In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-612V

(to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ALAYNA MCDONALD, *

* Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, * 

* Filed: February 3, 2023

v. *

*

*

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Phyllis Widman, Widman Law Firm, LLC, Northfield, NJ, for Petitioner.

Mallori Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

ENTITLEMENT DECISION1

On June 16, 2015, Craig and Mary Beth McDonald, on behalf of their then-minor daughter, 

Alayna, filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation 

Program (the “Vaccine Program”).2 Their Petition alleged that Ms. McDonald suffered from

mitochondrial and methylation/glutathione dysfunction causing or exacerbating chronic fatigue

after receipt of several doses of the human papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccine (marketed under the 

tradename “Gardasil”) in 2012. Petition (ECF No. 1) at 1. Ms. McDonald became the proper

1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, it must be posted on the United 

States Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). 

As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain 

kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which 

to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial 

in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will 

be available to the public. Id.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 

100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). 

Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).
2

Petitioner once she turned 18, and the caption was accordingly amended. ECF No. 76. Petitioner’s 

theory has also shifted to one alleging that the HPV vaccine doses she received caused a toxic 

reaction, due to undisclosed vaccine ingredients.

After a years-long litigation course featuring a collective total of sixteen written expert 

reports (not counting several produced by experts whose opinions have since been abandoned), 

the matter is ready for resolution via ruling on the record—and to that end the parties have briefed 

their positions. Petitioner’s Brief in Support, dated January 14, 2022 (ECF No. 135) (“Br.”); 

Respondent’s Opposition, dated May 20, 2022 (ECF No. 141) (“Opp.”); Petitioner’s Reply, dated 

June 10, 2022 (ECF No. 144) (“Reply”). For the reasons set forth below, however, I do not find in 

Petitioner’s favor. Neither causation theory advanced—that unidentified silicone-based 

components of the vaccine, or its adjuvants, can cause chronic fatigue and associated symptoms—

was established with sufficient reliable scientific or medical proof.

I. Factual Background

Ms. McDonald was born on April 9, 1998, and was fourteen years-old when she received

the HPV vaccine doses at issue (now more than ten years ago). Ex. 1 at 1. Her medical history is 

significant for hypertrophy of her lower limb, exercise-induced asthma, allergic rhinitis, and 

migraine headaches. Ex. 9 at 6.

On June 14, 2012, Petitioner visited her primary care physician, Wendy Wallace, D.O., for 

a well-child check. Ex. 3 at 13–15. At this time, her sleep habits were deemed normal. Id. at 14. 

In addition, she was physically active, experiencing only some conditions consistent with her prior 

medical history (e.g., hemihypertrophy of lower limb, and calf and knee pain). Id. Petitioner

received the first HPV vaccine dose at this visit, with the second two months later (on August 17, 

2012), and the third at the end of the year (on December 26, 2012). Id. at 15, 25.

Importantly, the medical records themselves (from the time period between the 

administration of the first HPV dose in June 2012 to her last over six months later) document no 

evidence of any post-vaccination reaction, or symptoms consistent with what is alleged in this 

case. See generally Ex. 3 at 13–14 (no mention of fatigue at doctor’s visits from June to December 

2012). Petitioner (and her parents, who originally brought the claim on her behalf), however, 

maintains that she began experiencing fatigue-like symptoms the summer of 2012, with her 

sleepiness more evident as the fall progressed. See, e.g., Affidavit of Mary Beth McDonald, dated 

January 11, 2016, filed as Ex. 22 (ECF No. 19-2) at 2. 

The first actual medical record setting forth any allegedly vaccine-related symptom is from 

2013. On January 31, 2013, Ms. McDonald went to Wendy Wallace, D.O.,reporting that she had 

been experiencing daily mood changes beginning three to four weeks before (or around the 
3

beginning of January)which she did not associate with her menses, plustrouble falling asleep, and 

waking up fatigued and unrefreshed. Ex. 3 at 12. Dr. Wallace assessed her with “mood changes,” 

and ordered testing, although Petitioner also agreed to pursue counseling as well as a potential

psychiatric evaluation.Id. at 13.It appears from the record an initial evaluation was sought in midFebruary 2013 at Associates of Springfield Psychology on February 14, 2013, with the intake form 

indicating “anxiety disorder.” Ex 19 at 1. However, treatment there appears to have ceased as of

March 12, 2015, and no records detailing the scope or findings associated with that treatment were 

disclosed or filed in this case (likely due to the provider’s privacy concerns).

Petitioner thereafter returned to Dr. Wallace on March 13, 2013, complaining of general 

fatigue and performance issues in school. Ex. 3 at 11. Laboratory test results were positive for a 

Lyme antibody and some other antibodies. Ex. 14 at 44–47. However, Dr. Wallace nevertheless 

diagnosed Ms. McDonald with infectious mononucleosis plus “other malaise and fatigue.” Ex. 13 

at 22. Dr. Wallace also at this time wrote a letter, addressed “To Whom It May Concern,” stating 

that treaters were following Petitioner for mononucleosis with extreme fatigue, and that she might 

require rest during the day. Id. She prepared a second letter almost two weeks later (dated March 

21, 2013) stating that Petitioner was also being followed for Lyme disease, and that her conditions 

were associated with extreme fatigue. Id. at 20.

The next month, Petitioner saw Dr. Wallace again (on April 19, 2013), continuing to 

complain of intermittent fatigue plus concentration issues interfering with her schoolwork. Ex. 3 

at 9–11. Laboratory tests to check her thyroid functioning were ordered but generated negative 

results. Ex. 14 at 63–73. Dr. Wallace proposed that Ms. McDonald undergo a sleep study along 

with a Lyme disease consultation. Ex. 3 at 10. Petitioner also had a urology evaluation that May, 

at which time she now identified November 2012 (or before the third HPV dose, but nearly three 

months after the second dose) as onset of her “ongoing health issues”—contrary to earlier records. 

Ex. 5 at 18. She reported no history of urinary tract infections or low grade fevers, but underwent 

an ultrasound due to her pain complaints. Id. 

Ms. McDonald also saw an infectious disease specialist, Michael Sebert, M.D., in June

2013, at which time she reported persistent fatigue since December 2012. Ex. 18 at 5. Dr. Sebert, 

however, opined that her Lyme disease test result had been a false-positive, recommended against 

repeat testing given her inconsistent clinical presentation, and otherwise found nothing supportive 

of an infectious explanation for her symptoms. Id. at 6–7.Later in June she returned to Dr. Wallace, 

now with no symptoms complaints plus reports of good/normal sleep (other than an occasional 

nap). Ex. 3 at 7–8.

