The report the settlement was based on was illegally leaked to the media. I think that the people who wrote the report would never have used “autism-like” if they knew it was going to be latched onto by the media and the anti-vaccine people.

I think the special masters have to sign off on the decision, but it is a pro forma decision if it is a table injury, which encephalopathy is. The only reason it took so long was because the Polings lawyer tried to use this encephalopathy as an autism test case (when it wasn’t). That is malpractice by the lawyers.

Then I’m completedly dumfounded.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=66#more-66

Originally, Hannah’s case was part of the Autism Omnibus proceedings. But, it was pulled out for a separate decision because of her diagnosed mitochondrial disorder.

The difference is that this was not part of the Autism Omnibus proceedings, as it is not listed here.

do special masters make the decision for all table injuries or does someone else – who determines whether something is a table injury or not?

and

due to the “autism-like” issues, was the Poling decision made by a special master who used the table for the appropriate encephalitis claim or did someone else make the decision because it was determined to be a table injury?

The Hannah Poling case has been discussed several times on this and other blogs.

I provided a link to some links in my Sept 13 comment.

It may have gone to a special master because of the autism claim, but it was compensated instead because she developed encephalopathy and that is already a table injury.

@SquirrelElite: that’s very interesting. I’d never heard of that project. Thanks for the info. And thanks for the hrsa info. I didn’t know about that, either. That’s why I love these blogs; I learn so much!

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statistics_report.htm#statistics_report

Since this represents claims that have actually been filed and are somewhere in the process of being evaluated and either compensated or dismissed, it has somewhat more statistical and historical validity than the VAERS numbers.

Also, I noted that they have been working for two years on a project

to review the epidemiological, clinical, and biological evidence regarding adverse health events associated with specific vaccines covered by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

The vaccines to be reviewed are

* varicella vaccines,
* influenza vaccines,
* hepatitis B vaccine,
* human papillomavirus virus vaccines,
* hepatitis A vaccines,
* meningococcal vaccines,
* measles-mumps rubella vaccines, and
* diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis vaccines

The committee will author a consensus report with conclusions on the evidence bearing on causality and the evidence regarding the biological mechanisms that underlie specific theories for how a specific vaccine is related to a specific adverse event.

Since the first meeting was in April 2009, perhaps the committee will finish the project and issue a report next year. That should be very interesting.