The risks of NOT being vaccinated are infinitely larger                                   

Do immunizations or thimerosal cause autism?

Numerous studies have found no link between vaccines and autism (a developmental disorder that's characterized by mild to severe impairment of communication and social interaction skills). Likewise, a groundbreaking 2004 report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) found that thimerosal (an organic mercury compound that's been used as a preservative in vaccines since the 1930s) does not cause autism. Still, some parents have opted not to have their children immunized, putting them at great risk of contracting deadly diseases.

The MMR vaccine, especially, has come under fire despite many scientific reports indicating that there's no clear evidence linking the vaccine to autism. In fact, in 2004 a long-disputed 1998 study that suggested a possible link between autism and the MMR vaccine was retracted. Even before the retraction, not only had other studies found no link, but the controversial 1998 study was rejected by all major health organizations, including the AAP, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the World Health Organization (WHO). ( And the doctor responsible had his license revoked).

There's also no reason to believe that thimerosal is linked to autism, according to the 2004 IOM report. Nevertheless, in an effort to reduce childhood exposure to mercury and other heavy metals, thimerosal began being removed from kids' vaccines in 1999. Now, vaccines for infants and young children contain no or very little thimerosal. And recent studies have not shown any cognitive and behavioral problems in babies who might have received these thimerosal-containing vaccines.

So what could explain the increased rates of autism in recent years? For one thing, there's a broader definition of autism that can be applied to more kids who show varying degrees of symptoms. A greater awareness of the condition among health professionals also has led to more diagnoses.

And although the number of children diagnosed with autism may be increasing, the rates of MMR vaccination are not. In London, diagnoses of autistic disorders have been on the rise since 1979 but rates of MMR vaccination haven't increased since routine MMR vaccination began in 1988.

In addition, the average age of diagnosis of autism has been found to be the same both in children who have and who have not received the MMR vaccine. What many researchers are discovering is that subtle symptoms of autism are often present before a child's first birthday — sometimes even in early infancy — but often go unnoticed until the symptoms are more obvious to parents.

Wasn't there a problem with the rotavirus vaccine?

Rotavirus is one of the most common causes of diarrhea in young children. In 1999, a rotavirus vaccine was taken off the market because it was linked to an increased risk for intussusception, a type of bowel obstruction, in young infants.

However, two new, different rotavirus vaccines called RotaTeq and Rotarix are now available and neither has been found to have this increased risk. These vaccines have been shown to prevent the majority of cases of rotavirus infection and almost all of the severe cases.

The vaccine is now on the regular immunization schedule to be given orally to infants as a liquid during standard vaccination visits — RotaTeq at ages 2 months, 4 months, and 6 months, and Rotarix at ages 2 months and 4 months. Your doctor will have the most current information.

Do immunizations cause SIDS, multiple sclerosis, or other problems?

There are concerns, many of which circulate on the Internet, linking some vaccines to multiple sclerosis, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and other problems. To date, several studies have failed to show any connection between immunizations and these conditions. The number of SIDS cases has actually fallen by more than 50% in recent years, whereas the number of vaccines administered yearly has continued to rise.

How long does immunity last after getting a vaccine?

A few vaccines, like the two for measles or the series for hepatitis B, may make you immune for your entire life. Others, like tetanus, last for many years but require periodic shots (boosters) for continued protection against the disease.

The whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine also does not give lifelong immunity, and that may be one reason why there are still outbreaks of the disease. And although pertussis isn't a serious problem for older kids and adults, it can be for infants and young children. Because of this, adolescents and adults now receive a pertussis booster along with the tetanus and diphtheria booster (Tdap) — an important step in controlling this infection.

It's important to keep a record of vaccinations so the doctor knows when your child is due for a booster. Also make sure your kids get the flu vaccine each year, if it isn't in short supply. Having been immunized last year won't protect someone from getting the flu this year because flu viruses constantly change. That's why the vaccine is updated each year to include the most current strains of the virus.

