The Poling case: the scientific significance of what happens in court

The national networks on March 6 covered the case of Hannah Poling, presenting the possibility of an autism/vaccine link, and wherein government health officials conceded that the vaccines exacerbated an underlying condition in Hannah and that she should be paid from the federal vaccine-injury fund.

Hannah's father is Jon Poling, a 37-year-old neurologist, who stated: "It wasn't like a switch being turned off. It was more like a dimmer switch being turned down." [The Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted that Terry Poling, Hannah's mother, is a nurse and lawyer.]

Mike Stobbe of AP wrote: Government officials wouldn't discuss why they conceded this particular case, but said people with pre-existing injuries can obtain compensation under the program if they establish that their underlying condition was "significantly aggravated" by a vaccine.

IPBiz notes a quote from ABCNews on March 6 of one Dr. Ofit: "The science is there. It doesn't really matter what happens in court." Note also LBE's paper on Daubert (and DNA profiling matters) which appears in Volume 1 of the University of Chicago Roundtable.