NOT ALL PARENTS’ FRUSTRATIONS CALMED BY COURT’S DECISION. March 1, 2009 Copyright ARLADEAN ARNSON Published on personal blog.

The US Court of Federal Claims has issued three decisions on February 12th about the safety of vaccinations and the onset of Autism in young children. All three Special Masters found that the claimants have failed to prove their claims. Special Master Vowell went as far as to say, “[the] Respondent’s experts were far more qualified, better supported by the weight of scientific research and authority, and simply more persuasive on nearly every point in contention.” (ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/vaccine/Vowell.Snyder.pdf)

The US Court of Federal Claims has nationwide jurisdiction over any monetary claims against the US government. Its jurisdiction has been broadened several times including in 1987 via the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to include the injuries attributed to specified vaccines.

The first case, Cedillo vs. Secretary of Health and Human Services, sought entitlement for three separate issues: the MMR vaccine causes Autism, the MMR vaccine causes Gastrointestinal Dysfunction, and Thimerosal in the MMR vaccine causes Immune System damage. The second case, Hazlehurst vs. Secretary of Health and Human Services, sought entitlement for the issue of a combination of Thimerosal and the MMR vaccine directly causes regressive Autism. The third case, Snyder vs. Secretary of Health and Human Services, sought entitlement also for the issue of a combination of Thirmerosal and the MMR vaccine directly caused, in this case, a development of a pervasive developmental disorder [PDD].

What these three cases have in common, the onset of Autism in a young child, has been a matter of wide debate for over 10 years. A quick look at the articles about the seemingly jump in reported cases of Autism and Autism Spectrum Disorders [ASD] is alarming.

The correlation of this jump and the new vaccines ordered in the late 1980’s seemed a likely connection. However, now with the Court’s decisions, has the last hope for the parents who are looking for answers for their children expired?

Several articles and blogs have appeared since the decisions that say that not all is lost and the debate is not over yet!

Some bloggers, like Jay Gordon MD, are angry at the decision. In his post at the Huffington Post (www.huffingtonpost.com) he states, “They [US Court of Federal Claims, Special Masters] were disdainful and unscientific in their approach and did not gather the needed evidence”. He thinks that “they should have insisted on further studies to assist in the decision-making process”.

This week’s online edition of the Age of Autism (http://www.ageofautism.com) sites two related court cases and several US Federal agencies with interests in this issue. The court cases, by the way, highlight two defendants who won their fight and will receive compensations for their injuries.

This publication also reports that the US government and other top research institutions are in favor of looking deeper into the “vaccinated vs. unvaccinated child” issues and “the health impact of the immunization schedule”.

Another important figure, Barbara Loe Fisher the Co-founder & President, NVIC, stated in her watchdog groups response that appeared quickly after the announcement by the US Court of Federal Claims, that there is hope through renewed interest in further research. She shows us that The Special Masters in the US Court of Federal Claims can only make decisions based on printed medical evidence yet most of the current printed research is funded by the government or the pharmaceutical companies. Although this dichotomy exists, the US Department of Health and Human Services still supports ongoing research. She calls for independent researchers without ties to industry or government agencies concerned about protecting the status quo”. Ms. Fisher adds, “Science is not static but evolving.” And, this is a positive statement.

While many other bloggers and writers across the nation tout that the decision is a “victory for practical medicine” as Terry L. Mitchell writes in the American Chronicle (www.americanchronicle.com), still others say the Court’s decision has liberated researchers to now “intensify the scientific search for autism’s cause” (http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090216/OPINION11/902160303/1004/OPINION).

So, the debate seems to continue. “Free and fair discussion will ever be found the firmest friend to truth,” G. Campbell once wrote. Parents will still be able to rely on there being a lot of information to sift through and understand in their quest to help their children gain healthy lives.