NYT: Inoculated Against Facts

[varkam]

Inoculated Against Facts
By PAUL A. OFFIT
Published: March 31, 2008

ON March 6, Terry and Jon Poling stood outside a federal courthouse in Atlanta, Ga., with their 9-year-old daughter Hannah and announced that the federal government had admitted that vaccines had contributed to her autism. The news was shocking. Health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at the American Academy of Pediatrics have steadfastly assured the public that vaccines do not cause autism. Now, in a special vaccine claims court, the federal government appeared to have said exactly the opposite. What happened?

The answer is wrapped up in the nature of the unusual court where the Poling case was heard. In 1986, after a flood of lawsuits against vaccine makers threatened the manufacture of vaccines for children, Congress created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, financed by a tax on every dose of vaccine.

As part of the program, a group of scientists, doctors and lawyers listed all the health problems that might be linked to vaccines. The oral polio vaccine could in rare cases cause paralysis, for example, and an early version of the rotavirus vaccine might cause intestinal blockage. (In the interest of full disclosure: I am a co-inventor and co-patent holder of a newer rotavirus vaccine.)

If, at a trial in a special court, a preponderance of scientific evidence suggested that a vaccine caused one of these problems, a family would be compensated quickly, generously and fairly. Because no one could sue vaccine makers without going through this special court, the number of lawsuits against vaccine makers fell drastically.

more after the jump...

Interesting op-ed. I didn't realize that the court backed off from the preponderance of evidence standard (which is common throughout the realm of civil litigation) and is using mere plausibility, even despite contradictory evidence.

[trotsky]

1. Ooh... the anti-vaxers DESPISE Offit.

And from this op-ed, we clearly see why.

An expert who testified in court on the Polings’ behalf claimed that the five vaccines had stressed Hannah’s already weakened cells, worsening her disorder. Without holding a hearing on the matter, the court conceded that the claim was biologically plausible.

Man, that really puts that ruling in a different light. The science haters will be ignoring this thread, that's for sure. Well, that or descend in droves to declare you (and Offit, of course) drug company lackeys.

[xchrom]

2. recommend

[Jim__]

3. A law professor's view of the VICP standard of proof differs considerably from Offits.

Offit claims: Now, petitioners need merely propose a biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine might cause harm — even if their explanation contradicts published studies.

That should sound suspicious to just about anyone. Stephen D. Sugarman, J.D. (a law professor) wrote an article in September 2007 for the New England Journal of Medicine. His description of the standard of proof in vaccine court sounds somewhat stricter than Offits:

To win a VICP award, the claimant does not need to prove everything that is required to hold a vaccine maker liable in a product liability lawsuit. But a causal connection must be shown. If medical records show that a child had one of several listed adverse effects within a short period after vaccination, the VICP presumes that it was caused by the vaccine (although the government can seek to prove otherwise). An advisory committee helps to amend the list of adverse effects as the consensus view changes with the availability of new studies. If families claim that a vaccine caused an adverse effect that is not on the list, the burden of proof rests with them. Autism is not on the list for any vaccine, and the VICP has rejected about 300 such claims outright.

...

In the VICP context, proof of causation does not need to be shown to the extent of what some might call scientific certainty. Rather, it suffices to prove causation according to the civil-law standard of "the preponderance of the evidence," showing that causation is "more likely than not." Although proving a mere possibility won't suffice (this seems to directly contradict Offits assertion - Jim), proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not required.

There are numerous other errors in Offits essay (e.g. An expert who testified in court on the Polings’ behalf claimed that the five vaccines had stressed Hannah’s already weakened cells, worsening her disorder. Without holding a hearing on the matter, the court conceded that the claim was biologically plausible. - the court did not rule, the case was conceded; and (as acknowledged by the NY Times), the expert did not testify in court); but, I believe Offits claim that petitioners need merely propose a biologically plausible mechanism is the main thrust of his essay; and, I believe the statement by Sugarman refutes that claim.

