Vaccine Administration Record For Children And: Fill & Download for Free

These articles are inaccurate and grossly misunderstand the holdings of the American "Vaccine Court" in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In fairness, the statement in the first headline is mostly true in a literal sense: the Court made awards to two children with suspected autism. (The second headline is flat-out incorrect.) But even the first headline is misleading, because it wrongly implies that the children's autism was relevant in some way to the Court's award, e.g., that the Court made awards because of the children's autism, or because the autism was caused by vaccination. By way of comparison, "Fat Man Wins Award" might be an acceptable headline for an article about someone being added to the Guinness Book of World Records for being overweight, but the same headline would not make sense (and would be misleading) in an article about an award-winning chemist, because there, the award winner's weight is irrelevant. In any event, the bottom line is that in these vaccine cases, the children's autism played no role in the Vaccine Court's awards, and at no point in time did the Court so much as suggest a link between vaccination and autism.First, as a matter of background it is important to understand that the Vaccine Court does not work the same way that ordinary courts do. If vaccine injury cases were litigated in traditional American civil courts, a party would have to prove both (1) that the vaccine was defective and (2) that it caused the plaintiff's injury. In order to prove step (2), a plaintiff would most likely need evidence from an expert witness that reasonably proved a causal link between the vaccine and the resulting injury with medical/scientific certainty. Putting together such a case--even with ideal facts--would be expensive, time-consuming, and perhaps even impossible given the often slow pace of scientific/medical research. This is why the Vaccine Court was developed, and why all vaccine injury cases now go to the Court instead of the traditional civil justice system.In the Vaccine Court, step (1) above is eliminated entirely, and with regard to step (2), the explanation as to how the vaccine caused injury need only be "legally probable, not medically or scientifically certain." Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis added). In other words, there is a lower standard of proof. Moreover, for a subset of injuries that occur with specific vaccines within a certain period of time after administration, step (2) is presumed, that is, the Court will assume that the vaccine caused the injury. These are called "table injuries" or "table claims," and if you have a table injury, you don't even need to present a legally coherent theory as to how the vaccine injured you, because the Vaccine Court is going to presume that the vaccine caused the injury so long as no other cause of injury is found. In practice, this means that the Vaccine Court, consistent with its goal of being quicker and less exacting than traditional civil court, will sometimes pay awards even when the scientific/medical evidence presented is less than medically certain, and sometimes, in the case of table injuries, even in the face of weak theories of causation. Therefore, an individual petitioner winning a claim in the Vaccine Court is of no medical significance.Now, to the two "autism cases." The two cases in question are the Mojabi case and the Moller case. In both cases, parents claimed that their child had suffered a series of injuries, including encephalopathy (brain injury) and autism spectrum injury, after being administered the MMR vaccine. Without boring you to tears, encephalopathy within a short period of administration of the MMR vaccine (5-15 days) is a table injury. (Encephalopathy--not autism--is known to occur in a few cases of per million administrations of MMR, hence its inclusion as a table injury.) In Mojabi, the Vaccine Court concluded that the child had most likely suffered encephalopathy, making no findings regarding autism. In Moller, the government more or less elected not to continue fighting the allegation of encephalopathy. In both cases, once there was a finding (in Mojabi) and an uncontested claim (in Moller) that encephalopathy had occurred within 5-15 days of administration of the MMR vaccine, both cases became table injury cases, and the Court was required to conclude that the MMR vaccine caused the injury and make an award, regardless of the discredited "vaccination causes autism" theories that the petitioners offered in part. Put differently, petitioners won in spite of their autism theories, not because of them.So yes, it is true that two children who may have autism won their cases before the Vaccine Court. But the children were not compensated for their autism, and the Court never found or even implied a link between vaccination and autism. All the sites that claim that the Vaccine Court "discreetly" confirmed a link between vaccination and autism are misapprehending both the role of the Vaccine Court and the holdings of the two decisions.

