Lower evidence standard is blamed

Paul A. Offit, writing on the op-ed page of the New York Times, says the Hannah Poling decision relied on a relaxed standard of evidence, in which her parents needed only to propose a biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine might have harmed her. Earlier cases before the vaccine court were required to meet a higher standard: a preponderance of scientific evidence.

Without holding a hearing on the matter, the court conceded that the [Polings'] claim was biologically plausible. On its face, the expert’s opinion makes no sense.

… The vaccine court should return to the preponderance-of-evidence standard. But much damage has already been done by the Poling decision. Parents may now worry about vaccinating their children, more autism research money may be steered toward vaccines and away from more promising leads and, if similar awards are made in state courts, pharmaceutical companies may abandon vaccines for American children. In the name of trying to help children with autism, the Poling decision has only hurt them.

Paul A. Offit, chief of the infectious diseases division of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is the author of “Vaccinated: One Man’s Quest to Defeat the World’s Deadliest Diseases.”

This entry was posted on Monday, March 31st, 2008 at 4:50 am and is filed under autism, law, public health, vaccine. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.  Email This Post