[Celebration]

4. Althen v. Sec'y of HHS

Here is the discussion of the case that lightened the burden of proof

http://www.vaccineinjury.org/landmark.asp

In Althen v. Sec'y of HHS, a landmark decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court lightened the burden of proof for petitioners in the Vaccine Program. Previously, the courts had described a petitioner's burden as "heavy lifting." However, the Court made clear a person need only show a vaccine was the

likely cause of the injury.

While expert testimony will still be necessary to prove a claim, the expert may base the opinion on circumstantial evidence, rather than direct, objective conclusive scientific evidence. A petitioner need only show: (1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccine and the injury; (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing the vaccine is the reason for the injury; and (3) a proximate temporal relationship between the vaccine and the injury. Close questions of causation, the Court ruled, should be decided in favor of the petitioner.

Let's see

"Likely cause of the injury" sounds way more like "preponderance of the evidence" than it sounds like "biologically plausible."

And, oh, I am just so sure that this misinterpretation of the burden of proof has nothing to do with his ties to Merck.

:sarcasm:

[trotsky]

5. Real-world facts would appear to support Offit, not Sugarman.

In 2006, for example, Dorothy Werderitsh claimed in the vaccine court that a hepatitis B vaccine had triggered an autoimmune response in her brain that led to multiple sclerosis. Two large studies had clearly shown that hepatitis B vaccine could neither cause nor exacerbate multiple sclerosis, but the court ruled in favor of Ms. Werderitsh, elevating a hypothesis above epidemiological evidence.

That's clearly beneath the "preponderance of evidence" standard that had been required in years past.

And to nitpick Offit's article because he wrote that a particular expert had testified in court, when in fact the expert had submitted an written affidavit, is pretty silly.

But the anti-vax movement appreciates your efforts, I'm sure.

[Jim__]

6. When it comes to real-world facts, Offit's article is not even in the game.

If you've reviewed the facts (the facts that are accepted by everyone) and then read through Offit's article, he's repeatedly gets essential facts wrong. I can list some of them if you want.

To accept a legal interpretation published in a non-reviewed essay by a medical doctor over a legal interpretation published in a peer-reviewed journal by a law professor; speaks volumes.

[varkam]

7. But did Offit get the facts right on the Werderitsh case? eom

[Jim__]

8. No!

Here's Offit's statement:

The system worked fine until a few years ago, when vaccine court judges turned their back on science by dropping preponderance of evidence as a standard. Now, petitioners need merely propose a biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine might cause harm — even if their explanation contradicts published studies. In 2006, for example, Dorothy Werderitsh claimed in the vaccine court that a hepatitis B vaccine had triggered an autoimmune response in her brain that led to multiple sclerosis. Two large studies had clearly shown that hepatitis B vaccine could neither cause nor exacerbate multiple sclerosis, but the court ruled in favor of Ms. Werderitsh, elevating a hypothesis above epidemiological evidence.

Go to reply #4 and follow the link to the court decision. This is the landmark decision that lightened the burden of proof. Right at the beginning of the decision, the Appeals Court states that they are ruling in her favor because she met the statutory burden for establishing causation by a preponderance of evidence

The precise decision that he is decrying; establishing the exact standard that Offit claims has been dropped; and led to the decision in Werderitsh.

[trotsky]

18. Um, stupid question here...

I don't see any reference to the Werderitsh case at the link referenced in post #4. You appear to have completely avoided the question here, of whether Offit reported the facts of the Werderitsh case correctly. Can you please answer that?

[Jim__]

20. No. The case referenced is the case that set the current standard in VICP cases.

Offit claims that this current standard does not use the preponderance of evidence as the standard - he states this explicitly with respect to Werderitsh. The standard setting case ruled on a Federal Appeals Court explicitly states that preponderance of evidence is the standard. It directly contradicts Offit's assertions about Werderitsh.

