also do possess substantially superior experience and background concerning the causation issues in this case

Summary concerning impact of accepted science on petitioners’ general causation theory (p. 41)

Considering the existing evidence concerning the causation of autism as a whole, I must conclude that such evidence tends to make the petitioners’ theory advanced in this case seem unlikely. That is, as explained above, first we know for certain that genetic factors and prenatal exposures can cause autism, while it is as yet unclear whether postnatal factors play any causal role.

Second, the petitioners’ theory is strongly contradicted by the above-discussed autopsy studies, which indicate that autism is caused by brain malformations occurring prior to birth.

In this regard, however, I must raise three caveats. First, as noted above, the causation of autism is still not well understood, and we also have the evidence discussed above raising the possibility that postnatal factors might play a causal role. Therefore, my point set forth in this section V©(6) of this decision is certainly not the strongest argument against the petitioners’ theory. But this point does add some additional reason to be doubtful of the causation theory advanced by the petitioners in this case.

Second, I want to be clear that, in including this point concerning “accepted” scientific understandings, I do not mean to suggest that a petitioner’s causation theory must automatically be rejected simply because it differs from “generally accepted” medical thinking, or because it goes

Summary concerning “regressive autism” (p. 47)

In sum, another severe problem with Dr. Kinsbourne’s and petitioners’ causation theory is their attempt to offer it as a possible cause only for “regressive autism,” and not for autism in general. Dr. Kinsbourne could offer no explanation
limitation is inconsistent with the phenomenon of sudden regression in some cases. is inconsistent with the extensive evidence that makes it very unlikely that regressive autism is a distinct sub-type of autism that would be likely to have different causes than other forms of autism. This problem, thus, is another factor that casts grave doubt on the petitioners’ causation theory.

Dr. Kinsbourne’s theory is inconsistent with the improvement commonly seen in autism (p. 53)

Another aspect in which Dr. Kinsbourne’s theory is inconsistent with what is known about autism concerns the fact that children with autism often improve at some point. Dr. Lord, the psychologist who has studied autism for about 40 years, including nearly 30 years of studying regression in autism, testified that most children with autism experience improvement to some extent, including children who have experienced regression in autism. Dr. Rust, also with extensive experience in autism, similarly testified that autistic children commonly improve, often at the age of four or five years. Dr. Kinsbourne’s theory, however, involving persistent neuroinflammation by inorganic mercury that accumulates and remains in the brain, is inconsistent with this common phenomenon of improvement of autistic symptoms, as Dr. Rust pointed out. To the contrary, as Dr. Rust also noted, if Dr. Kinsbourne’s theory were true one would expect to see progressive deterioration of such individuals over a lifetime, which is not the case. That would be true because most people would continue to get additional amounts of inorganic mercury into their brains throughout their lifetimes from sources other than thimerosal, especially from methylmercury via food sources such as fish.

Summary concerning “genetic hypersusceptibility” and “mercury efflux disorder” theories (p. 60)

I find that Dr. Brent’s testimony concerning these issues was persuasive, and that the testimony of Dr. Aposhian was not. I conclude that the Holmes, Hu, Adams, and Bradstreet studies are of doubtful reliability, and that the contrary studies cited by Dr. Brent provide better evidence. I conclude that the Woods and Nataf articles also provide no significant support to Dr. Aposhian’s theory. Accordingly, after analysis of all of the evidence in this regard, I conclude that there is no merit to the “genetic hypersusceptibility” and “mercury efflux disorder” theories proposed by Dr. Aposhian and the petitioners.

Summary concerning Dr. Aposhian (p. 69)

For the reasons set forth above, as to each of the specific topics addressed by Dr. Aposhian, I find that the testimony of Dr. Brent, and/or that of another of respondent’s witnesses, was much more persuasive than that of Dr. Aposhian. I find that Dr. Aposhian’s testimony did not supply any credible support to the petitioners’ general causation theory.

