Georgia Parents and Children Affected By Vaccine Rulings

Many Georgia parents, and thousands of parents across the country who have children suffering from autism, received bad legal news today. They had claimed that childhood vaccines had caused their children to develop autism.
In a long awaited decision, a special court rejected their claims and ruled that they are not entitled to federal compensation. The decision in three test cases is a severe blow to a national movement that has argued that childhood vaccines have been responsible for the surge in autism diagnoses in the United States in recent decades.
The majority of the scientific community, backed by federal health agencies, has argued there is no link between vaccines and autism. They also argue that deterring parents from vaccinating their children places children at risk for a host of serious childhood diseases.
The decision was handed down by a special panel of three independent special masters. The burden of proof placed upon the parents was that of a preponderance of the evidence. That is, a showing of more likely than not.
The vaccine court was set up by Congress as part of what is known as the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It was primarily designed to compensate the fraction of people who suffer serious side effects from vaccines. Rather than have the victims sue vaccine makers in regular court the Congress set up a “no-fault” system that required victims to prove to a special master only that vaccines had harmed them.
Thousands of cases charging childhood vaccines cause autism have been filed in the vaccine court in recent years. In an effort to streamline the proceedings, the court decided to hear three cases that suggested different mechanisms by which vaccines might have caused autism. It was the rulings on those three cases that were announced today.
In a harsh ruling on one case, special master George Hastings said the parents of Michelle Cedillo — who had charged that a measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine caused their child to develop autism — had “been misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment.”
Two other special masters reached similar conclusions in their cases.
The ruling does not preclude appeals.