In 2005 the VICP ruled that if a petitioner were able to propose a biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine might contribute to harm, as well as a logical sequence of cause and effect, then an award should be granted. Hannah Poling’s parents believed that vaccines had triggered her encephalopathy. Going by the case made out to them, the VICP accepted that the petitioners in the Poling case had a biologically plausible basis for arguing that vaccines might have aggravated Hannah’s underlying mitochondrial disorder as well as a logical series of events. An award was therefore granted in this case. The fact that encephalopathy (unlike autism) is listed in the VICP Vaccine Injury Table would also have made it easier for the Polings to present a successful case.

What I was referring to was my blogpost from the same day as this blogpost i.e. of 30th May.

As in this:
http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2.....-not-over/

John – apologies for the slow replay. Quite rushed work-wise at the moment…will have a think about this and then get back to you. Which post did you have in mind?

Can you get back to me on my suggestion above?

Also, before you posted, can you confirm whether or not you’d seen my blog post from the same day?

I’m assuming that they include the resulting damage (from the encephalopathy) to help determine compensation?

Yes and no. Pain and sufferint is capped at $250,000. It is likely the same regardless. Anything above that is based on need or, as I recall, lost wages of the injured. If the family can argue autism-specific costs that should be covered, those would be included in the compensation.

Those calculations can get rather detailed. For example, I believe it was in the Suel case, they included some figure (down to the penny) for a cart the child used for recreation/play. They figured a lifetime of the cart, and, thus, how many times it would have to be replaced.

It will be based on demonstrated and predicted needs. I don’t know if they reimburse for expenses already incurred (I would assume so). If so, it would be interesting to see if they ask for reimbursement for, say, the chelation therapy they performed. Since this was a therapy supposedly to treat autism, they could argue it. Since it is not a treatment for autism, HHS could very easily argue against it.

To me it seems much more logical that she already had autism (lets bear in mind that the Cedillo’s swore up and down Michelle was regressive when she clearly wasn’t) and the vaccines she received caused encephalopathy – QED some of the symptoms appeared to be repeated.

Lets also not forget that despite certain writers claims there is no such things as ‘autistic encephalopathy’ in the medical literature. except when written by certain well known autism/vaccine researchers.

I’m assuming that they include the resulting damage (from the encephalopathy) to help determine compensation?

the required level of proof was reached that Hannah Poling suffered an encephalopathy, resulting in permanent injury. That is the qualifying injury, not autism or ‘features of autism’. Autism or ‘features of autism’ are to be compensated as a result of the injury, just as the seizure disorder is. What the level of proof needed to include these (autism and seizures) is a lot more vague than the already vague level of proof required for an injury.

That stated, this case does not set a new precedent. Autism has been compensated as a part of vaccine injury in the past. Consider the the Suel case (and others discussed on neurodiversity.com).

In terms of the Omnibus and any other civil litigation, this case does not advance the idea of vaccine injury causing autism

A civil case would be argued in front of a jury, so this would be less clear. In the Omnnibus, judged (Special Masters) are deciding, so it will be much more difficult for the lawyers to confuse the issue.