For the remainder of 2013, Petitioner sought treatment for her generalized fatigue plus 

some new symptoms. On July 8, 2013, for example, she saw neurologist Dr. Margarita Meehan

for treatment of a “longstanding history of migraines,” (although the foregoing record is not 
4

consistent with that contention). Ex 4 at 5. Her neurological exam was normal; however, it was 

observed that dehydration or stress could be headache/migraine triggers. Id. Petitioner also 

underwent a sleep study that August. Ex. 14 at 9. Findings were consistent with moderate daytime 

somnolence, and she was diagnosed with snoring and idiopathic hypersomnia, and prescribed 

medication. Id. at 29. (Petitioner received follow-up treatment in connection with the sleep study 

that fall, with the impression being more limited to snoring despite her complaints of symptoms 

beginning the year before, and it was noted that the medication appeared effective. Ex. 6 at 6, 8; 

Ex. 14 at 34).

On August 21, 2013, Petitioner was taken to see a different kind of specialist: Peter 

Procuik, M.D., a naturopathic practitioner.Ex. 12 at 3. In correspondence with Petitioner’s mother, 

Dr. Procuik represented that based on his own experience, Petitioner’s symptoms might be

associated with the HPV vaccine. Id. at 28. Petitioner underwent a sleep study on September 3, 

2013, and it produced a diagnosis of Idiopathic Hypersomnia. Ex.14 at 31. In December 2013, Dr. 

Procuik more confidently expressed this opinion, stating that “the most likely reason for [A.M.’s] 

fatigue is an adverse reaction to the gardasil vaccine,” and proposing homeopathic treatments in 

which Ms. McDonald would receive tiny amounts of vaccine in order to stimulate “her own ability 

to heal the injury caused by the actual vaccine.” Id. at 26. To that end, Petitioner received a number 

of homeopathic remedies from August 2013 to October 2014. Id. at 12.

In 2014, Petitioner returned to Dr. Wallace, noting that her sleep issues had largely 

resolved—although she continued to maintain that she had a “history of infectious 

mononucleosis,” and had experienced “extreme fatigue after HPV #3.” Ex. 3 at 5, 25. Toward the 

end of 2014, she saw a different naturopathic physician (Nancy O’Hara, M.D.) for “chronic fatigue 

from possible vaccine injury.” Ex. 2 at 25. The history section of the record from this visit 

maintained that Petitioner’s onset of symptoms had begun in the fall or winter of 2012, although 

her symptoms worsened after each vaccine dose (meaning onset could have been as early as 

summer 2012). Id. Dr. O’Hara proposed that Petitioner’s fatigue could be due to (in part) 

“impaired mitochondrial/metabolic/glutathione function,” leading to “dysregulation of many 

internal systems” and resulting in chronic fatigue. Id. at 27. 

Petitioner and her family continued to consult with Dr. O’Hara in early 2015. Lab tests Dr. 

O’Hara had ordered resulted in Petitioner testing positive for Lyme disease, and in reaction Dr. 

O’Hara proposed that “mitochondrial and methylation/glutathione dysfunction [was] causing or 

exacerbating the chronic fatigue.” Ex. 2 at 31–32. She also maintained Petitioner likely had an 

MTHFR mutation3 reflective of “an underlying folate metabolism and detoxification impairment,”

3 MTHFR refers to “Methylene Tetrahydrofolate Reductase”—an enzyme involved in folate metabolism—and there 

is a gene responsible for generation of this enzyme. See Murphy v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 05-1063V, 

2016 WL 3034047, at *5 n.15 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 25, 2016), mot. for review den’d, 128 Fed.Cl. 348(2016). A 

mutation in the gene can cause failure of the methylation process, which in turn is believed to be related to certain 

diseases.
5

while admitting that any association between MTHFR mutations and disease is “still being 

researched and is not completely defined.” Id.

To treat the foregoing, Dr. O’Hara prescribed a variety of oral and inhaled supplements. 

Ex. 2 at 32–34. By April 2015, Petitioner’s mother was reporting to Dr. O’Hara that Petitionerwas 

doing better, although it remained Dr. O’Hara’s assessment that Ms. McDonald’s immune system 

was likely “still dysregulated with continued evidence of immunodeficiency which of course is 

impacting her fatigue.” Ex. 2 at 35. 

II. Expert Reports

A. Abandoned Reports

Petitioner originally submitted reports from three experts—Drs. Judy Mikovits, Francis 

Ruscetti, and Karyemaître Aliffe—in addition to a report offered by Dr. Arthur Brawer. See Opp. 

at 3. Those reports proposed a theory that an autoinflammatory reaction to the HPV vaccine was 

to blame for Petitioner’s chronic fatigue. However, prior to the originally-scheduled May 2019 

hearing date, the special master to whom the case had previously been assigned ordered the reports 

stricken, after Petitioner indicated an intent solely to proceed based on the theory advanced by Dr. 

Brawer (thus requiring that the scheduled hearing be continued, to allow Respondent the 

opportunity to offer expert testimony in reaction to the newly-articulated causation theory). ECF 

Nos. 87, 89.4 Accordingly, since that time Petitioner has limited her causation theory to what Dr. 

Brawer (supplemented by Dr. Chiodo) has opined.

B. Petitioner’s Experts

1. Dr. Arthur Brawer – Dr. Brawer, a rheumatologist, prepared four written 

reports in this matter. See Report, dated January 30, 2019, filed as Ex. 98 (ECF No. 81-2) (“First 

Brawer Rep.”); Report, dated June 5, 2019, filed as Ex. 120 (ECF No. 93-2) (“Second Brawer 

Rep.”); Report, dated May 4, 2020, filed as Ex. 147 (ECF No. 110-1) (“Third Brawer Rep.”); 

Report, dated May 4, 2020, filed as Ex. 148 (ECF No. 110-2) (“Fourth Brawer Rep.”). Dr. Brawer 

has (unlike many Program causation experts) directly examined Ms. McDonald, and opines that 

she experienced a chronic “Gardasil induced illness” attributable to a toxic reaction brought on by 

the HPV vaccine.

4 Petitioner was wise to have abandoned the expert reports of Drs. Ruscetti and Mikovits. I have observed that their 

opinions lack scientific foundation, and are unreliable and unhelpful in the context of deciding Vaccine Act cases. 

See, e.g., McKown v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1451V, 2019 WL 7604714, at *4–5(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. 

Dec. 18, 2019)(fees award cutting Dr. Mikovits’s fee by 60 percent, and indicating my intent not to entertain opinions 

from her in future matters).
6

Dr. Brawer is a rheumatologist in private practice. Brawer Rep. at 1; Curriculum Vitae, 

dated September 14, 2017, filed as Ex. 100 (ECF No. 81-4) (“Brawer CV”), at 1, 3. Thus, he lacks 

specific expertise in immunology, toxicology, issues pertaining to the functioning of the autonomic 

nervous system, or the kind of molecular biology issues that are more often than not raised by

vaccine injury cases. He received his M.D. from Boston University, then completed a residency in 

internal medicine and a fellowship in arthritis. Brawer CV at 3. He has held board certifications in 

internal medicine and rheumatology (although it is not evident from his CV if they have been 

maintained over time). Id. He has also served as an associate clinical professor at 

Hahnemann/Drexel University School of Medicine in Philadelphia, as well as an assistant clinical 

professor of medicine at Robert Wood Johnson University School of Medicine in New Brunswick, 

New Jersey. Id. at 4. He also serves as a diplomate to both the American Board of Internal 

Medicine and the American Board of Rheumatology. Id. at 1, 4. He has also been director of 

rheumatology at Monmouth Medical Center. Id. at 1. He has published a number of articles specific 

to his expertise (on arthritis) plus relating to the putative toxicity of silicone breast implants (a 

topic upon which he has offered expert testimony elsewhere). Id. at 1–2, 4–8.