[trotsky]

21. No, it doesn't appear to.

The question here is whether Offit stated the facts of the Werderitsh case incorrectly. You have not shown this to be so, but instead keep bringing up the red herring about another case which lessened the burden of proof. Yes, it is true that Werderitsh came after. But you still have not shown that Offit was wrong. Keep trying if you wish.

[Jim__]

22. Yes, and one of the facts of the Werderitsh case that he mentions is the basis for the decision.

He cites Werderitsh as an example of the application of the dropping the preponderance of evidence standard. This standard was never dropped. Therefore, his claim as to what standard of evidence was determinative in the case is clearly incorrect.

It's not a minor point. If the studies he references exist (I'm sure the studies exist) and prove what he claims they prove; then that is a preponderance of evidence. If the standard is preponderance of evidence, and those studies did not measure up to that weight; they are not as conclusive as he claims. He did not give us direct reference to the studies, so, as of now, we have no way of knowing.

The standards for VICP cases changed in Althen; but Althen explicitly uses preponderance of evidence as its standard. If you maintain that Offit is correct; please cite the case where this standard was dropped. Maybe Offit can tell you. He left it out of his essay.

[trotsky]

23. But you see, if he described the Werderitsh case accurately...

then his point is made. Clearly Werderitsh did not have to meet the same level of proof that was supposedly established in Althen. The ball is in your court.

You cannot shove this burden of proof back on me. You said Offit was wrong. You can only show it by demonstrating Werderitsh had to meet a higher standard of evidence than Offit is claiming. If you do not, and instead just try pushing it back on me again, then I will know for certain you are wrong.

[Celebration]

24. And *clearly*

you are wrong.

Judges and courts always rely on legal precedent. Very occasionally, new law is made, such as in Althen, and after that all cases rely on the new precedent. Judges do not apply different standards of proof in different cases unless a new precedent is set.

Althen did lighten the burden of proof, in that it gave guidance on the types of evidence that could be considered. This change made it easier for the plaitiff to prove "preponderance of the evidence." However, in no way shape or form was preponderance of the evidence dropped. If it had been dropped, there would have been "new law" made. And there was no new law made in Werderitsh. Furthermore, never have I heard of any court that would give a judgment on something less than preponderance of the evidence. That's just plain crazy, and why varkam acted so surprised on reading this editorial.

Just because you disagree with the decision does not mean that preponderance of the evidence was not the standard.

In other words, you don't know what you are talking about. Orac at least knows what the standard of proof is. But you and Offit don't know anything about law, obviously.

If Offit wanted to decry the new standard set in Althen, then he could have done that, because it became easier after that to prove preponderance of the evidence. Instead, he completely screws up the whole thing by saying that preponderance of the evidence was dropped, when, in fact, it was not. It makes him look absolutely ignorant.

You know, he was just plain wrong and confused. But then he is a doctor, not a lawyer.

Have you ever taken even a business law course? Because if you have even taken the first law course, you learn about legal precedents, burdens of proof, etc. You really need to study the basics before commenting on something like this.

[trotsky]

25. If so, then you should be easily able to show it.

Have at it. I'm waiting. So far, neither you nor Jim___ have anything to back up your assertions. Show that Offit was wrong about the facts in the Werderitsh case.

Furthermore, never have I heard of any court that would give a judgment on something less than preponderance of the evidence.

My goodness, you really have no clue, do you? This isn't just "any court". That's the WHOLE POINT! Do you even understand what this thread is about? And you've got the gumption to stick your nose up at me. :rofl:

[Celebration]

26. sure, this shows it

If you can get it through your thick skull, Jim's post quotes the NEJM article--

"In the VICP context, proof of causation does not need to be shown to the extent of what some might call scientific certainty. Rather, it suffices to prove causation according to the civil-law standard of "the preponderance of the evidence," showing that causation is "more likely than not." Although proving a mere possibility won't suffice (this seems to directly contradict Offits assertion - Jim), proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not required."

