In a two-minute walk from the White House front door, on the eastern outskirts of Lafayette, there is the Howard T. Marky National Court building, a 9-story red brick building with dark, narrow windows. Inside federal judges, a set of cases and appeals relating to patent disputes, veteran privileges, oil spills, private claims to the government, and much more.
Eight of these judges belong to the Office of Specialist Craftsmen, a small division within the much larger federal claims court. For more than two decades, these legal minds have applied a profound understanding of medical science – including neurology, rheumatology and pediatrics ̵
This is a vaccine court whose employees deal with cases filed by individuals who claim that the vaccine has harmed them or their children. The Tribunal administers the National Vaccine Damage Compensation Program, which the Congress established in 1986 and is funded with a tax of 75 every per each child's vaccine sold in America. Since its foundation in 1988, the program has provided more than $ 4 billion in damages.
Each year, special masters of the court, appointed by the president and approved by the US Senate, receive around 500 petitions on pecuniary damage. As in a lawsuit, each claim is a legal charge for someone who says they have suffered from a prick in their hand or a thrust in their thighs. For each of them, specialist masters should answer the medical, but legally clear questions: Was the plaintiff damaged by the vaccine?
they were charged with vaccines, and paid over $ 22 million in lawyers' fees. (Courts pay these fees even when the applicant loses his case – a significant deviation from the standard practice that experts consider unique to the court for vaccination.) The system existed for more than three decades in order to serve a single and very important goal: to save the rescue market vaccines
"This is a non-guilty compensation program designed to encourage vaccination, encourage vaccine manufacturers to continue to produce vaccines, and compensate for the small but significant number of people who have suffered from the vaccine they receive," said the former head of the vaccine court, the chief specialist master Denise Wowell, explained in the 2015 video.
This does not mean that vaccines are inherently dangerous. More than 80% of the claims received by the court are resolved without concluding that the vaccine caused any injury. But the existence of the court, as well as the history of its creation, illustrate the complex realities of modern medicine – and the consequences, positive and negative, of its efforts to eradicate illness.
Road jurisprudence laid the foundation for judicial review of vaccines
The origins of the vaccine court can be traced back to the 1970s, when parents began to sue doctors and vaccine manufacturers through the assertion that vaccines for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus ( DPT shots) constitute a hazardous risk for children. One of the first lawsuits to succeed was Kevin Toner's parents after being vaccinated in Idaho in 1979.
"Kevin Toner, then a three month infant, was vaccinated with Tri-Immunol" – The DPT vaccine, as suspended in the United States, "and suffered a rare condition of the spine, known as transverse myelitis, the cause of which is unknown," noted the court documents. "As a result of suffering, Kevin is constantly paralyzed from the waist down."
Family lawyer Kenneth Pedersen recalls that as a young lawyer in the early 1930s, winning the case, he helped launch his own car. "The argument was that the vaccine could be safer," he said. "It was a terrible proposal that came to a huge pharmaceutical company. We had to prove that he was hurt."
A jury of six Yadhawans awarded toners 1.3 million dollars in their case against Lederle Laboratories vaccine manufacturers. Later toner graduated from college and settled in Salt Lake City with his wife and children. He is currently working in a large bank.
Toner's verdict came against the backdrop of national debates on the security of DPT images. Shortly before the case went through the court system, a documentary called "Vaccine Roulette" went to the NBC, scaring parents around the country about the dangers of the vaccine.
The American Academy of Pediatrics condemned NBC, saying "the complete absence of a balance between the scientific fact [caused] of extreme suffering and possibly irreparable harm to the well-being and well-being of children of the nation."
Nevertheless, the number of lawsuits on DTT injuries has increased rapidly, from what happened in one case in 1978 to 73 lawsuits in 1984. As Dr. Alan Hinman of JAMA Pediatrics in 1986 states, "the average amount required for a suit has risen from 10 to 46.5 million dollars."
Pedersen believes that it would be much more difficult to win cases of tort, like toner, once more scientific literature began to come out of the safety of the vaccine. "Medical literature appealed to us," he said.
