They have to prove all of those things to a “preponderance of the evidence”, not to the laxer standard of “more likely than not” that was applicable in vaccine court.

More importantly, the Daubert standard would apply, unlike in the Vaccine Court.

The wording “that were unavoidable” shouldn’t be there because it makes the law ambiguous. If the vaccine was properly prepared, how can any side effects it causes be avoidable? Was the approval process so flawed that it let a vaccine that had avoidable side effects be approved?

If so, isn’t that a flaw of the approval process? If it is a flaw in the approval process, shouldn’t the government that operates the approval process be liable?

If they win this case, all it does is give them the right to sue and try and prove there was a defect, the defect was avoidable, and the avoidable defect is what caused the child’s seizure disorder.

They have to prove all of those things to a “preponderance of the evidence”, not to the laxer standard of “more likely than not” that was applicable in vaccine court.

Thanks for the link. Particularly of importance, I think, was this line:

The harm, moreover, may not have been unavoidable, as the parents believe, because the alternative vaccine was not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use on children as young as 6 months until years later.

The case WILL hinge on the courts interpretation of the Vaccine Injury Act, and a part of the analysis they use to come to that interpretation will be congressional intent for some justices. Others (i.e. the “conservatives”) will focus mostly on their interpretation of what the statutory language means and, I would argue, only appeal to legislative intent when it suits their interpretation of the language.

I’d be surprised if the majority gives much consideration to the policy implications on a question like this unless it’s just to illustrate congressional intent. Like you said Steve, the issue isn’t what the law should be, but what the law “is”, and the court seems to enjoy reminding congress that it’s congress’ job to write good policy, not the courts

The Australian Vacination network (AVN) Australia’s version of AoA has had a very bad couple of months sued for copyright infringement, smacked down by the health care complaints comission for publishing false and misleading information and has culminated in the loss of their charitable organisation status only yesterday.

A win that many australian Skeptics and others parties have been waiting for.

Also (and I have not yet had time to look into this), at the time the vaccine was administered to their child, was the DTaP still under patent? If so, then Wyeth would not have been able to provide the safer alternative in any event.

There is always doubt in this kind of research. You cannot prove this kind of negative, you can only make judgments about how far existing evidence goes to minimizing the possible remaining effect size. That is why reviews will almost always make statements that seem ambiguous.

But the bottom line remains – we cannot conclude from the evidence that there is an increased risk of neurological damage from the DTwP. This is, BTW, the same that can be said for silicone implants and autoimmune disease. The level of confidence is not precisely the same, but the situations are analogous.

This line of thinking can ultimately lead to the wrong conclusions, because it does not convey how extremely rare genuine conspiracies are in relation to proposed conspiracies. In your statements you are acknowledging that one extreme isn’t true, but then leave the whole rest of the spectrum as all possible.

I would continue with ‘Are most things conspiracies? No. Are there a lot of conspiracies? No. Are genuine conspiracies pretty rare and generally isolated to a small group of people? Yes’

The conspiracy line of thinking is an overemphasis of distrust, and is a problem because it prevents people from keeping their eyes on the ball. People worry about the wrong things… spend little time concerned about things with the highest risk, and spend too much time worrying about the rare but sensational risks.

Plus, also read the court decision I posted. Perhaps it takes someone who is more acquainted with seizure disorders (like me, a parent of a child who experienced something similar, only not anytime near a vaccine) to fully appreciate it.