

Family to Receive $1.5M+ in First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award - edw519
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html

======
jameskilton
I've always been skeptical, and at times downright angry, of the vaccine-
causes-autism group as frankly it's been nothing but conjecture and sky-is-
falling. This case, though, seems to have been able to actually make a
connection between the two (though the article makes it very clear, the
vaccines did _not_ cause autism, they aggravated an existing condition that
brought about the autism).

I know people will use this case as a "I'll never vaccinate my child!" issue,
but that won't last once a kid dies of mumps or is paralyzed from polio for
the first time in decades. Overall I think this is a good decision. We really
don't know that vaccines are 100% safe, and especially in infants, and
especially all of that at once. We do want vaccinations, but we need to be
more careful about to whom and how we administer them, and this case will
hopefully bring about a new realm of research into this and it's relationship
with autism.

~~~
jules
Another problem with not vaccinating your kids is that it can kill other kids.
For example if your 10 year old gets the measles it's not a huge deal, but if
because of that the neighbor baby gets the measles, that _is_ a big deal.

~~~
OpieCunningham
Wouldn't that be the neighbor's fault, having not vaccinated their child? If
child X not being vaccinated and getting sick as a result is "not a huge
deal", then it should apply that if child Y not being vaccinated and getting
sick as a result is also "not a huge deal".

~~~
carbocation
Most vaccines are given several months after birth in order to allow the
immune system to develop first. (Neonates have impaired adaptive immune
systems. Although people are now experimenting with the concept of giving
vaccinations at birth, this is still largely done only in the research
context.) Thus, our youngest rely to a certain degree on herd immunity, which
is the phenomenon being described by the parent post.

In other words, it is a huge deal.

~~~
OpieCunningham
OK. So the risk is increased from existing (a pre-vaccine baby can catch a
disease from another pre-vaccine baby) to existing slightly more (pre-vaccine
baby catching disease from unvaccinated child).

Before I can agree that is a "huge deal", I'd like to see some numbers on the
degree this actually happens vs. the existing non-huge deal of pre-vaccinated
baby transmission to pre-vaccinated baby.

~~~
smokey_the_bear
It's happening in California right now with whooping cough -
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19363-whooping-
cough-o...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19363-whooping-cough-
outbreak-could-be-worst-in-50-years.html)

~~~
OpieCunningham
Thanks for the link! Definitely is an issue.

------
carbocation
From the medical perspective, legal opinions have absolutely no bearing on the
question of what does or does not cause any particular malady. These are
empirical questions that must be answered scientifically, not socially.

I've always found it to be silly that one of the defenses of vaccines is that
the courts had never awarded a payout such as the one in this article. That
proved (or disproved) nothing scientifically then, and it proves nothing now.

------
marknutter
This sets a dangerous precedent.

------
jonhendry
Not, actually. Apparently the journalist is a bit woo-y and got the facts
wrong.

The blogger Orac, a doctor, has a response at
[http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/09/cbs_news_resident_...](http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/09/cbs_news_resident_anti-
vaccine_propagand.php)

More at [http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/09/sharyl-attkisson-
bl...](http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/09/sharyl-attkisson-blogs-the-
hannah-poling-settlement/)

------
OpieCunningham
"Then-director of the Centers for Disease Control Julie Gerberding (who is now
President of Merck Vaccines)..."

Ah. An expert source...?

~~~
OpieCunningham
I'm marginally surprised that this was down voted.

The director of the CDC is now the President of Merck Vaccines. That's hardly
a trivial issue.

The problem with the topic of vaccination is that both sides are unreliable.
On the one hand you have a severe lack of qualified study and a fairly
disreputable unofficial spokes person (Jenny McCarthy) and on the other you
have such an abundance of studies that it becomes extraordinarily difficult to
determine whether or which of those studies have been compromised by
corruption and industry (the director of the CDC becomes the President of one
of a handful of major vaccine developers).

~~~
ZachPruckowski
Look, I'm worried about regulatory capture and the iron triangle and all of
that too, but people moving between the public and private sectors isn't in-
and-of-itself proof of any misdeed.