Vaccines are extremely safe and evidence continues to be strengthened
The comprehensive DPT safety review, published in 1991, has determined that shots do not cause autism or other dangerous and chronic diseases such as attention deficit disorder or juvenile diabetes. The study revealed several notable exceptions when children developed an allergy or inflammation, and in another study, there were several cases where children were diagnosed with neurological damage after receiving the pertussis. But such cases are extremely rare, and it is very difficult to prove that the shootings were the culprit. These abnormalities are better understood in the wider context of vaccine safety. The vast majority of vaccines work as promised and do not cause serious or permanent side effects. As stated in the 1991 document, "besides pure water, no intervention has had such a profound effect on the reduction of mortality from childhood diseases as the widespread introduction of vaccines." Nevertheless, the financial implications of DPT lawsuits in the 1970s and 80s caused a nationwide shortage of vaccines and threatened to close the production of DPT vaccines in general. Soon doctors, health experts and pharmaceutical companies began lobbying the federal government to do something about rising costs for litigation.
Jonas Solk, who invented the first vaccine against poliomyelitis, was one of the experts who testified before legislators. Before his vaccine became widely used in 1955, poliomyelitis outbreaks caused more than 15,000 cases of paralysis in the United States every year.
"A live vaccine against the poliomyelitis virus now generates more than two cases of paralysis every year," said Solk to lawmakers. "Such cases occur in about 6-10 cases per year." He urged vaccine manufacturers to focus on the use of a larger number of non-paralytic poliomyelitis vaccines.
"In the case of vaccine-related injuries, it is clear that it would be much more desirable to avoid them," said Salk. "If there is a need for compensation, it seems to me that the legislation you propose would be desirable."
Two years later, the House hosted the Bipartisan National Childhood Vaccine Act of 1986. Senator Edward Kennedy later put his position in the larger bill on protection of health, which had already passed through the upper chamber. In November, President Ronald Reagan signed the law on amendments to the law, despite his "mixed feelings" and "reservations" about how the plan can compensate for people who do not need to prove any offenses from vaccine manufacturers.
This greatly facilitated the protection of lawyers, such as Pederson. "They got rid of the cause of causality, and you should not have to prove guilty," he said. "In general, I think that many people have received compensation that they would not have … Congress replied:" Do not let go of the court, let's take care of these children. "
Today, specialist masters are considering complaints of alleged injuries from 15 the most common childhood vaccine, as well as the flu. "It absorbs the controversy of the vaccine trauma and keeps them from lawsuits that can lead to great harm from the jury, which may endanger the production and availability of vaccines," – legal expert, Anna Kirkland, author of "Vaccine Court: law and injury policies, "said Business Insider in an e-mail message.
The vaccination court exists, in particular, in order to consider the fact that research and litigation are moving at different speeds. "We know that the pace of science and publishing is often slower than the pace of litigation," said Kirkland. "Some of these claims could have been mass litigation that could force manufacturers to quit the vaccine market."
Lawful scientific research has never shown a relationship between vaccines and autism. But collecting and analyzing the amount of data that these studies require requires a lot of time. The latest study, refuting the link to autism vaccine, published in the chronicles of internal medicine in early March, was based on the history of the disease of more than 650,000 Danish children collected over 14 years.
At the same time, academic powers can be used by bad actors. The first reviewed article that points to the relationship between vaccines and autism, published by the medical journal The Lancet in 1998, was a fraudulent study whose principal author processed key data.
However, by 2010, The Lancet completely abolished the article after journalist Brian Dir published a long statement. During the twelve interim years, the study sent rates of vaccination that plunged into the United States and the United Kingdom and provided fertile ground for vaccine-related conspiracy theories.
This dynamics sometimes extends to the vaccine court itself. Anti-vaccinated groups have stated that it is the very existence of which indicates that the vaccines are dangerous and offered $ 4 billion in litigation as evidence of widespread harm – even if most of the money was awarded in settlements where the court did not determine the exact cause of damage to the plaintiff. The relative uncertainty of the court and the difficulty of examining the tight legal and medical jargon of its consideration would probably contribute to the inaccurate opinion that the federal government regards the vaccine as a serious risk.