Summary concerning Dr. Deth (p. 76)

Each of respondent’s five experts who discussed Dr. Deth’s theory found it to be without merit. Dr. Johnson, the neuropathologist, opined that Dr. Deth’s entire approach to the issue was simply unscientific, and wholly invalid. Dr. Jones, the medical biochemist, explained that the evidence indicates that the small amounts of inorganic mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines would not have any of the effects proposed by Dr. Deth, so that there is “no plausibility * * * at all” to Dr. Deth’s hypothesis Dr. Mailman, the neuropharmacologist, stated that “the odds of [Dr. Deth’s theory] being correct are literally almost infinitesimal.” Dr. Roberts, the expert with superb experience concerning oxidative stress, summarized that there is no reliable evidence at all that autism is caused by oxidative stress, much less oxidative stress resulting from thimerosal-containing vaccines. And Dr. Brent, the medical toxicologist, stated that there is “absolutely not” any evidence that thimerosal-containing vaccines induce oxidative stress.

Indeed, even Dr. Deth himself admitted that his theory still awaits testing, is only a “useful starting point” for considering the thimerosal/autism causation issue, and could be “revised or discarded.”

Dr. Mumper’s view concerning “general causation” (p. 78)

I acknowledge that Dr. Mumper is a pediatrician of considerable experience, with a creditable academic background, and with very substantial experience in treating autistic children. I find no reason to believe that Dr. Mumper is not sincere in her general view that thimerosal-containing vaccines can contribute to causing autism. And I acknowledge that the mere fact that she holds that general view, given her credentials, is at least some evidence in favor of that general view. However, having already thoroughly considered and rejected the reasoning and evidence upon which Dr. Mumper seems to rely, I conclude that the evidentiary value of her general opinion is far outweighed by the overwhelming evidence to the contrary provided by respondent’s experts and the medical literature supplied by respondent.

Summary concerning epidemiological studies (p. 84)

In sum, following the initiation of public concerns that thimerosal in vaccines might be a contributing factor in causing autism, a number of research groups in several countries devised several different types of studies to test that issue. Each of the studies described and discussed above, however, failed to find any evidence that thimerosal-containing vaccines are associated with autism, as pointed out by all three of respondent’s epidemiologic experts. To be sure, none of those studies is definitive by itself. While each of the study approaches has its strengths, each also has acknowledged limitations and weaknesses. However, when all of the studies are considered together, the study results are highly important. First of all, the studies show that medical researchers have looked extensively for any affirmative evidence that thimerosal-containing vaccines can contribute to the causation of autism, but have failed to find any such evidence. Therefore, when taken together, the studies make it appear extremely unlikely that thimerosal-containing vaccines have played any significant role in the overall causation of autism. Of course, it is true that epidemiologic studies cannot prove definitively that Factor A never causes Condition B; such a study cannot ever completely rule out the possibility that Factor A causes a tiny percentage of the cases of Condition B, a percentage too small for the study to detect. However, when a variety of well-designed studies by different researchers have looked extensively for evidence of an association between Factor A and Condition B, but have found none, not only can one conclude confidently that Factor A does not cause a significant percentage of cases of Condition B, but it is also reasonable to interpret those studies as casting at least some doubt on the proposition that Factor A ever causes Condition B. In this case, the studies described above, taken as a whole, show very clearly that thimerosal-containing vaccines do not cause any substantial portion of the cases of autism in the studied countries. And while those studies cannot completely rule out any possibility that thimerosal-containing vaccines might play some causative role in a tiny fraction of autism cases (a fraction too small to be detected by even the largest studies), it seems to me that the failure of so many studies to find any association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism at least casts doubt upon the proposition that thimerosal-containing vaccines ever play a role in causing autism.

Studies by the Geiers (p. 86)

After careful consideration, I conclude that the Geiers’ studies cannot be given any weight. A number of those studies were considered by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee that fully studied the entire thimerosal/autism causation issue in 2004. That committee concluded that the studies were so flawed as to be “uninterpretable,” and that the studies contributed nothing meaningful (“noncontributory”) concerning the causation issue. The committee noted that the studies were based on databases that themselves had “significant limitations”, and that the studies had “serious methodological problems” or “serious methodological limitations”. The committee added that the Geiers’ articles describing their analytical methods were “not transparent” and omitted “important details,” so that it was impossible to evaluate the studies. Other specific deficiencies in the studies were also discussed, including the fact that the Geiers incorrectly used several epidemiologic terms and measures.