First Report

Dr. Brawer’s initial report was prepared after examining Ms. McDonald in January 2019. 

In it, he summarized her history, maintaining that her chronic fatigue began within two weeks of 

her receipt of a first HPV vaccine dose. First Brawer Rep. at 1–2. Since that time (and relying on 

her own reported history), Dr. Brawer noted, Petitioner had continued to “manifest unremitting, 

intractable, daily chronicity of her generalized fatigue and other symptomatology.” Id. at 2. He 

took note as well of the fact that she had no pre-existing symptoms related to her post-vaccination 

state, and that to date no medical explanation had been provided for her condition. Id. He added 

that the second and third doses had exacerbated her symptoms while also adding new debilitating 

features to them. Id. at 3. 

Despite his embrace of Petitioner’s own claims about her health history and status, Dr. 

Brawer’s physical exam of Petitioner revealed nothing out of the ordinary. First Brawer Rep. at 3. 

And it does not appear from his initial written report that he performed any other tests to ascertain 

her status or confirm symptoms. He nevertheless proposed that the HPV vaccine doses she had 

received were causal of her chronic fatigue. Id. And in so doing, he attempted to outline a medical 

theory for how this could have occurred.

First, Dr. Brawer offered an explanation for how the vaccine could have caused a chronic 

fatigue-like injury. He deemed it “naturally tempting” to offer an “adverse autoimmune reaction” 

as the likely mediator for the injury at issue, especially since “it is now well known” that many 

other vaccines are believed to be causal of different autoimmune illnesses in this manner. First 
7

Brawer Rep. at 3. But he acknowledged that a number of reliable studies had negated the 

assumption that the HPV vaccine could similarly instigate an autoimmune process leading to 

disease. Id. at 3–4. He nevertheless maintained the vaccine could be causal, albeit through a 

different mechanism, based on his contention that the vaccine’s “non-antigenic ingredients” 

(meaning not included for the specific purpose of sparking an immune reaction) could trigger a 

reaction due to their toxic characteristics. Id. at 4. And his contention relied in large part of his 

view that “HPV vaccine induced illness” is ultimately not simply some autoimmune or easilyunderstood condition, but instead “an entity unto itself.” Id. at 6.

Specifically, Dr. Brawer maintained that the HPV vaccine includes polysorbate-80 as a 

“surfactant and emulsifier.” 5 First Brawer Rep. at 4. But the inclusion of this ingredient renders 

the vaccine cloudy in appearance—requiring in turn the additions of other components like 

“organosilicones” to clarify the vaccine. Id. And silicones, he argued, have “a long and sordid 

proven history of human toxicity,” referencing what was already known about silicone gels used 

for breast implants. Id. Thus, a non-autoimmune toxic reaction to this vaccine ingredient was 

possible, causing a “multitude of biochemical disruptions,” that would in turn promote a chronic 

condition with persistent symptoms. Id. at 4–5. This process could also interfere with energy 

production by cell mitochondria, triggering immune responses that might appear to be autoimmune 

in character (even though their etiology was otherwise). Id. at 5. 

Dr. Brawer’s initial report provided little scientific or medical support for his contentions 

about causality. He maintained that “numerous reports from multiple other countries” had 

observed similar symptoms after receipt of the HPV vaccine. First Brawer Rep. at 3. Although his 

report did not cite any such studies specifically as supportive of his theory, the filing of the report 

was accompanied by the filing of a number of items of literature. See generally Exs. 101–15. 

Some articles discussed a possible association between the HPV vaccine and autonomic 

dysfunction broadly, but leaned toward an autoimmune explanation for the association of the sort 

that Dr. Brawer had both rejected and deemed unrelated to the theory he embraced. See, e.g., S. 

Blitshteyn et al., Autonomic Dysfunction and HPV Immunization: An Overview, Immunologic 

Research https://doi.org/10.1007/s12026-018-9036-1 (published online on November 27, 2018), 

filed as Ex. 102 (ECF No. 81-6). Others sought to reveal the mere existence of the HPV-disease 

association, but with less emphasis on eliding a causal explanation. See, e.g., M. Martinez-Lavin, 

et al., HPV Vaccination Syndrome. A Questionnaire-based Study, 34 Clin. Rheumatol. 1981 

(2015), filed as Ex. 109 (ECF No. 82-4); K. Ozawa et al., Suspected Adverse Effects After Human 

Papillomavirus Vaccination: A Temporal Relationship Between Vaccine Administration and the 

Appearance of Symptoms in Japan, 40 Drug. Saf. 1219 (2017), filed as Ex. 114 (ECF No. 82-9)

5 “Surface-active Agent,” or surfactant,is defined as “a substance that exerts a change on the surface properties of a 

liquid, especially one that reduces its surface tension, such as a detergent.” Surface-active Agent, Dorland’s Medical 

Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=55175(last visited Feb. 3, 2023). 
8

(“Ozawa”). None expressly referenced or involved the toxicity theory Dr. Brawer offered, 

however.

Next, Dr. Brawer opined that Ms. McDonald’s medical history confirmed that the HPV 

vaccine was likely causal of her chronic symptoms. She had been symptoms-free pre-vaccination, 

and no other explanation had been provided for her illness. First Brawer Rep. at 5. And although 

some testing performed on her had suggested the presence of low platelets (thrombocytopenia) or 

white blood cells (leucopenia), heavy metals involved in the production of organosiloxanes would 

likely be explanatory (and those conditions were otherwise associated with “HPV vaccine induced 

toxicity,” although Dr. Brawer offered no support for this sub-contention.

Finally, Dr. Brawer maintained that the temporal relationship between Petitioner’s 

symptoms onset (which he placed at two weeks after receipt of the first dose) and vaccination was 

medically acceptable. First Brawer Rep. at 5. In support, he referred to a different form of HPV 

vaccine not administered to Petitioner, Cervarix. Id. at 6. That version of the vaccine, he 

maintained, contains “sodium phosphate dihydrate,” the components of which contain “residues 

of the element silicon in the form of silica (silicon dioxide).” Id. This version of the vaccine had 

also been, he argued, linked to chronic illness—although he did not explain how this rendered the 

timeframe between receipt of the first HPV dose and Petitioner’s onset medically acceptable. 

Rather, he seemed to determine in conclusory fashion that a two-week timeframe for onset (a 

timeframe more reliant on witness statements than the actual record) had to be reasonable. Id. at 

5.