Look at this specific example - the jobs have basically identical
requirements: "distinguished medical doctor specializing in infectious
diseases with skills in administration and dealing with paper-pushers".

~~~
OpieCunningham
The indication alone is sufficient to question and doubt. Proof is only
necessary for conviction.

I'm quite sure the jobs have basically identical requirements. But the jobs
also have dramatically different task masters (corporate profit vs. public
good).

------
bosch
Well all I know is now that Jenny McCarthy has been proven smarter than all
those PhDs and thereby invalidated post-secondary education.

------
petervandijck
Sigh.

------
kreek
No matter which side of the debate you're on, I think we can agree giving a
child nine vaccines at once is probably not the best idea. We've spread out my
sons vaccines so he receives all the recommended ones but a few weeks apart.

~~~
carbocation
Hmm, I don't agree _prima fascie_ , that giving multiple vaccinations at once
is a bad idea. Empirical evidence is almost always necessary when dealing with
clinical questions such as this.

(Occasionally, overwhelming logic will suffice. E.g., sure, I agree that there
is no need for a clinical trial on parachutes for those jumping out of
airplanes.)

~~~
OpieCunningham
Isn't there overwhelming logic that bombarding a child's immune system with 10
or so strains of disease at one time is not ideal?

~~~
carbocation
You can't just prepend "Isn't there overwhelming logic that..." to your
opinion and expect me to agree.

My exception for "overwhelming logic" was intended to stave off the trivial
responses like, "Oh, so you think we should have clinical trials for
parachutes."

~~~
OpieCunningham
It's not necessary for you to agree. It's just necessary for me to point out
that there is overwhelming logic to the concept that injecting large numbers
of diseases into a child at one time is not ideal. That is the logical
starting position. Perhaps there will be evidence that it poses zero risk or
less risk than progressive vaccination. Or perhaps that evidence will never
exist.

~~~
carbocation
Obviously medical experts disagree with you, so I cannot say that it is
"overwhelmingly logical," at least not to those best equipped to understand
this issue.

Surely, if enough agree with you, however, then we will consider there to be
"clinical equipoise" and trials will be done.

~~~
OpieCunningham
So your starting position is that "medical experts", lacking trials, are de-
facto correct. That's not logical in and of itself. There are countless
examples throughout history of "medical experts" majority opinions being
revised down to the level of barbaric - yet at the time they were considered
by most people, similar to you, to be de-facto correct.

~~~
carbocation
Well, yes. In a disagreement, it is much more likely that domain experts are
correct than that you are correct. Whenever you find this not to be the case,
I would highly encourage you to take full advantage of the substantial
opportunity.

With regards to "barbaric" medical practice, you seem to be conflating pre-
scientific medicine with scientific medicine. "Experts" in ritualistic pre-
scientific medicine probably knew no more about disease than did the
completely uninformed. They were not "experts" in any meaningful sense. And,
indeed, had someone been around practicing evidence-based medicine at that
time, they could have completely changed the world.

As much fun as it is to talk philosophically about this, there are actually
plenty of people who have wondered about vaccine administration. From my
reading of the articles, the evidence does not show meaningful adverse effects
from the practice of multiple vaccination. I'd encourage you to do your own
reading on the topic.

~~~
OpieCunningham
> With regards to "barbaric" medical practice, you seem to be conflating pre-
> scientific medicine with scientific medicine.

Firstly, no I'm not. Secondly, you seem to believe scientific medicine is
effectively infallible. Nearly every day a new study indicates studies
performed just a year or two or ten ago are inaccurate. Indeed, that is the
very nature of science.

What we're discussing here is logic. It is not logical to accept the opinion
of a medical expert, particularly without trials. This is precisely why most
people will undertake the logical next step and seek a second opinion.
Ultimately, certainty is impossible but blind acceptance is rarely ever wise
and always illogical.

~~~
carbocation
But what is the logical default? Is it to space out vaccinations, or is it to
run them all together? There is no "logical" answer to that question, which is
why we have to turn to domain specific knowledge.

The fact that there is turnover in medical knowledge does not mean that your
personal preference carries the same weight as evidence or even expert
consensus.