In addition, Dr. Fombonne agreed with the IOM’s criticisms of the Geier studies, and testified that the Geier studies in general failed to use accepted epidemiologic methods. Dr. Rutter was critical of the Geier studies as well. Further, petitioners’ own expert witness concerning epidemiology, Dr. Greenland, agreed with the criticisms of the Geier articles, acknowledging that those studies are “deficient in methodology.” And none of the expert witnesses for the petitioners vouched for the reliability of the Geier studies.

I have reviewed the published Geier studies discussed in the 2004 IOM report, and I agree with the analysis of those studies set forth in that IOM report. Further, I have reviewed the additional studies published by the Geiers since the 2004 IOM report, and find that those studies suffer from the same type of flaws as the earlier Geier studies. That view includes a study published in 2008 by the Geiers, along with Young as a third author. Two of respondent’s experts, Drs. Fombonne and Rutter, testified that that 2008 study was again deeply flawed, and those experts provided a number of specific examples of deficiencies in the study. And, again, none of the petitioners’ experts testified in support of that 2008 Young, Geier, and Geier study.

In summary, I conclude that all of the Geier epidemiologic studies are not reliable, and cannot be accorded any weight.

There is absolutely no evidence for the proposition that there is an association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and “clearly regressive autism.” (p. 93)

Finally, with respect to Dr. Greenland’s point regarding “clearly regressive autism,” it is important to stress again that there is not a shred of evidence to support the idea that there is an association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and “clearly regressive autism.”

Again, the fact that when confronted by the epidemiologic evidence the petitioners need to alter their causation theory in a fashion inconsistent with the rest of their expert testimony, and to rely on the mathematical possibility of a hypothetical association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and “clearly regressive autism” for which there is zero evidence in the record, is further evidence of the lack of merit to the petitioners’ “general causation” theory.

In addition, there is no good reason to even suspect that there might be an association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and “clearly regressive autism.” As respondent’s epidemiologic expert Dr. Goodman explained, to even seriously consider Dr. Greenland’s hypothetical “clearly regressive autism” theory, there must be some plausible biologic reason to suspect that “clearly regressive autism” might be causally different than other forms of autism. But petitioners’ experts have never even proposed such a biologic reason. As explained in detail above, there is no reason to think that regressive autism might have different causal factors than autism in general. For similar reasons, the record of this case contains no reason to suspect that the theorized category of “clearly

In sum, the petitioners’ “clearly regressive autism” argument is completely devoid of any supporting evidence.

Summary concerning “irrelevancy” argument (pp. 93-94)

[I]t is true, as a statistical matter, that the epidemiologic studies detailed above, while showing clearly that thimerosal-containing vaccines could not be causing any substantial portion of the cases of autism in general, do not completely rule out the possibility that thimerosal-containing vaccines might be associated with some theoretical very small subgroup of autism. Nonetheless, the balance of evidence from those studies weighs substantially against the petitioners’ causation theory. First, it is an exceedingly slight point in the petitioners’ favor for them to claim that these many studies by different researchers in different countries have not completely ruled out the possibility of any merit to their “general causation” claim. The larger point is that none of those many competent studies has yielded the slightest bit of evidence in the petitioners’ favor — and, of course, it is the petitioners’ burden to show that thimerosal-containing vaccines do likely contribute to the causation of some form of autism, not the respondent’s burden to show that there is absolutely no possibility of a causal link.

Second, in my view the failure of so many studies to find any association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, while not completely ruling out a possible causal role with respect to a subset of autism, at least casts doubt upon the proposition that thimerosal-containing vaccines ever play a role in causing any kind of autism, including “regressive autism” or “clearly regressive autism.” This is especially true given the absence of any credible evidence that “regressive autism” or “clearly regressive autism” might constitute a distinctive subtype of autism that might be likely to have different causative factors than other forms of autism.

Summary concerning epidemiology (p. 96)

The numerous epidemiologic studies done over the past ten years, when taken together, make it extremely unlikely that thimerosal-containing vaccines have played any significant role in the overall causation of autism. It is true, as the petitioners argue, that the available epidemiologic studies do not completely rule out the possibility that thimerosal-containing vaccines might be associated with some small subgroup of autism, such as the newly-theorized subgroup of “clearly regressive autism.” However, the epidemiologic evidence still must be said to provide significant evidence against the petitioners’ general causation theory set forth in this case. First, none of the numerous competent studies has yielded the slightest bit of evidence in the petitioners’ favor.