The flu vaccine reduces the average person's chances of catching the flu by up to 80% during the season. But because the flu vaccine doesn't prevent infection by all of the viruses that can cause flu-like symptoms, getting the vaccine isn't a guarantee that someone won't get sick during the season. But even if someone who's gotten the shot gets the flu, symptoms will usually be fewer and milder.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/body/fact_myth_immunizations.html#

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) Adjudication Categories by Vaccine for Claims Filed Calendar Year 2006 to 2014¹

A lot of these suits (possibly the majority) are related to administration of the vaccine (injuries to the arm etc...)

DEFINITIONS:

1. Compensable – The injured person who filed a claim was paid money by the VICP.   Compensation can be achieved through a concession by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a decision on the merits of the claim by a special master or a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims (Court), or a settlement between the parties.
   1. Concession:  HHS concludes that a petition should be compensated based on a thorough review and analysis of the evidence, including medical records and the scientific and medical literature.  The HHS review concludes that the petitioner is entitled to compensation, including a determination either that it is more likely than not that the vaccine caused the injury or the evidence supports fulfillment of the criteria of the Vaccine Injury Table.  The Court also determines that the petition should be compensated.
   2. Court Decision:  A special master or the court, within the United States Court of Federal Claims, issues a legal decision after weighing the evidence presented by both sides.  HHS abides by the ultimate Court decision even if it maintains its position that the petitioner was not entitled to compensation (e.g., that the injury was not caused by the vaccine).
      1. For injury claims, compensable court decisions are based in part on one of the following determinations by the court:
         1. The evidence  is legally sufficient to show that the vaccine more likely than not caused (or significantly aggravated) the injury; or
         2. The injury is Iisted on, and meets all of the requirements of, the Vaccine Injury Table, and HHS has not proven that a factor unrelated to the vaccine more likely than not caused or significantly aggravated the injury.  An injury listed on the Table and meeting all Table requirements is given the legal presumption of causation.   It should be noted that conditions are placed on the Table for both scientific and policy reasons.
   3. Settlement:  The petition is resolved via a negotiated settlement between the parties. This settlement is not an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the vaccine caused the petitioner’s alleged injuries, and, in settled cases, the Court does not determine that the vaccine caused the injury.   A settlement therefore cannot be characterized as a decision by HHS or by the Court that the vaccine caused an injury.  Claims may be resolved by settlement for many reasons, including consideration of prior court decisions; a recognition by both parties that there is a risk of loss in proceeding to a decision by the Court making the certainty of settlement more desirable; a desire by both parties to minimize the time and expense associated with litigating a case to conclusion; and a desire by both parties to resolve a case quickly and efficiently.
2. Non-compensable/Dismissed – The injured person who filed a claim was ultimately not paid money.
   1. Non-compensable Court decisions include the following:
      1. The Court determines that the person who filed the claim did not demonstrate that the injury was caused (or significantly aggravated) by a covered vaccine or meet the requirements of the Table (for injuries listed on the Table).
      2. The claim was dismissed for not meeting other statutory requirements (such as not meeting the filing deadline, not receiving a covered vaccine, and not meeting the statute’s severity requirement).
      3. The injured person voluntarily withdrew his or her claim.

Vaccine Injury Table ^a

^a Effective date: July 22, 2011 (see Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table) or http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html

Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation 

(1) Anaphylaxis and anaphylactic shock mean an acute, severe, and potentially lethal systemic allergic reaction. Most cases resolve without sequelae. Signs and symptoms begin minutes to a few hours after exposure. Death, if it occurs, usually results from airway obstruction caused by laryngeal edema or bronchospasm and may be associated with cardiovascular collapse. Other significant clinical signs and symptoms may include the following: Cyanosis, hypotension, bradycardia, tachycardia, arrhythmia, edema of the pharynx and/or trachea and/or larynx with stridor and dyspnea. Autopsy findings may include acute emphysema which results from lower respiratory tract obstruction, edema of the hypopharynx, epiglottis, larynx, or trachea and minimal findings of eosinophilia in the liver, spleen and lungs. When death occurs within minutes of exposure and without signs ofrespiratory distress, there may not be significant pathologic findings.