This was written AFTER the Werderitsh case. Had it set new law, then the above statement would not have been in the article.

What part of reading comprehension don't you understand? The Werderitsh case is not online, the reason being that it set no new law and thus of limited importance.

[trotsky]

27. Can you please leave the personal insults out of this?

I understand why you're angry, though. You've failed again. All I'm asking for is proof that Offit's summary of the Werderitsh case is wrong. You STILL haven't provided it. Oh I understand all about precedent, my skull isn't quite that thick, thank you. But until and unless one of you can show Offit was wrong about Werderitsh, then the standard of proof in these cases is much lower than you are asserting. No matter what else has been said elsewhere. Understand?

[Celebration]

28. no, you just disagree with the decision

And ASSUME that the standard of proof had to be different.

[trotsky]

29. If the decision was as Offit relates,

then the standard WAS different. That's why it would be so easy for you to settle this issue, but you won't. Or can't.

[Celebration]

30. Not going to a law library

to find out what I already know is true.

[trotsky]

35. If that's how you have to back down, so be it. n/t

[Jim__]

31. I've shown you the evidence that Offit is wrong.

Specifically, the Federal Appeals Court ruling that expicitly stated that the preponderance of evidence is the standard; I also cited an article in a refereed journal by a law professor that explicitly states that in these cases, preponderance of evidence is the standard of proof.

Offit offered no evidence to back his assertion. Offit offered the Werderitsh case as an example. He did not claim that Werderitsh explicitly stated that the court used his claimed standard to decide the case:

The system worked fine until a few years ago, when vaccine court judges turned their back on science by dropping preponderance of evidence as a standard. Now, petitioners need merely propose a biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine might cause harm — even if their explanation contradicts published studies. In 2006, for example, Dorothy Werderitsh claimed in the vaccine court that a hepatitis B vaccine had triggered an autoimmune response in her brain that led to multiple sclerosis. Two large studies had clearly shown that hepatitis B vaccine could neither cause nor exacerbate multiple sclerosis, but the court ruled in favor of Ms. Werderitsh, elevating a hypothesis above epidemiological evidence.

If Offit's claims were all true; then the studies would prevent anyone from presenting a plausible biological theory to prove what the studies had already proved couldn't happen. Offit's claim makes no sense under any standard of proof. The stidies are clearly not as conclusinve as he claims. Of course, we can't check, because he didn't bothe to tell use what studies he was talking about.

I've given 2 instances of evidence that explicitly contradict Offit's claim. Neither you nor Offit has provided any evidence to support his claim.

Anyway, I'm not going to play: yes he did, no he didn't. If you have evidence, provide it. Otherwise, you clearly cannot provide the evidence; and Offit clearly didn't provide any. If he were right; citing the court case that established the standard would be simple. No such court case exists. Offit should not have been trying to argue the law. He screwed up his argument.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, Offit's claim has been clearly refuted. It will take the citation of a court case that back his claim that the court dropped the preponderance of evidence standard.

[trotsky]

33. You've tried desperately to avoid the burden of proof here.

I'm not letting you off the hook. Sorry. You said he was wrong, you have to prove it. You haven't.

[Celebration]

36. And you have said your hero Orac is wrong

Now prove it!

[trotsky]

37. Red herring.

Ah, the smell of desperation.

[Jim__]

38. Clear proof. The standard as set by the Appeals Court.

Versus a claim by Offit with nothing to back it up.

[trotsky]

40. He named a specific court case.

So it is factually incorrect to claim he backed it up with nothing. I was able to find it online with minimal searching.

However, it would be factually correct to say that YOU have nothing to back up your claim that he was wrong. To prove your point, you simply have to demonstrate how he got the facts of the Werderitsh case wrong. But you have avoided that, again and again and again.

Yes, precedent is important. However IF Offit is correct about the details of that case, then the panel/judge in that situation discarded the previous standard.

So just show he's wrong. You simply haven't, and I suspect now that you can't.