Second, the failure of so many studies to find any association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, while not ruling out a possible causal role with respect to a very small subgroup of autism, at least casts doubt upon the proposition that thimerosal-containing vaccines have ever played a role in causing any kind of autism, including “regressive autism” or “clearly regressive autism.” This is especially true given the absence of any evidence that “regressive autism” or “clearly regressive autism” might constitute a distinctive subtype of autism that might be likely to have different causative factors than other forms of autism.

Accordingly, my conclusion is that the epidemiologic evidence does provide yet another strong reason to reject the petitioners’ general causation theory presented in this case.

Summary concerning “general causation” issue (p. 99)

For all the reasons stated above, I conclude that the petitioners have failed completely to demonstrate that it is “more probable than not” that thimerosal-containing vaccines can be a substantial factor in contributing to the causation of autism, in individuals suffering from regressive autism, “clearly regressive autism,” or any type of autism. To the contrary, the evidence in the record of this case makes it appear extremely unlikely that thimerosal-containing vaccines contribute to the causation of any form of autism.

Dr. Mumper’s reliance on the testing of Jordan was misplaced. (pp. 102-108)

[A] careful analysis of the record demonstrates that there is no valid basis for Dr. Mumper’s view that the results of mercury excretion testing on Jordan King offer support for a conclusion that thimerosal-containing vaccines played a role in causing Jordan’s autism. To the contrary, the evidence supports a conclusion that Dr. Mumper’s reliance on such mercury tests has no basis in science or logic. Indeed, upon cross-examination even Dr. Mumper acknowledged that there is no particular profile or pattern of post-provocation test results that points to a finding that a child has mercury-induced autism. When pressed, Dr. Mumper could not even suggest an example of any type of result on a post-provocation mercury urine test that would not, in her analysis, support a claim of mercury-induced autism. Dr. Mumper’s analysis in this regard was illogical, and completely unpersuasive. (Footnote: There are so many defects in Dr. Mumper’s testimony that it is impossible to list them all. But another major point of illogic in her testimony is that even if Dr. Mumper’s testimony showed that mercury did have some role in causing Jordan King’s autism, she made no case that the inorganic mercury resulting from thimerosal-containing vaccines would be the culprit, rather than the greater amounts of mercury that Jordan likely received from other sources.)

Summary concerning “specific causation” (p. 112)

I conclude that the petitioners have failed completely to demonstrate that it is “more probable than not” that thimerosal-containing vaccines contributed to the causation of Jordan King’s own autism.

Legal arguments raised by petitioners (p. 115-116)

In their initial post-hearing brief filed in this case, the petitioners set forth a brief discussion of the legal considerations in a causation-in-fact case, under the Program statute and the Althen test. Most of their points are correct statements of the applicable law. As the petitioners stress, their burden is to demonstrate causation by a “preponderance of the evidence” — i.e., “more probable than not” — not “scientific certainty.” Althen, 418 F.3d at 1279. They need not demonstrate that Jordan’s thimerosal-containing vaccines were the sole cause or even a predominant cause of Jordan’s autism, but only that thimerosal-containing vaccines were a “substantial factor” in causing his autism, and a “but for” cause. Shyface v. Secretary of HHS, 165 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioners’ causation showing need not necessarily be supported by epidemiologic evidence or other medical literature, but could, in appropriate circumstances, be accomplished by medical opinion and/or circumstantial evidence. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1279-80; Capizzano v. Secretary of HHS, 440 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Petitioners need not demonstrate the exact biological mechanism of causation. Knudsen v. Secretary of HHS, 35 F.3d 543, 549 (Fed. Cir. 1994). And the Federal Circuit has also stated that “close calls regarding causation are resolved in favor of injured claimants.” Althen, 418 F.3d at 1280.

I have kept all of these points in mind in deciding this case. I have not required a level of proof greater than “more probable than not,” which has also been described as “50 percent plus a feather.” I understand fully that petitioners are not claiming that Jordan’s thimerosal-containing vaccines were the sole cause of his autism, but are alleging only that such vaccines contributed to the causation of his autism, allegedly in concert with an underlying genetic vulnerability. I have looked beyond the epidemiologic evidence to determine whether the overall evidence — i.e., medical opinion, circumstantial evidence, and other evidence considered as a whole — tips the balance even slightly in favor of a causation showing as to Jordan’s autism.