Around the time of the filing of his first report, however, Dr. Brawer also offered a twopage addendum. See Report, dated February 5, 2019, filed as Ex. 99 (ECF No. 81-3) (“Brawer 

Addendum”). He maintained that some points relevant to his causation theory that had been 

intended to be included in his initial report were “inadvertently omitted” from the report he had 

just prepared, and therefore he wished to add them now. Brawer Addendum at 1.

In this addendum, Dr. Brawer explained in more detail the scientific basis for his theory. 

He maintained that vaccines included additives intended to “enhance the humeral and cellular 

immune response to the antigens in question,” and that these additives include “surfactants and 

emulsifiers” that can produce foaming—a desirable trait for soaps and detergents but not for 

vaccines. Brawer Addendum at 1. To counteract that possibility, “manufacturers add 

organosiloxanes”—an ingredient that the Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) purportedly 

does not require listed on product labels (based in turn on the conception (false in Dr. Brawer’s 

view) that these substances are inert, and therefore harmless). Id.

But these organosiloxanes, Dr. Brawer argued, have the capacity to provoke “inappropriate 

and unanticipated inflammatory responses,” primarily by their interaction with mast cells 
9

responsible for stimulation of inflammation elsewhere. Brawer Addendum at 2. Dr. Brawer did 

not, however, cite or identify any other literature specific to this causal theory. He also reiterated 

his prior contention/admission that his theory was independent from the understanding that 

“autoimmune mechanisms” explained how the HPV vaccine was causal of “HPV vaccine-induced 

illness.” Id. at 2.

Second Report

The next written report offered by Dr. Brawer is a two-page response to the opinion of 

Respondent’s toxicology expert, Dr. Kendall Wallace (which is discussed below). It begins with 

(unnecessary) personal criticism of Dr. Wallace, maintaining that he lacks the clinical expertise of 

rheumatologists who see “legions of patients on the front lines every day” (although why a 

rheumatologist has the expertise necessary herein to reliably establish that the HPV vaccine can 

cause a non-rheumatologic injury, via a toxic process moreover, is unexplained). Second Brawer 

Rep. at 1. And Dr. Brawer maintains thatDr. Wallace’s response to Dr. Brawer’s opinion manifests 

a “cookie cutter” view of neurological fatiguing syndromes that here deems “untampered by 

clinical reality.” Second Brawer Rep. at 1. Later on, Dr. Brawer accuses Dr. Wallace of “living 

with his head in the sand” with respect to the viability of the causation theory offered (Id. at 2), or 

that “[v]irtually all biochemists have been brainwashed” into the view that organosiloxanes are 

inert (and therefore incapable of triggering a toxic reaction (Id. at 1).

Moving beyond personal insult, Dr. Brawer made several points in reaction to Dr. 

Wallace’s comments. He denied the general argument that the purported toxicity of silicone-based 

vaccine ingredients has been rebutted, asserting that “recent events and/or publications in the last 

ten years” specific to silicone implants causing breast injuries has supported his theory. Second 

Brawer Rep. at 1. In particular, he noted FDA hearings in 2019 in which numerous complaints of 

silicone breast implant illnesses were addressed. Id. Dr. Wallace, he contended, instead relies on 

outdated evidence from abroad. Id. at 1–2. 

Dr. Brawer posited that his own peer-reviewed publications filed in this case establish his 

general contention of the toxicity of silicone-containing vaccine ingredients. Second Brawer Rep.

at 2. But his second report was not accompanied by citation, or the filing of any such items of 

literature. Rather, he filed only another copy of his CV (upon which he had scribbled a request to 

former Petitioner’s counsel to file certain items). See generally Ex. 121 (ECF No. 93-3). However, 

that same month (and just before the second report was filed), Petitioner had filed two items written 

by Dr. Brawer. 

One article discusses at length the experiences of six women who received silicone gelfilled breast implants. A. Brawer, Destiny Rides Again: The Reappearance of Silicone Gel-Filled 

Breast Implant Toxicity, 26 Lupus 1060 (2017), filed as Ex. 118 (ECF No. 92-2). But this article 
10

says little about Dr. Brawer’s scientific, toxicology-based theory about how organosiloxanes could 

stimulate the kind of symptoms Petitioner alleges—and even less about their introduction into the 

body via vaccination. The other article he filed at this time was equally unsupportive, and was only 

a reprint of a New York Times article from 2019 setting forth the FDA’s intent to review again 

claims that silicone breast implants could cause injury. Denise Grady and Roni C. Rabin, Reports 

of Breast Implant Illnesses Prompt Federal Review, N.Y. Times, Mar. 19, 2019, at A16, filed as 

Ex. 119 (ECF No. 92-3).

Dr. Brawer further attempted to undermine Dr. Wallace’s contentions that organosiloxanes 

are not in fact likely even found as an ingredient in the HPV vaccine. Second Brawer Rep. at 2. 

First, he maintained that there was no FDA or other governmental requirement in the first place to 

list organosiloxane as a vaccine ingredient (thus implying that its absence as a listed ingredient 

does not disprove the possibility that it is included). Id. Second, he admitted that the HPV vaccine 

itself does (upon shaking) appear cloudy (and hence undermining his contention that 

organosiloxane is necessarily included to clarify the solution). Id. But he argued that publiclyavailable photos establish that the clarity of the vaccine is evident prior to shaking. Id. In the end, 

he termed it “perfectly logical” to assume that “any solution containing PS-80” would also include 

some silicone-based substance, like organosiloxanes, to counteract cloudiness or murkiness. Id.

Third Report

Dr. Brawer’s third written report was the first of two dated May 4, 2020, both prepared in 

response to criticisms leveled at him by both of Respondent’s experts. This particular report was 

in reaction to Dr. Wallace’s second report. First, Dr. Brawer highlighted the “plethora of peer 

reviewed publications” (many of which he noted had been filed in this matter (see discussion 

below)—although Dr. Brawer (again) included no specific cites to these items) that had 

collectively convinced the FDA to warn against the danger of silicone-containing components in 

the contest of breast implants. Third Brawer Rep. at 1. Because of such support, he deemed Dr. 

Wallace’s criticisms “misleading and deficient,” and in particular took issue with comparing 

“breast implant illness” to autoimmune connective tissue disorders such as lupus. Id. He also 

maintained that Dr. Wallace had revealed his ignorance of the toxic capabilities of 

organosiloxanes, reducing overall the reliability of Dr. Wallace’s opinion. Id. at 2. Otherwise, Dr. 

Brawer provided no additional substantiation for his opinion.

Fourth Brawer Report

The final written report prepared by Dr. Brawer responded to a report from Dr. 

MacGinnitie, Respondent’s immunologist, and it went a bit further than his final response to Dr. 

Wallace. First, he referenced several items of literature filed in this case (most if not all of which 

he had authored) as establishing the “hidden toxicity” of HPV components, although only one was 
11

specific to the issues in this case. Fourth Brawer Rep. at 1; A. Brawer, Hidden Toxicity of Human 

Papillomavirus Vaccine Ingredients, 5 J. Rheum. Dis. Treat. 75 (2019), filed as Ex. 143 (ECF No. 