(2) Encephalopathy. For purposes of the Vaccine Injury Table, a vaccine recipient shall be considered to have suffered an encephalopathy only if such recipient manifests, within the applicable period, an injury meeting the description below of an acute encephalopathy, and then a chronic encephalopathy persists in such person for more than 6 months beyond the date of vaccination.

(i) An acute encephalopathy is one that is sufficiently severe so as to require hospitalization (whether or not hospitalization occurred). 

(A) For children less than 18 months of age who present without an associated seizure event, an acute encephalopathy is indicated by a “significantly decreased level of consciousness” (see “D” below) lasting for at least 24 hours. Those children less than 18 months of age who present following a seizure shall be viewed as having an acute encephalopathy if their significantly decreased level of consciousness persists beyond 24 hours and cannot be attributed to a postictal state (seizure) or medication.

(B) For adults and children 18 months of age or older, an acute encephalopathy is one that persists for at least 24 hours and characterized by at least two of the following:

(1) A significant change in mental status that is not medication related; specifically a confusional state, or a delirium, or a psychosis;
(2) A significantly decreased level of consciousness, which is independent of a seizure and cannot be attributed to the effects of medication; and
(3) A seizure associated with loss of consciousness.

(C) Increased intracranial pressure may be a clinical feature of acute encephalopathy in any age group.

(D) A "significantly decreased level of consciousness" is indicated by the presence of at least one of the following clinical signs for at least 24 hours or greater (see  paragraphs (2)(I)(A) and (2)(I)(B) of this section for applicable timeframes): 

(1)Decreased or absent response to environment (responds, if at all, only to loud voice or painful stimuli);
(2) Decreased or absent eye contact (does not fix gaze upon family members or other individuals); or
(3) Inconsistent or absent responses to external stimuli (does not recognize familiar people or things).

(E) The following clinical features alone, or in combination, do not demonstrate an acute encephalopathy or a significant change in either mental status or level of consciousness as described above: Sleepiness, irritability (fussiness), high-pitched and unusual screaming, persistent inconsolable crying, and bulging fontanelle. Seizures in themselves are not sufficient to constitute a diagnosis of encephalopathy. In the absence of other evidence of an acute encephalopathy, seizures shall not be viewed as the first symptom or manifestation of the onset of an acute encephalopathy. 

(ii) Chronic encephalopathy occurs when a change in mental or neurologic status, first manifested during the applicable time period, persists for a period of at least 6 months from the date of vaccination. Individuals who return to a normal neurologic state after the acute encephalopathy shall not be presumed to have suffered residual neurologic damage from that event; any subsequent chronic encephalopathy shall not be presumed to be a sequela of the acute encephalopathy. If a preponderance of the evidence indicates that a child's chronic encephalopathy is secondary to genetic, prenatal or perinatal factors, that chronic encephalopathy shall not be considered to be a condition set forth in the Table.
(iii) An encephalopathy shall not be considered to be a condition set forth in the Table if in a proceeding on a petition, it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the encephalopathy was caused by an infection, a toxin, a metabolic disturbance, a structural lesion, a genetic disorder or trauma (without regard to whether the cause of the infection, toxin, trauma, metabolic disturbance, structural lesion or genetic disorder is known). If at the time a decision is made on a petition filed under section 2111(b) of the Act for a vaccine-related injury or death, it is not possible to determine the cause by a preponderance of the evidence of an encephalopathy, the encephalopathy shall be considered to be a condition set forth in the Table.
(iv) In determining whether or not an encephalopathy is a condition set forth in the Table, the Court shall consider the entire medical record. 

(3) Seizure and convulsion. For purposes of paragraphs (b)(2) of this section, the terms, "seizure" and "convulsion" include myoclonic, generalized tonic-clonic (grand mal), and simple and complex partial seizures. Absence (petit mal) seizures shall not be considered to be a condition set forth in the Table. Jerking movements or staring episodes alone are not necessarily an indication of seizure activity.

(4) Sequela. The term "sequela" means a condition or event which was actually caused by a condition listed in the Vaccine Injury Table.