[Jim__]

42. You're wrong! Althen is the clear standard even when Werderitsch is cited as a precedent.

From Ross v Dept HHS:

Even if the findings alone from Werderitsch and Gilbert could be separated from their underlying evidence and imported into this case, Ms. Ross’s case would still lack an essential
element of proof. Ms. Ross has cited no evidence that demonstrates the second factor required by Althen (e.g. Althen is the standard - Jim) – a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason
for the injury.

Go ahead. Continue to deny the clear, obvious, and documented facts. Althen explicitly states that "preponderance of evidence" is the standard. Offit explicitly states "preponderance of evidence" was dropped as the standard. Offit is clearly wrong.

[trotsky]

43. Wow, that link actually supports Offit.

Ross was bringing a case and cited Werderitsch, but it was noted that even if she had done so, she'd still be missing a piece. Implying that in Werderitsch, that piece was missing.

Just analyze the case at hand, Jim. You keep waving your hands, "look here! No, Look here!" and ignore the very heart of the matter.

[Jim__]

45. Wrong again! Read the case.

The evidence cited from Werderitsch is that the Hepatitis B vaccince can cause a demyelinating disease. But that evidence, by itself, is insufficient (as that evidence alone would be insufficient in Werderitsch):

Despite her contentions, Ms. Ross cites no evidence of a medical theory connecting the
vaccination and her injury. See Pet’r. Br. Rather, in support of her claim, Ms. Ross cites to two
cases in which a special master found, based upon the evidence presented in those cases, that
petitioners proved that the hepatitis B vaccine caused a demyelinating disease. Werderitsch v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., Fed. Cl. No. 99-310V, 2006 WL 1672884 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr., May 26, 2006) and Gilbert v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., Fed. Cl. No. 04-455V,
2006 WL 1006612 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr., Mar. 30, 2006).

Once again, this directly contradicts Offit. If the cited evidence was all that Werderitsch had, the case could be overturned because it lacked the requirements from Althen. Offit stated that a plausible biological theory is all that's required. This is a decision directly rejecting a plausible biological theory as sufficient.

Once again, we have the courts explicitly rejecting criteria as determinative that Offit claims is determinative.

You are now denying the obvious.

[trotsky]

47. As soon as you show Offit is wrong about the Werderitsch case,

I'll gladly admit error. But you still haven't. It may very well be that a higher standard was required in the Ross case. But that fact in and of itself doesn't prove Offit wrong. You MUST address the Werderitsch case, and you have refused. I can only guess why.

[Celebration]

50. Send us a copy of it

I am editing this to add text.

The case cited proves that Althen is the standard for proof, not Werderitsch. That is all that is required to show that no new law was made in Werderitsch, as "preponderance of the evidence" was and remains the standard burden of proof.

[Jim__]

52. The Werderitsch case is completely immaterial as to the standard.

Offit claimed that "preponderance of evidence" was dropped as the standard:

The system worked fine until a few years ago, when vaccine court judges turned their back on science by dropping preponderance of evidence as a standard. Now, petitioners need merely propose a biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine might cause harm — even if their explanation contradicts published studies.

Althen set the standard. And Althen explicitly states that "preponderance of evidence" is the standard to be used. Offit is clearly wrong. He is also wrong with respect to his statement about biological plausibility being sufficient. He probably should have talked to a lawyer before attempting to write a piece about judicial standards. Actually, he should have asked a lawyer to write the article.

And if Offit were right about the Werderitsch case, the case could be appealed because it didn't adhere to Althen.

[Celebration]

53. yes, because the article could have enlightened us

About the new standards set in Althen, and how it affected Werderitsch. There was probably something to be said about these new standards. He could actually have made some decent points.

Instead, he completely screws it up. Any lawyer would look at that op ed or whatever it was and raise eyebrows. Vaccine court or not, it makes zero sense for any court to drop preponderance of the evidence. Then just a cursory glance at the cases, law review articles, etc., make him look completely ignorant. But don't expect the Times to do a retraction (which they should).