99-2) (“Brawer I”); A. Brawer, Vaccination Induced Diseases and Their Relationship to 

Neurologic Fatiguing Syndromes, Channelopathies, Breast Implant Illness, and Autoimmunity via 

Molecular Mimicry, 4 Int’l. J. Vaccine Immunizat. 1:1 (2020), filed as Ex. 153 (ECF No. 110-7) 

(“Brawer II”).

Second, Dr. Brawer repeated his prior contention that there was no federal regulatory 

requirement for disclosing the inclusion of organosiloxanes (thus allowing for the possibility that 

they were in fact part of the HPV vaccine). Fourth Brawer Rep. at 1–2. He also revisited his 

contention that the FDA was aware of the toxicity of these silicon-containing vaccine components, 

albeit in the context of breast implants. Id. at 2. And he maintained “HPV induced illness” was a 

substantiated condition, analogizing the preliminary support for it to other conditions that had also 

once been less understood, like Lyme disease. Id. Finally, Dr. Brawer took several opportunities 

in this report to unreasonably subject Dr. MacGinnitie to the same kind of invective he had directed 

at Dr. Wallace. See, e.g., Fourth Brawer Rep. at 2 (repeating the criticism that Dr. MacGinnitie 

had a “cookie cutter” view of immune activation or noting that Dr. MacGinnitie engaged in 

confusing “ramblings” about post-vaccination autoimmune conditions not bearing on the 

purportedly-causal toxic process relevant to Dr. Brawer’s theory).

Uncited Literature Filings

In the midst of offering expert reports, Petitioner filed more than 25 additional items of 

literature purportedly supportive of Dr. Brawer’s opinions. See generally Exs. 122–42 (filed 

collectively August 15-16, 2019; Exs. 143–46 (filed September 16, 2019). But the vast majority 

of these items bear only indirectly on the causation theory offered herein. Many were authored by 

Dr. Brawer, but are specific to the breast implant context. See, e.g., A. Brawer, Bones, Groans, 

and Silicone, 21 Lupus 1155 (2012), filed as Ex. 122 (ECF No. 96-2) (opinion piece); A. Brawer, 

Case Report: Silicone is not Fun in the Sun 1 Med. Case. Rep. Rev. 3:1 (2018), filed as Ex. 129 

(ECF No, 96-9) (detailing woman’s development of “multisystem illness” after receiving silicone 

gel-filled breast implants)(“Brawer Second Case Report”). Others (like prior articles filed) discuss 

purported impacts of the HPV vaccine, without associating observed symptoms with the 

mechanism proposed in this case. See, e.g., S. Ikeda et al., Suspected Adverse Effects After Human 

Papillomavirus Vaccination: A Temporal Relationship, 66 Imm. Research 723 (2018), filed as Ex. 

132 (ECF No. 97-3) (“Ikeda”).

Only a few of the filed articles come anywhere close to being relevant to the theory posited 

in this matter. One, a case report, was written by Dr. Brawer himself. See, e.g., Brawer I. But 

Brawer I not only simply reiterates the theory offered herein (without offering reliable research or 

substantiation for it), but describes the experience of one recipient of the HPV vaccine only, 
12

reporting comparable post-vaccination symptoms with no corroboration they occurred in fact.6

Another discusses the extent to which organosilicon surfactants in a variety of products might pose

toxic risks, using bees in an animal experiment to test. J. Chen et al., Are Organosilicon Surfactants 

Safe for Bees or Humans? 612 Sci. of the Total Environment 415 (2018), filed as Ex. 144 (ECF 

No. 99-3) (“Chen”). Chen urges the regulation of this additive, but rests this proposal mostly on 

the toxicity of the ingredientto bees in the context of its use in agriculture or pesticides, and makes 

no mention of the effects of inclusion in vaccines (let alone whether it even is found in vaccines 

of any kind). Chen at 418–19.

2. Dr. Ernest Chiodo – Dr. Chiodo, a physician and toxicologist, offered the 

opinion that Ms. McDonald’s condition and related symptoms reflected a toxic reaction to the 

HPV vaccine. SeeReport, dated May 24, 2021, filed as Ex. 166 (ECF No. 124-1) (“Chiodo Rep.”). 

Dr. Chiodo earned his M.D. at Wayne State University School of Medicine, and also 

possesses a number of additional degrees, including a Masters in Public Health from Harvard 

University’s School of Public Health, and several masters degrees pertaining to biomedical 

engineering, occupational and environmental health sciences, and experimental and translational 

therapeutics. Chiodo Rep. at 1; Curriculum Vitae, filed as Ex. 167 on May 28, 2021 (ECF No. 

124-2) (“Chiodo CV”), at 1–2. Although he appears to be licensed to practice medicine, Dr. Chiodo 

also actively practices health care law as well. Chiodo CV at 3, 4. More than 20 years ago, he 

served as Medical Director and Manager of Medical and Public Health Services for the City of 

Detroit, and is a diplomate member of a number of American medical boards. Id at 4–5. He has 

taught at both medical and law schools, and is published on a number of toxic tort-related topics. 

Id. at 6, 28–29.

Dr. Chiodo based his opinion on a review of the record in this case, plus the previouslyfiled expert reports and associated literature. Chiodo Rep. at 2–3. However, although his report 

was seven pages in length, substantively-speaking it was fairly thin. First, he summarized 

Petitioner’s history, observing that prior to vaccination she had not experienced anything 

associated with her post-vaccine symptoms, and that the record revealed no other explanation for 

her fatigue. Id. at 3. 

Second, Dr. Chiodo attempted to bulwark Petitioner’s theory, albeit by offering an 

alternative take on causation. Rather than embracing Dr. Brawer’s contentions about the 

undisclosed inclusion of organosiloxanes in the HPV vaccine and their purportedly toxic effects, 

6 Brawer II, by contrast, is a later-filed article that provides an overview explanation for Dr. Brawer’s more general 

contention that “novel and plausible alternative mechanisms” (beyond autoimmune reactions mediated by molecular 

mimicry) exist to explain “neurologic fatiguing syndromes”—mainly via “organosiloxane-induced” reactions (due to 

hidden/undisclosed vaccine components). Brawer II at 1, 3. But besides being a review article (and one that relies 

quite heavily on Dr. Brawer’s own publications), Brawer II offers no independent data or evidence to bulwark the 

reliability of its causal theory.
13

Dr. Chiodo asserted that the HPV vaccine’s adjuvant—“amorphous aluminum 

hydroxyphosphate”—could independently instigate disease. Chiodo Rep. at 4. Based on his own 

reported review of a National Library of Medicine literature database, Dr. Chiodo maintained that 

there was reliable evidence that these adjuvants “cause elevated plasma cytokine/chemokine” 

levels sufficient to instigate a harmful inflammatory response. Id. Dr. Chiodo did not cite any 

independent literature for this contention, but referenced a World Health Organization web page 

setting forth the HPV vaccine’s contents.7

Next, Dr. Chiodo considered whether the evidence established that the HPV vaccine “did 

cause” Ms. McDonald’s fatigue. To do so, he invoked the “Reference Manual on Scientific 

Evidence” (the “Reference Manual”)8 and its standards for evaluating a matter like causation, 

asserting that the “differential diagnosis process” it describes (by which treaters narrow possible 

etiologies for a condition) is scientifically reliable (and hence evidentiarily persuasive). Chiodo 

Rep. at 5–6. Here, he deemed it significant that (a) Petitioner was well pre-vaccination, and (b) no 

other explanations for her condition, such as a positive Lyme disease infection, had been identified. 

