Last month, the first of 4,800 cases came before the U.S. Federal Claims court, referred to as the "Vaccine Court." Michelle Cedillo is the "test case" to discern whether there is a likely connection between the MMR vaccine, autism and thimerosal.

Michelle developed normally during the first year of her life. Seven days after her MMR vaccine (measles, mumps and rubella) at 15 months, she abruptly developed a high fever that abated and then recurred. Shortly thereafter, she lost her ability to speak, became disinterested in her surroundings, developed intense sensitivity to sounds and was eventually diagnosed with autism.

Additionally, two weeks after the shot, she developed severe diarrhea which persists to the present day. Prior to receiving the MMR, she received vaccines containing more than 100 micrograms of mercury from thimerosal.

Facts supporting the connection between her autism and the MMR include a biopsy of her intestinal lining documenting vaccine-strain measles virus when she had no other measles exposure. Reporters from the major networks, newspapers and publications are repeating dismissive, boiler plate remarks as told them by pharmaceutical companies and pro-vaccine medical community "experts."

The result is spin on an issue that is a combination of complex neuroscience, mercury toxicity and biological causation. Without balanced reporting, parents will be made to look like money-hungry gold diggers.

With so much at stake, drug companies and public health officials are calling on their heavy-hitters to protect the vaccination program. Dr. Paul Offit from the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania—said to be the "USA’s biggest vaccine pusher" (CBS: 60 Minutes, October 20, 2004)—is one of them. Offit has been quoted as saying, "From my standpoint, this question has been asked and answered. You know, it’s a scientific question. It’s best answered in a scientific venue. It’s been done. I mean, the court is not a place to determine scientific truths. The court is a place to settle disputes ("Court to decide whether vaccines linked to autism," Rueters. June 11, 2007).

Created on October 1, 1988, by the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (Public Law 99-660), the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was designed to be a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system. It is designed to resolve vaccine injury claims and provide compensation to vaccine-injured persons (National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program [VICP], HHS).

The VICP promised to be fair and less adversarial than civil court. Instead, justice department lawyers fought relentlessly over the years to defeat petitioners. The Special Masters (judges) discounted all opinions regarding the link between vaccine and injury unless it could be substantiated with peer-reviewed scientific literature. With the majority of the medical literature negating the associations between vaccines and injuries, petitioners were left with little to support their claims. This was not the stated intent of the law.

In July, 2005, a landmark decision by the Federal Circuit of Appeals in Althen v. Sec’y of HHS lightened the burden of proof for petitioners in the VICP. In this decision, the court made it clear a person only needs to show that a vaccine was "likely to cause the injury."

While expert testimony is still necessary to prove a claim, the Althen court ruled that the expert "may base the opinion on circumstantial evidence, rather than direct, objective conclusive scientific evidence."

An additional ruling by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Capizzano v. Sec’y of HHS (March, 2006) further leveled the playing field for claimants. The court held that petitioners do not need peer-reviewed scientific literature to prevail. It is enough to provide a "medical theory linking an injury to the vaccine, a logical sequence of cause and effect between the vaccine and the injury."

Will a favorable ruling in Cedillo "break the bank" of the VICP Trust fund? Unlikely. HHS estimates the VICP trust fund will pay $62,802,000 in awards for related vaccine-injuries and deaths in FY 2007. According to HHS estimates, the balance of funds remaining in the trust at year end is anticipated, after the payout, to be more than $2.5 billion.

So, let’s do the math: If all 4,800 petitioners prevailed by the standards set by Althen and Capizzano, there are enough funds to pay each family $500,000 and have money left over. Even though this may sound like a huge sum, it will not begin to cover the lifetime healthcare needs for these children. But it will help. In the mean time, the trust will immediately begin to replenish itself. Funding for the program is obtained through a $0.75 tax on each vaccine. HHS reported collecting $90 million through the tax in 2006 and the trust accrues substantial interest income. Even if the current load of autism cases "breaks the bank" in 2007, the pot will promptly begin to refill at the beginning of 2008. If necessary, additional appropriations could be allocated by Congress.

[Note: It may take months for the court to rule on Cedillo. We will keep you posted on this landmark case. ~The IO]

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is respected as one of the country’s most knowledgeable and outspoken physicians regarding the impact of vaccines on health. Through her education company, New Medical Awareness, LLC, she spreads her vision of retaining freedom of choice in healthcare, including the freedom to refuse vaccination. Dr. Tenpenny’s 3-hour vaccine DVDs, Vaccines: The Risk, The Benefits and The Choices and Vaccines: What CDC Documents and Science Reveal are available from The IO as is Dr. Tenpenny’s book, FOWL! Bird Flu: It’s Not What You Think (April, 2006; see ad this page).

Dr. Tenpenny can be reached through her website at www.DrTenpenny.com.