[trotsky]

55. I'll repeat my challenge for you, too.

Send the NYT this info about Offit's egregious error. When (if) they correct it, post a link to the correction here and I'll eat crow.

'Til then.

[Jim__]

68. I agree.

There probably is a legitimate point to be made about Werderitsch and the new standards.

But, if Offit made that case, he would be asking for a stronger standard of proof in vaccine cases than in other civil cases.

[Celebration]

69. maybe, or maybe not

There are those new rules in civil cases-- so called Daubert rules. Daubert addresses exactly who is allowed as experts, and what types of expert testimony are allowed.

I can't be sure, but it seems that Althen may have loosened these standards. While certainly preponderance of the evidence is still the burden of proof, the evidence allowed looks to be somewhat broader than what Daubert would ordinarily allow. I could be wrong about this. I am no expert. But I would think that these cases would be more difficult for the plaintiffs to win if some of the expert testimony was disallowed under Daubert rules-- and all this without changing the actual burden of proof--only changing what evidence was allowed to be submitted.

It might make for another good law review article. But Offit certainly does no favor to his position by misstating about everything.

[trotsky]

54. You keep missing the point.

I sound like a broken record here. All you have to do is show he got the details of the Werderitsh case wrong.

Since you absolutely refuse to do so, I consider your accusation unproven, and this discussion over.

But hey, since you're so darn sure Offit is wrong, I suggest you e-mail the NYT and Offit himself. You'll be a hero to anti-vaxers! Send me the link to the NYT's correction notice when you've done that. Thanks!

[Celebration]

58. all you have to do is send us the case!

We have both proven our points.

As soon as you get Orac to correct what you say is an error (50% and a feather), then I will write the NY Times. The Times can do or say whatever it wants. As far as I can tell its motto should be "all the unnews that is unfit to print."

[trotsky]

59. Send me the NYT correction link. n/t

[Jim__]

60. Obviously Offit was wrong with respect to Werderitsch.

He claimed that Werderitsch was an example of the application of dropping the preponderance of the evidence standard:

The system worked fine until a few years ago, when vaccine court judges turned their back on science by dropping preponderance of evidence as a standard. Now, petitioners need merely propose a biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine might cause harm — even if their explanation contradicts published studies. In 2006, for example, Dorothy Werderitsh claimed in the vaccine court that a hepatitis B vaccine had triggered an autoimmune response in her brain that led to multiple sclerosis. Two large studies had clearly shown that hepatitis B vaccine could neither cause nor exacerbate multiple sclerosis, but the court ruled in favor of Ms. Werderitsh, elevating a hypothesis above epidemiological evidence.

The "preponderance of evidence" standard was never dropped. Therefore, Werderitsch cannot be an example of this alleged "new standard". Ross also clearly states that, based on the standard (Althen) merely showing biological plausibility is not sufficient. Offit is wrong on both counts. QED.

[trotsky]

61. If it's obvious, send it to the NYT and send me the correction link. n/t

[Celebration]

46. reading comprehension again

She was not able to cite Werderitsch as a case for showing that the vaccine could cause demylinating disease. The rules are such that this evidence for causation has to be presented in each case. Furthermore the special master is able to interpret that evidence as he sees fit.

In this case, she did not produce such evidence.

Had she produced such evidence, it may or may not have helped, but anyway, she lacked evidence for a second necessary element that was required by Althen-- a logical sequence of cause and effect.

In no way does this imply that anything was missing in Werderitsch--what it does imply is that Althen is the standard, because he cites two different pieces of proof that are needed with Althen, neither of which she had. So she lost the case.

The only reason he even mentioned Werderitsch is because the woman wanted to rely on it to show that the vaccine could cause demylinating disease. But apparently one needs to submit this evidence separately in each case. So Werderitsch did not help her. Werderitsch was only brought up for that one point, not for having anything to do with the preponderance of evidence standard.