Id.at 6. This fact pattern, he maintained, also was enough to show that the claim requirement that 

onset occur in a medically-acceptable timeframe was also satisfied—“the new symptoms of 

Petitioner only occurred after the administration of the HPV vaccine.” Id.

Dr. Chiodo concluded with criticism of the qualifications of Drs. Wallace and MacGinnitie. 

Dr. Wallace, he argued, lacked medical expertise, and therefore could not credibly comment on 

Petitioner’s medical history (and the differential diagnosis evidence that he maintained was so 

probative). Chiodo Rep. at 6. Dr. MacGinnitie, by contrast, lacked toxicology expertise, preventing 

him from intelligently commenting on the role the vaccine adjuvant could have played herein. Id. 

And neither of Respondent’s experts had a background in vaccine manufacture or development, 

or expertise in public health considerations impacting mass vaccination programs more broadly 

(in comparison to Dr. Chiodo, who maintained he did have some experience in vaccine 

development and public vaccine administration). Id. at 7. At bottom, Dr. Chiodo deemed their 

opinions to be ipse dixit. Id.

C. Respondent’s Experts

1. Dr. Andrew MacGinnitie – Dr. MacGinnitie, a pediatrician and 

immunologist, had originally been designated as Respondent’s expert in reaction to the expert 

opinions that Petitioner has abandoned. But he remained an expert for Respondent even after 

7 Dr. Chiodo’s report includes a web link purportedly containing the information referenced, but the link is either 

inaccurate or broken. But Dr. MacGinnitie’s Report refers properly to both the officially-publishedpackage insert as 

well as the excipient ingredient list (as discussed below).

8 See generally Fed. Judicial Ctr.,Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, at 690 (3d ed. 2011). Dr. Chiodo did not 

offer the Reference Manual excerpt as a specific exhibit to his report.
14

Petitioner obtained Dr. Brawer’s assistance, and he prepared several reports in response to these 

additional opinions. See Report, dated November 25, 2019, filed as Ex. O (ECF No. 103-1) (“First 

MacGinnitie Rep.”); Report, dated September 22, 2020, filed as Ex. Q (ECF No. 113-2) (“Second 

MacGinnitie Rep.”); Report, dated August 30, 2021, filed as Ex. R (ECF No. 127-1) (“Third 

MacGinnitie Rep.”).

Dr. MacGinnitie is an attending physician and the Clinical Director for the Division of 

Immunology at Boston Children's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Curriculum Vitae, filed as 

Ex. B on February 23, 2017 (ECF No. 39-2) (“MacGinnitie CV”), at 1–2. He is also an Associate 

Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.MacGinnitie CVat 1. Dr. MacGinnitie received 

his undergraduate degree from Yale University, followed by both a medical degree and Ph.D. from 

the University of Chicago. Id. Thereafter, he completed his residency, followed by a fellowship in 

allergy and immunology at Boston Children’s. Id. He is board certified in pediatrics and allergy 

and immunology, and has been in practice as an allergist/immunologist since 2004. Id. at 9.

Further, he has not only seen patients with various immunologic diseases, including reactions to 

vaccines, but has published several articles in the area. Id. at 11–14.

First Report

Dr. MacGinnitie’s first report (relevant to the presently-articulated causation theory) 

contained his reaction to Dr. Brawer’s initial report. Although Dr. MacGinnitie acknowledged that 

he lacked Dr. Wallace’s expertise to comment on the purportedly-toxic character of the 

organosiloxanes allegedly contained in the HPV vaccine, he nevertheless provided his own 

immunologic-oriented reaction. First MacGinnitie Rep. at 1. 

After expressing some confusion as to what Dr. Brawer’s causation opinion actually set 

forth,9Dr. MacGinnitie offered his understanding: that silica-containing, non-antigenic substances 

in the HPV vaccine (included to clarify or stabilize the solution) could trigger a combination of 

symptoms Dr. Brawer characterized as “Gardasil immunization induced illness.” Frist 

MacGinnitie Rep. at 2. Moreover, Dr. Brawer was not contending that these symptoms were 

produced by an autoimmune process through the vaccine’s stimulation of the immune system 

itself. Id. Dr. MacGinnitie did not, however, find the theory reliable or persuasive.

9 In particular, Dr. MaGinnitie noted that Dr. Brawer had not cited any independent authority for his assertions in his 

written report (even if he did later file a variety of items of literature he maintained were supportive of his opinion). 

First MacGinnitie Rep. at 1–2. This is a valid criticism, as I noted above. AlthoughPetitioner has filed into the record 

a number of medical or scientific articles to bulwark her claim (and I have reviewed them, consistent with my 

responsibilities as special master), the fact that Dr. Brawer’s reports provide no useful citation to them, let alone 

discussion of their contents,limitsthe utility and persuasiveness of his opinion overall.
15

First (and echoing Dr. Wallace, as explained below), Dr. MacGinnitie expressed doubt 

that organosiloxanes were an “undeclared excipient” 10 contained in the HPV vaccine, noting that 

the vaccine’s list of ingredients said nothing supporting this supposition. First MacGinnitie Rep. 

at 2; HPV Vaccine Package Insert, dated April 2015 

(http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM111

263.pdf) (last accessed Feb. 3, 2023), filed as Ex. O, Tab. 1 (ECF No. 103-2);Vaccine Excipient 

Summary(https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipienttable-2.pdf) (last accessed Feb. 3, 2023), filed as Ex. O Tab. 2 (ECF No. 103-2) at 2. Moreover, 

the amounts of these substances (if contained in the vaccine) were overall minimal, and this (plus 

the fact that the vaccine likely did not provide particularly large amounts of immune stimulation

in any event) further reduced the likelihood of an aberrant reaction. First MacGinnitie Rep. at 3.

Second, Dr. MacGinnitie disputed whether there even was a cognizable condition that 

could be characterized as “HPV induced illness.” First MacGinnitie Rep. at 3–4. To his knowledge, 

no official entity (such as the World Health Organization) had identified such an illness, while

entities like the American Autonomic Society (the “AAS”)) had expressed the consensus of its 

members that the HPV vaccine was not credibly associated with a variety of dysautonomic 

conditions comparable to some of the proposed features of HPV vaccine illness. Id. at 3, 7; A. 