This case, however, is not a close case. The overall weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to the petitioners’ causation theories. The result of this case would be the same even if I totally ignored the epidemiologic evidence. The result would be the same if I restricted my consideration to the evidence originally filed into the record of this King case, disregarding the additional “general causation” evidence imported from the Dwyer case. The petitioners’ evidence has been unpersuasive on many different points, concerning virtually all aspects of their causation theories, with each such deficiency having been discussed in detail above. The petitioners have failed to persuade me that there is validity to any of their general causation arguments, and have also failed to persuade me that there is any likelihood that Jordan’s thimerosal-containing vaccines contributed in any way to the causation of Jordan’s own autism. To the contrary, based upon all the evidence that I have reviewed, I find that it is extremely unlikely that Jordan’s autism was in any way causally connected to his thimerosal-containing vaccines. In short, this is a case in which the evidence is so one-sided that any nuances in the interpretation of the causation case law would make no difference to the outcome of the case.

Conclusion (p. 116)

The record of this case demonstrates plainly that Jordan King and his family have been though a tragic ordeal. I had the opportunity, in the courtroom during the evidentiary hearing, to meet and observe Jordan’s mother. I have also studied the records describing Jordan’s medical history, and the efforts of his family in caring for him. Based upon those experiences, the great dedication of Jordan’s family to his welfare is readily apparent to me.

Nor do I doubt that Jordan’s parents are sincere in their belief that vaccines played a role in causing Jordan’s autism. Jordan’s parents have heard the opinions of physicians who profess to believe in a causal connection between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. After studying the extensive evidence in this case for many months, I am convinced that the opinions provided by the petitioners’ experts in this case, advising the King family that there is a causal connection between thimerosal-containing vaccines and Jordan’s autism, have been quite wrong. Nevertheless, I can understand why Jordan’s parents found such opinions to be believable under the circumstances. I conclude that the Kings filed this Program claim in good faith.

Thus, I feel deep sympathy for the King family. Further, I find it unfortunate that my ruling in this case means that the Program will not be able to provide funds to assist this family, in caring for their child who suffers from a serious disorder. It is certainly my hope that our society will find ways to ensure that generous assistance is available to the families of all autistic children, regardless of the cause of their disorders. Such families must cope every day with tremendous challenges in caring for their autistic children, and all are deserving of sympathy and admiration. However, I must decide this case not on sentiment, but by analyzing the evidence. Congress designed the Program to compensate only the families of those individuals whose injuries or deaths can be linked causally, either by a Table Injury presumption or by a preponderance of “causation-in-fact” evidence, to a listed vaccine. In this case, the evidence advanced by the petitioners has fallen far short of demonstrating such a link. Accordingly, I conclude that the petitioners in this case are not entitled to a Program award on Jordan’s behalf.

George L. Hastings, Jr.
Special Master

Comments


  1. The problem is that of scientific education, because for all that this is without merit, the majority of those who believe in such conspiracies, simply do not have the scientific education to check out the original facts for themselves. They are forever beholden to interpreters, and unfortunately have chosen the most incompetent interpreters to plead there case.

    — Laurentius Rex    2010-03-13 09:33    #

  2. These decisions are so thorough, there’s a lot there to digest.

    Larry, I admit to being one of those people who are beholden to interpreters. Same goes for the parents in these OAP cases. I see no shame in it, but we should be able to rely on scientists and health care practitioners to act with integrity.

    It looks like the Special Masters in these cases put the blame on scientists and doctors where, I agree, the blame should lie. In the Dwyer case, Special Master Vowell said this: “Unfortunately, the Dwyers (and uncounted other parents of children with ASD) have relied upon practitioners and researchers who peddled hope, not opinions grounded in science and medicine.”

    — Anne    2010-03-13 21:52    #

  3. These were the best test cases the Petitioners were able to muster, and the best scientific evidence they had.

    They were given what, 5 years to prepare their case ?

    — _Arthur    2010-03-14 14:50    #

Add a comment


Name
E-mail
http://
Message
  Enter links as text in quotes, colon, URL
Example: "Google":http://google.com
Textile Help