[trotsky]

48. See #47, tag-teamer. n/t

[Jim__]

51. Exactly.

Althen is the standard. And Althen explicitly states that "preponderance of evidence" is the standard to be used.

[Celebration]

9. what speaks volumes

Is that he has developed a new vaccine, in partnership with Merck, and he wants the goalposts changed. Based on his "credentials" he then does an editorial for the NY Times that misrepresents the requirement for burden of proof. Oh, and this is the same newspaper that brought us Judith Miller!

[trotsky]

10. So this is what the anti-vax movement is left with, huh?

Character assassination and out-of-context cherry picking.

That's what speaks volumes.

On edit: Let me guess - the "list" of errors in Offit's piece comes from anti-vax hero David Kirby, right? The most hilarious thing about his hit piece? Kirby attacked Offit for referring to the Poling ruling as a "court case." Yet Kirby did exactly that in his original writeup! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html)

I'll await your denunciation of Kirby now too. I mean, you want to be consistent, right?

[Celebration]

11. Orac!!

While his logic is bad, Orac was right with the 50% and a feather..........

"50% and a feather."

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/02/incredible_shrinking_causation_claim.php

That was actually a thread here awhile back. I always thought it was 50% and a feather. I just don't know why that is supposed to be much comfort.

Do you disagree with Orac's description of the level of proof? The dude in the NY Times is some sort of snake oil salesman. It has no relation to reality. Sometimes you gotta just call a spade a spade. Maybe he was sleep deprived??

[trotsky]

12. Sorry, that wasn't Orac's description.

That was one particular lawyer's. Very nice try, though! I bet you thought you really had something there!

[Celebration]

13. Sorry, from his blog

"All the government conceded was that it is more likely than not (remember the "50% and a feather" rule) that vaccines aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder (almost certainly genetic) that manifested itself as a regressive encephalopathy that had features of ASD."

Read. If Orac concedes this, I am not sure why you aren't.

[trotsky]

15. Considering the facts of the Poling decision,

Offit's reasoning makes sense. At the very least, it is quite clear that the plaintiff faces a much, much lower bar than scientific consensus or certainly proof beyond reasonable doubt. Can I trust you to accept Orac's authority now on other issues?

[Celebration]

17. not at all

His logic is poor, but his fact about 50% and a feather is correct.

I'll reserve judgment on anything anyone says, and just look to the facts.

Good grief--you are correct that it is not "beyond a reasonable doubt". That is what is required in a criminal case. It is not required in a civil case.

Repeat after me--

50% and a feather--just like Orac stated.

[trotsky]

19. Thank you for confirming my suspicions. n/t

[Jim__]

14. No. The list of errors I compiled, I based on reading his essay ...

... and re-reading the information available from the Poling decision. But, all you really have to do is read Offit's essay; he contradicts himself. An essay with that level of sloppiness doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Besides, the simple fact is that Offit is making a legal argument that he has no qualifications to make, an argument for which he cites no legal support; and, an argument that is directly contradicted by legal experts.

[trotsky]

16. Well, let's see this list of yours then.

I mean, it's a LIST. Gotta be a ton of stuff on there. All cited and corrected from legitimate sources, right?

[Jim__]

32. See post #31.

As far as I am concerned, Offit's claim has been clearly refuted. Both by the citation of the Federal Appeals court ruling that did lessen the burden of proof for claimant; but explcitly retained the standard of "preponderance of evidence"; and also by an article in a refereed journal by a law professor that explicitly states that preponderance of evidence is the standard in these cases.

No one has provided any court case that states that the preponderance of evidence standard has been dropped. Only the citation of such a court case would provide credible evidence that Offit made a valid argument.

[trotsky]

34. That's no list. I called your bluff, and you backed down.

Just as I figured.

[Jim__]

39. Above you've accepted unsubstantiated claims over clear, documented proof.

There is no point to any discussion with someone who rejects clear proof.