Barboi et al., Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine and Autonomic Disorders: A Position 

Statement from the American Autonomic Society, 223 J. Clinical Autonomic Research 1 (2019), 

filed as Ex. O, Tab 9 (ECF No. 103-10) (the “AAS Statement”). And Dr. Brawer’s references 

offered to the contrary were deemed “flawed” by Dr. MacGinnitie, who observed that many of 

them reflected simply the subjective views of individuals who believed they had experienced HPV 

vaccine-related illness, or amounted to case report series articles that displayed selection bias in 

the individuals discussed or otherwise relied on sweeping and conclusory logic. First MacGinnitie 

Rep. at 4 (discussing Ozawa).

At the same time, Dr. MacGinnitie noted, there were “sophisticated epidemiologic studies” 

establishing that the HPV vaccine did not cause the kinds of autoimmune diseases or injuries 

comparable to the toxic reaction Dr. Brawer proposed. First MacGinnitie Rep. at 5–6; C. Chao et 

al., Surveillance of Autoimmune Conditions Following Routine Use of Quadrivalent Human 

Papillomavirus Vaccine, 271 J. Intern. Med. 193 (2012), filed as Ex. O, Tab 5 (ECF No. 103-6) 

(large-scale observational study revealed no increased risk of autoimmune conditions after receipt 

of HPV vaccine).

Dr. MacGinnitie also called into question the general reliability of the literature offered by 

Dr. Brawer to support the claim. First MacGinnitie Rep. at 3. Some (including a few items authored 

by Dr. Brawer) had been published in “predatory” journals that charge fees for publication and are 

10 “Excipient,” is defined as “any more or less inert substance added to a prescription in order to confer a suitable 

consistency or form to the drug; called also vehicle.” Excipient, Dorland’s Medical Dictionary Online, 

https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=17745&searchterm=excipient (last visited Feb. 3, 2023). 
16

not otherwise subject to valid peer review. Beall’s List of Predatory Journals and Publishers

(2017), http://beallslist.net (last accessed Feb. 3, 2023), filed as Ex. O, Tab. 4 (ECVF No. 103-5).

He maintained that seven of Dr. Brawer’s offered items had been published in journals identified 

as predatory (and six were authored or co-authored by Dr. Brawer). First MacGinnitie Rep. at 3 

(identifying Exs. 127–130, 135, 143, and 145). Indeed, Dr. MacGinnitie also observed that Dr. 

Brawer’s first expert report (plus the addendum) seemed to have been “recycled” into one of these 

allegedly predatory journal-published items. Compare First Brawer Rep. and Brawer Addendum 

with Brawer I (filed as Ex. 143). Thus, Dr. Brawer was effectively creating (and in a circular 

manner) an “independent” piece of literature to cite in support of an opinion that itself was the 

source for the secondary article. First MacGinnitie Rep. at 3.

Second Report

Dr. MacGinnitie prepared a short supplemental report addressing three of Dr. Brawer’s 

criticisms. First, he disputed Dr. Brawer’s claim that organosiloxanes were a likely HPV 

component, reiterating his prior point that they had never been disclosed to be a vaccine ingredient. 

Second MacGinnitie Rep. at 1. In response to Dr. Brawer’s assertion that there was no formal FDA 

requirement that the vaccine list the inclusion of organosiloxanes, Dr. MacGinnitie observed that 

Dr. Brawer supported the contention solely with his own, predatory journal-published articles. Id.

at 1–2, citing Brawer I. (At most, he conceded Dr. Brawer’s point that polysorbate-80 was listed 

as a vaccine excipient, although Dr. Brawer’s related point that this ingredient contained 

organosiloxanes remained speculative). And Dr. MacGinnitie also emphasized the small amounts 

of silicon which even conceivably might be found in a vaccine (assuming organosiloxanes were 

found therein), maintaining that he was scientifically qualified to call attention to this fact even if 

he lacked toxicology expertise. Second MacGinnitie Rep. at 2.

Second, Dr. MacGinnitie rejected Dr. Brawer’s argument that in proposing a “black box 

warning” regarding breast implant dangers, the FDA had likely taken into account the silicone 

toxicity views of Dr. Brawer’s publications. Second MacGinnitie Rep. at 2. Not only had Dr. 

Brawer offered no proof for this supposition, but it did not rebut Dr. MacGinnitie’s fundamental 

point that predatory journal articles were ultimately unreliable, even if some points they made were 

reasonable. Id. 

And third, Dr. MacGinnitie rejected Dr. Brawer’s analogy to medical science’s incipient 

understanding of Lyme disease and its causes (which Dr. Brawer had invoked to defend his theory 

against the fact that “HPV induced illness” is not currently accepted as an actual condition). Id. at 

2–3. Support for Lyme disease as a cognizable illness, even in the earliest days of its study, was 

addressed in legitimate and widely-respected medical journals like the New England Journal of 

Medicine. Id. at 3. Otherwise, not every “contrarian assertion” about illness is correct, and at 
17

bottom the concept of a specific syndrome or collection of symptoms due to hidden HPV vaccine 

toxicity was too speculative to accept. Id.

Third Report

Dr. MacGinnitie’s final report offered in this case largely responds to Dr. Chiodo’s 

opinion. 11 Dr. MacGinnitie declined commenting on Dr. Chiodo’s challenges to his expertise—

although he observed that Dr. Chiodo not only appeared to have never published anything relevant 

to the causation theory in this case available on a widely-used database, but also that his own report 

(much like Dr. Brawer’s reports) included no supporting literature citationsthat could be compared 

to the assertions contained in the report. Third MacGinnitie Rep. at 2. 

However, Dr. MacGinnitie disagreed with the reliability of Dr. Chiodo’s contention that 

the HPV vaccine adjuvant (which would encourage elevated cytokines, resulting in a damaging 

inflammatory response that in turn could induce neurologic harm) could be causal of Petitioner’s 

fatigue and related symptoms. At best, Dr. MacGinnitie allowed, the vaccine “can cause a rise in 

certain plasma cytokines,” but deemed that increase transient, and therefore incapable of causing 

a subsequently chronic condition. Third MacGinnitie Rep. at 2. Moreover, Dr. Chiodo’s theory 

did not explain how such cytokine upregulation could cause focal inflammation in the CNS 

sufficient to result in the relevant clinical manifestations, but not elsewhere (and in this case, the 

medical record did not establish that Ms. McDonald ever displayed any post-vaccination 

inflammation or “cytokine mediated” symptoms, like fever). Id. 