(5) Chronic Arthritis. For purposes of the Vaccine Injury Table, chronic arthritis may be found in a person with no history in the 3 years prior to vaccination of arthropathy (joint disease) on the basis of:

(A) Medical documentation, recorded within 30 days after the onset, of objective signs of acute arthritis (joint swelling) that occurred between 7 and 42 days after a rubella vaccination;
(B) Medical documentation (recorded within 3 years after the onset of acute arthritis) of the persistence of objective signs of intermittent or continuous arthritis for more than 6 months following vaccination:
(C) Medical documentation of an antibody response to the rubella virus.

For purposes of the Vaccine Injury Table, the following shall not be considered as chronic arthritis: Musculoskeletal disorders such as diffuse connective tissue diseases (including but not limited to rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, systemic sclerosis, mixed connective tissue disease, polymyositis/dermatomyositis, fibromyalgia, necrotizing vasculitis and vasculopathies and Sjogren's Syndrome), degenerative joint disease, infectious agents other than rubella (whether by direct invasion or as an immune reaction), metabolic and endocrine diseases, trauma, neoplasms, neuropathic disorders, bone and cartilage disorders and arthritis associated with ankylosing spondylitis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, Reiter's syndrome, or blood disorders.

Arthralgia (joint pain) or stiffness without joint swelling shall not be viewed as chronic arthritis for purposes of the Vaccine Injury Table.

(6) Brachial neuritis is defined as dysfunction limited to the upper extremity nerve plexus (i.e., its trunks, divisions, or cords) without involvement of other peripheral (e.g., nerve roots or a single peripheral nerve) or central (e.g., spinal cord) nervous system structures. A deep, steady, often severe aching pain in the shoulder and upper arm usually heralds onset of the condition. The pain is followed in days or weeks by weakness and atrophy in upper extremity muscle groups. Sensory loss may accompany the motor deficits, but is generally a less notable clinical feature. The neuritis, or plexopathy, may be present on the same side as or the opposite side of the injection; it is sometimes bilateral, affecting both upper extremities. Weakness is required before the diagnosis can be made. Motor, sensory, and reflex findings on physical examination and the results of nerve conduction and electromyographic studies must be consistent in confirming that dysfunction is attributable to the brachial plexus. The condition should thereby be distinguishable from conditions that may give rise to dysfunction of nerve roots (i.e., radiculopathies) and peripheral nerves (i.e., including multiple mononeuropathies), as well as other peripheral and central nervous system structures (e.g., cranial neuropathies and myelopathies).

(7) Thrombocytopenic purpura is defined by a serum platelet count less than 50,000/mm³. Thrombocytopenic purpura does not include cases of thrombocytopenia associated with other causes such as hypersplenism, autoimmune disorders (including alloantibodies from previous transfusions) myelodysplasias, lymphoproliferative disorders, congenital thrombocytopenia or hemolytic uremic syndrome. This does not include cases of immune (formerly called idiopathic) thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) that are mediated, for example, by viral or fungal infections, toxins or drugs. Thrombocytopenic purpura does not include cases of thrombocytopenia associated with disseminated intravascular coagulation, as observed with bacterial and viral infections. Viral infections include, for example, those infections secondary to Epstein Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, hepatitis A and B, rhinovirus, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), adenovirus, and dengue virus. An antecedent viral infection may be demonstrated by clinical signs and symptoms and need not be confirmed by culture or serologic testing. Bone marrow examination, if performed, must reveal a normal or an increased number of megakaryocytes in an otherwise normal marrow.

(8) Vaccine-strain measles viral infection is defined as a disease caused by the vaccine-strain that should be determined by vaccine‑specific monoclonal antibody or polymerase chain reaction tests.

(9) Vaccine-strain polio viral infection is defined as a disease caused by poliovirus that is isolated from the affected tissue and should be determined to be the vaccine-strain by oligonucleotide or polymerase chain reaction. Isolation of poliovirus from the stool is not sufficient to establish a tissue specific infection or disease caused by vaccine-strain poliovirus. 

This information reflects the current thinking of the United States Department of Health and Human Services on the topics addressed. This information is not legal advice and does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind the Department or the public. The ultimate decision about the scope of the statutes authorizing the VICP is within the authority of the United States Court of Federal Claims, which is responsible for resolving claims for compensation under the VICP.