[trotsky]

41. I'm beginning to see that is correct.

However I think you've got your parties turned around.

[bvve]

44. Dr. Poling's reply to Dr. Offit

Get Home Delivery Log In Register Now Home Page My Times Today's Paper Video Most Popular Times Topics
Opinion All NYT
Opinion World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Autos Editorials Columnists Contributors Letters The Public Editor Letters
Vaccines, Autism and Our Daughter, Hannah
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share
DiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalink

Published: April 5, 2008
To the Editor:

Skip to next paragraph
Related
Op-Ed Contributor: Inoculated Against Facts (March 31, 2008) Re “Inoculated Against Facts,” by Paul A. Offit (Op-Ed, March 31):

Our daughter, Hannah, developed normally until receiving nine vaccines at once. She immediately developed a fever and encephalopathy, deteriorating into what was diagnosed, based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or D.S.M. IV, as autism.

The federal government, not an “unusual court,” made the concession. The decision wasn’t “careless,” as your subheading called it. It was based on a thorough review of Hannah’s records by Health and Human Services doctors.

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program does rely on a “preponderance of evidence” standard, which Hannah’s case met. It doesn’t necessarily compensate families “quickly, generously and fairly.” We filed our claim six years ago, pain and suffering are capped at $250,000, and Hannah has yet to receive compensation.

Dr. Offit’s assertion that “even five vaccines at once would not place an unusually high burden on a child’s immune system” is theory and risky practice for a toddler’s developing brain. No one knows if Hannah’s mitochondrial dysfunction existed before receiving vaccines. Dr. Offit’s claim that Hannah had “already weakened cells” is unfounded.

We support a safe vaccination program against critical infectious diseases. We need straight facts, serious science and speedy answers on these important issues. Jon Poling

Terry Poling
Athens, Ga., April 3, 2008

The writers are, respectively, a neurologist and a lawyer and

[trotsky]

49. Dr. Poling makes a pretty significant error himself.

Our daughter, Hannah, developed normally until receiving nine vaccines at once.

Hannah received FIVE vaccines, which provide immunity for NINE different diseases. This kind of sloppiness makes me worried about this case. The anti-vax side exaggerates and misstates so blatantly.

[bvve]

56. check your "facts"

Please review the vaccine info described in the link provided. Although the MMR is on shot, it is still considered 3 vaccines. Dr. Poling letter does not suggest that he is anti-vax.
http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=75727

[trotsky]

57. Well that didn't take long to show I was right.

It's in the first sentence at your link.

The measles vaccine is contained in a combination vaccine called MMR

In fact, throughout that page, MMR is referred to as a single vaccine.

[bvve]

62. If you had read

the link, you would see that each VACCINE is contained in... I've pasted one such reference below.
MMR: Mumps Vaccine
The mumps vaccine is contained in a combination vaccine called MMR (measles, mumps and rubella, which is also known as German measles). MMR is given as a series of two doses at 12 to 15 months of age and at 4 to 6 years of age.

[trotsky]

63. Yet MMR itself is referred to as a single vaccine.

A combination vaccine. Good day.

[bvve]

64. And this one

is also from the same link:
MMR: Rubella Vaccine

The rubella vaccine is contained in a combination vaccine called MMR — measles, mumps and rubella (German measles). MMR is given as a series of two doses at 12 to 15 months of age and at 4 to 6 years of age.

[bvve]

65. To be complete

the last description noted below is for the measles vaccine



MMR: Measles Vaccine
The measles vaccine is contained in a combination vaccine called MMR (measles, mumps and rubella, also known as German measles). MMR is given as a series of two doses at 12 to 15 months of age and at 4 to 6 years of age.

[bvve]

66. Three vaccines in one

A Look at Each Vaccine: MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) Vaccine

Measles

[trotsky]

67. Thank you. You said it yourself.

Three vaccines in one

You can stop spamming now.