Mmr Compensation Claims Laid To Rest

Three families in the US who launched compensation claims regarding the link between the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine and autism have had their cases thrown out of court this week. The families had tried to make a compensation claim through the National Vaccine Compensation Program, saying that their children’s immune systems had been adversely affected by the vaccine and had developed autism as a direct result of the MMR injection. The dismissal of their case has raised questions about the future of compensation claims against the MMR vaccine and, indeed, whether the vaccine is linked to autism at all.

The debate over the link between MMR and autism has been raging for over a decade. The link was first proposed by Dr Andrew Wakefield and his research team at London’s Royal Free Hospital, who suggested there could be a link between the triple vaccine and an increased risk of bowel disorders and autism in the vaccinated child. He theorised that taking the three vaccines together causes an overload in the child’s immune system, provoking the bowel syndrome. Speaking at the time, he said: ‘This is a genuinely new syndrome and urgent further research is needed to determine whether MMR may give rise to this complication in a small number of people.’

Throughout March and April of 1998 experts tested the link, repeatedly finding that there was none. This included a study by Finnish Scientists that lasted 14 years and tested 3 million children who had taken the MMR vaccine. Out of the 31 children who developed gastrointestinal problems, none lasting longer than a week, none developed any signs of autism.

Then, in April 2000, Dr Wakefield presented study results which showed that, out of 25 autistic children, 24 had traces of the measles virus in their gut. From their perspective, this suggested that MMR did cause autism but the US Department of Health replied that their research was ‘unverifiable by scientific means’.

The next year, Wakefield again called for more tests to be done on the link between autism and the MMR vaccine. He claimed that the vaccine had not been properly tested as trials had only continued for four weeks. Again, the Department of Health labelled the claims as untrue. Shortly after this, in February 2001, the British Medical Journal published a statistical analysis which showed that, although the rate of autism had grown rapidly in the last few years, the coverage of the MMR vaccine has remained relatively constant. This meant that the MMR vaccine could not be the cause of autism as otherwise the prevalence of the illness would be level with the number of MMR vaccines being administered.

The wrangling between medical teams went on, with those who were pro-MMR urging parents to protect their children from all three of the diseases. This culminated in a study in February last year when it was concluded that there was no connection between the MMR vaccine and the incidence of autism.

During the trial of the two American families, the judge said that the claimants had been ‘misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgement.’ He continued to say that the families’ personal injury lawyers had provided no evidence linking autism with the MMR vaccine and that therefore the case was invalid: ‘The evidence does not support the general proposition that thimerosal-containing vaccines can damage infants' immune systems.’ His decision has been welcomed in the American medical community, with the American Medical Association saying: ‘We need ongoing research into the causes of autism, but cannot let unfounded myths keep us from giving our children the proven protection they need against infectious diseases.’

There are 5,300 other compensation claims cases related to the MMR vaccine that are still pending. In light of this recent decision, it is thought they are probably also going to be dismissed.