MMR compensation payout

[chaggle]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...-18-years.html

In a six-page judgment, the panel which examined the case said: 'Robert was a more or less fit boy who, within the period usually considered relevant to immunisation, developed a severe convulsion ... and he then went on to be epileptic and severely retarded. The seizure occurred ten days after the vaccination. In our view, this cannot be put down to coincidence."

A Department of Health spokesperson said: "This decision reflects the opinion of a tribunal on the specific facts of the case and they were clear that it should not be seen as a precedent for any other case. The safety of MMR has been endorsed through numerous studies in many countries. Thankfully, more parents are having their children vaccinated with MMR and consider it as safe as other childhood vaccines.

Not autism - but can we expect an awful lot of "I told you so" comments?

[DrS]

The Telegraph seems to be trying to make some mileage out of linking these stories. The award is based on a possible/probable extreme reaction to the vaccine to which the child was genetically predisposed. It's not even proven, but "unlikely to be coincidence". So a rare instance that has nothing to do with autism and, as the article says, the report on autism has been "discredited". So why link it so prominently in the article?

Buried in the depths is

The panel said that the judgement was specific to the particular case and should not be seen as a precedent. It underlined in particular that the ruling had no relevance to the question of a link between MMR vaccine and autism.