No, for three reasons.There doesn’t need to be. All vaccines go through clinical trials for safety and efficacy before being licensed, and there is extensive post-licensure monitoring. Overall, they are the most-tested and most closely scrutinised medical intervention which exists.*Testing for safety isn’t like dropping some into a vial to see if it turns colour, like testing for pH. The development of a vaccine can take decades, during which time it will be scrutinised in vitro, in animal trials, and then finally in human trials (as mentioned above), which themselves may last anywhere from a few months to five years. If your understanding of biochemistry is such that you think you “test safety” of a vaccine through any kind of “put a dropperful into…” test, well, that leads us to…The kind of “home user” who wants a “home safety test for vaccines” is not going to be someone who has the education to understand any kind of medical or biochemical test anyway.I’m sorry if this comes out sounding harsh, but this is the kind of question which is predicated on not knowing how vaccines are developed, or how they can be tested — or not. Read a little bit more about the real way that it happens:Vaccine Development, Testing, and RegulationHow vaccines are tested, licensed and monitoredIn America: The Science Behind Vaccine Research and Testingand in Europe: How are vaccines developed?*Edited to add:There is an answer here which purports to quote from the IOM, “The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies, 2013” and claims that there are no safety studies of the overall vaccine schedule.This is actually a lie; the fundamental concept that you have to understand is that all vaccine safety studies are essentially a study of the overall schedule in that the trials of any new vaccine take place in the context of the administration of all other standard vaccines, because it is unethical to deny children vaccines. In fact, there are many studies which specifically look at the safety and efficacy of vaccines administered at the same time, in precisely the same way as they would be at a doctor’s office. Information on both those aspects of vaccine safety is in the report which is supposedly being cited; while the committee suggested that there could be and should be improvements for integrated records of “all possible outcomes” of the overall schedule and standardisation of results, that’s a far cry from “evidence doesn’t exist.” The entire report is available free online to anyone who is interested. The Childhood Immunization Schedule and SafetyAnd indeed, in other countries, large populational retrospective studies have been done to look at outcomes of the full vaccination schedule, vs. partial vaccination and no vaccination.Vaccination Status and Health in Children and Adolescents: Findings of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS)

Q. If vaccines are safe, why has over 3 billion dollars been paid out in settlements at the secret US Vaccine Court?A. Ah, Ross Taylor, another recycled misleading, misinformed interrogative about vaccines and financial compensation.Let's break this down.“If vaccines are safe, …“🙉Vaccines save lives by preventing disease.Most people who get vaccines have no serious problems. Vaccines, like any medicines, can cause side effects, but most are very rare and very mild. Some health problems that follow vaccinations are not caused by vaccines.In very rare cases, a vaccine can cause a serious problem, such as a severe allergic reaction.In these instances, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) may provide financial compensation to individuals who file a petition and are found to have been injured by a VICP-covered vaccine. Even in cases in which such a finding is not made, petitioners may receive compensation through a settlement.“..why has over 3 billion dollars been paid out in settlements… ”🙊The United States has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in history. In the majority of cases, vaccines cause no side effects, however they can occur, as with any medication—but most are mild. But a reaction or side effect may occur.In those instances, the VICP allows individuals to file for compensation.The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is a no-fault alternative to the traditional legal system for resolving vaccine injury petitions.It was created in the 1980s, after lawsuits against vaccine companies and health care providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce U.S. vaccination rates, which could have caused a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases.Any individual, of any age, who received a covered vaccine [3] and believes he or she was injured as a result, can file a petition. Parents, legal guardians and legal representatives can file on behalf of children, disabled adults, and individuals who are deceased. [1]Being awarded compensation for a petition does not necessarily mean that the vaccine caused the alleged injury. In fact: [2, 4]Approximately 70% of all compensation awarded by the VICP comes as a result of a negotiated settlement between the parties in which HHS has not concluded, based upon review of the evidence, that the alleged vaccine(s) caused the alleged injury.Attorneys are eligible for reasonable attorneys’ fees, whether or not the petitioner is awarded compensation by the Court, if certain minimal requirements are met. In those circumstances, attorneys are paid by the VICP directly. By statute, attorneys may not charge any other fee, including a contingency fee, for his or her services in representing a petitioner in the VICP.“…at the secret US Vaccine Court?”🙈Why do you think it’s secret? 🙄The court records are open to public viewing if you want to. [5] 😂🤫💊🧪💊🧪💊🧪💊🧪💊🧪💊🧪💊🧪[1] National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program[2] Vaccine Injury Compensation Data[3] Covered Vaccines[4] COVID-19 Claims Reimbursement to Health Care Providers and Facilities for Testing, Treatment, and Vaccine Administration for the Uninsured[5] HRSA COVID-19 - Overview