The coverage of vaccine news also did not help. In 1994, the Constitution of Atlanta, the New York Times, and the Associated Press reported that Miss America was deaf due to a bad reaction to a DPT shot. It took more than a week for the Times to fix the record, noting that the Queen of the Contest Heather Whitestone was deaf to meningitis, something (ironically) we now have for the vaccine.
Pharmaceutical companies may not produce vaccines if they have to deal with litigation
Vaccines are not the most profitable things drug manufacturers can produce: estimated to cost $ 135 to $ 500 million to develop a vaccine, It takes months (in the case of an annual influenza vaccine) more than ten years to improve the vaccine formula. When it's over, most vaccines are administered only one or two times, providing protection from exhausting and fatal diseases at a typical cost of about $ 30 per dose (without insurance).
Non-vaccination can be fatal. It can also be expensive. One unvaccinated six years old in Oregon recently received a tetanus when he cut himself out while playing the farm and was forced to be taken to a hospital. His final medical account was about $ 1 million. The tetanus vaccine, on the other hand, usually costs less than $ 30 (without any insurance) and there is almost 100 years.
Vaccines are intended to alert our bodies by causing immune responses to attenuated and murdered versions of the diseases from which they are protected. But in extremely rare cases, people can develop allergic reactions or autoimmune reactions to dangerous vaccines. The Guillain-Barré syndrome is a rare but temporary disorder that induces the immune system to attack the nervous system, which leads to any paralysis from an easy to life-threatening one. In rare cases, a flu outbreak may increase the risk of developing GBS, increasing the chances of a person developing syndrome by 1,000,000.
One such case was Wilma Gondhi of Colorado. She told Congress that she was vaccinated against swine flu on December 26, 1976. "Three weeks later," she said in her testimony, "my legs, feet, arms, hands, and the left side of my bones and speech began to blink. I felt that I was given novocaine. In addition to numbness, I felt very exhausted and weak.
This month, the court ruled on the various cases of Guillain-Barre influenza vaccine. One of them was released due to insufficient evidence, while the other four received one-time payments ranging from $ 150,150.58 to $ 255,829.99. The highest award that the court never issued for any kind of pain and suffering, including death, is $ 250,000, but this does not include the cost and loss of earnings, which means that the highest judicial level of the vaccine paid was 9, 1 million dollars.
The most common reason why people go to court for vaccination: because someone hit them incorrectly
Most of the legal cases of the vaccine, which the federal court sees, does not apply to the extremely minimal risks of vaccines. The overwhelming majority is caused by people who fall into the wrong side of the needle. The court calls this a Sick Vaccine Injury Injury (SIRVA), and these claims represent half of all cases when the court sees the vaccine. More dubious claims arise from the fears that the vaccine causes autism, which, if it is clear, is false, or is the result of people who have been injured by something other than a vaccine requiring cash.
"This is a difficult case with which you are dealing, because you are dealing with people who are almost 100% of the time suffering from injuries, namely, what caused this injury," Wowell said.
Recently the court began to ruin some of the most scandalous complaints. Take autism, for example. Last year, specialist master Brian Corcoran, in a decision to reject autistic petition filed in 2002, argued that "it is no longer appropriate for lawyers of the Program to bring such claims. If they do, they certainly should not expect compensation for the work done on them. "
" To resolve this issue, it will take almost n & # 39; eteen years, "explained Corcoran. "During this time, there were no claims that autism is a vaccine trauma. In the absence of a shocking and unpredictable outcome of scientific research, which confirms what is now understood as the absence of a relationship between vaccines and autism, none of them, most likely, there will be no future. "
Kirkland says the vaccine court continues to play a vital role: to provide people and vaccine manufacturers with an additional level of safety in a balancing and dangerously expensive healthcare system.
"We're doing so little for people with disabilities and for those who do not have a protective grid for injuries and healthcare costs," Kirkland said. She believes that the vaccine court will not be needed if the United States has a better health system because people with disabilities and injuries will simply get the help they need, regardless of what caused their injuries.
"Judicial payments for the vaccine," she said, "is an unusual point of generosity in our, otherwise, very tight system."