Dr. MacGinnitie also questioned the harmful character of the aluminum-based adjuvant 

used in the HPV vaccine. He noted that this kind of adjuvant had consistently been deemed safe 

over many years of vaccine inclusion, inducing at most a localized (meaning near to vaccination 

situs on the arm) inflammation, while actually making the likelihood of an aberrant systemic 

reaction, or one capable of reaching the central nervous system, less likely. Third MacGinnitie 

Rep. at 2; H. Hogenesch, Mechanism of Immunopotentiation and Safety of Aluminum Adjuvants, 

3 Frontiers in Immunol. 406:1 (2013), filed as Ex. R, Tab 3 (ECF No. 128-3), at 9 (review article 

discussing the generally-recognized safety of aluminum-based vaccine adjuvants, and noting that 

they actually “reduce the prevalence and severity of systemic adverse reactions”). He further

referenced some additional epidemiologic studies that found no association between the HPV 

vaccine and a condition comparable to Petitioner’s complaint, chronic fatigue syndrome. See, e.g., 

B. Feiring et al., HPV Vaccination and Risk of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic 

Encephalomyelitis: A Nationwide Register-Based Study from Norway, 35 Vaccine 4203 (2017), 

11 Dr. MacGinnitie also briefly reacted to an exhibit authored by Dr. Brawer, but which he maintained had been

published in a predatory journal, and which moreover sets forth no studies or data that could be consideredas support 

for its contentions. Third MacGinnitie Rep. at 1. He more generally questionedwhether assertions in it specific to the 

field of rheumatology are helpful in resolving this claim (while conceding otherwise that “rheumatologists are often 

skilled clinicians with broad-based medical knowledge”).
18

filed as Ex. R, Tab 5 (ECF No, 128-5) (“Feiring”) (large cohort study of over 176,000 girls in 

Norway revealed no increased risk of chronic fatigue after receipt of the HPV vaccine).

2. Kendall Wallace, Ph.D. – Dr. Wallace, a professor of biochemistry and 

molecular biology with specific expertise in toxicology, prepared four written reports. See Report, 

dated May 24, 2019, filed as Ex. G (ECF No. 91-1) (“First Wallace Rep.”); Report, dated 

November 25, 2019, filed as Ex. M (ECF No. 102-1) (“Second Wallace Rep.”); Report, dated 

August 21, 2020, filed as Ex. P (ECF No. 113-1) (“Third Wallace Rep.”); Report, dated August 

31, 2021, filed as Ex. S (ECF No. 127-2) (“Fourth Wallace Rep.”). Dr. Wallace disputed 

Petitioner’s contention that any non-antigenic components of the HPV vaccine could cause 

generalized chronic fatigue.

Dr. Wallace is a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of 

Minnesota School of Medicine. First Wallace Rep. at 1; Curriculum Vitae, filed as Ex. H on May 

28, 2019 (ECF No. 91-2) (“WallaceCV”), at 1. He received a B.S. in Biochemistry from Michigan 

State University in 1975, followed by an M.S. and Ph.D. in Physiology from the same university. 

Wallace CV at 1. He has been a professor at the University of Minnesota at Duluth since 1981. Id. 

Prior to joining the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in 1996, Dr. Wallace was 

a professor of pharmacology and director of graduate studies for the school's toxicology program, 

and also director of the school's Chemical Toxicology Research Center. Id. Besides teaching, Dr. 

Wallace conducts laboratory-based research (particularly regarding drug and environmentallyinduced mitochondrial toxicity), and has published more than 100 peer-reviewed articles, plus 

book chapters, and is a reviewer for a number of academic journals. First Wallace Rep. at 1; 

Wallace CV at 20. Although Dr. Wallace is not a medical doctor, he is board certified in toxicology 

by the American Board of Toxicology, and is a fellow of the Academy of Toxicological Sciences. 

Id. at 7.

First Report

Dr. Wallace’s initial opinions in this matter offered reactions to Dr. Brawer’s first report. 

After summarizing Dr. Brawer’s theory (in essence, that organosiloxanes contained in the HPV 

vaccine produce a toxic reaction resulting in chronic fatigue), he addressed in order the 

medical/scientific literature references offered to support the theory, noting that they not only were

not “original research articles,” but that they did not otherwise substantiate Petitioner’s causation 

arguments. Several, for example, were merely review articles discussing alleged post-HPV vaccine 

adverse events, or other kinds of theories not specific to what Dr. Brawer proposed. First Wallace 

Rep. at 2. Others were specific to vaccine adjuvants only. Id. at 3–4 (commenting on Ozawa).

Ultimately, Dr. Wallace deemed these items “without relevance to the opinions expressed” by Dr. 

Brawer. First Wallace Rep. at 4.
19

By contrast, Dr. Wallace could not independently locate (based on his own research efforts) 

any reliable, published articles supporting Dr. Brawer’s contention that organosiloxanes could 

prompt an aberrant/toxic response. First Wallace Rep. at 4. And Dr. Brawer had offered no 

evidence to substantiate the allegation that organosiloxanes were even added to the HPV vaccine 

(and for the purpose of clarifying the solution) in the first place. Id. Indeed, HPV vaccine package 

inserts for both 2006 and 2018 specifically indicated that the vaccine solution would, upon 

agitation, become cloudy—wholly undermining the likelihood that the silica-containing substance 

was ever added to prevent cloudiness. Id.; see, e.g., “Gardasil Highlights of Prescribing 

Information (Package Insert), dated 2006, filed as Ex. I (ECF No. 91-3), at 12 (“[a]fter thorough 

agitation, GARDASIL is a white, cloudy liquid”). Organosiloxanes were otherwise not listed as 

an HPV vaccine ingredient. Ex. I at 12.

Dr. Wallace also more specifically critiqued Dr. Brawer’s causation theory on a scientific 

level. Silicon, he noted was “the second most abundant element in the earth’s crust,” and 

“organosiloxanes” are non-volatile, fluid chemical compounds that share a molecular, silica-based

motif. First Wallace Rep. at 4–5. Organosiloxanes are used in medical products, food, and food 

packaging, although humans are most exposed to them via certain food items or cosmetics. Id. at 

5. 

The broad concept of silicon toxicity, Dr. Wallace stated, was a byproduct of reports in the 

1980s of silicone breast implant ruptures leading to a variety of medical complaints, including 

fatigue, nerve pain, or memory issues. First Wallace Rep. at 5. But organosiloxanes have been 

subject to substantial testing, resulting in “strong scientific consensus that they are of no or minimal 

risk to human health.” Id at 5–6. Besides governmental blessing of the safety of organosiloxanes, 

there were specific animal studies confirming that exposure to organosiloxanes over different 

temporal periods had no aberrant effects. Id. at 6–7. At worst, only direct injection of large amounts 

of silicon-containing substances could produce an autoimmune or inflammatory response, but 

none of these studies had determined that silicone alonecould be harmful in any examinedmanner. 

Id. at 8. (Dr. Wallace did not, however, file any of the independent evidence he cited in support of 

these contentions.) Dr. Wallace ultimately rejected the argument that (assuming they were in the 

HPV vaccine) organosiloxanes could cause any injury at all, let alone the chronic fatigue 

complained of in this case. First Wallace Rep. at 8.

Second Report

Dr. Wallace’s next report was a succinct response to Dr. Brawer’s somewhat-inflammatory 

attack on Dr. Wallace’s initial report. After vouching for the objective basis for his own opinion 

and honesty, Dr. Wallace sought to rebut Dr. Brawer’s contention that he had failed to consider 

Dr. Brawer’s “multiple peer reviewed publications” on the issue of whether silicone-containing 

substances could prove toxic. Second Wallace Rep. at 1. Dr. Wallace maintained that his own 
20

literature search had revealed only three publications authored by Dr. Brawer—but all were 

specific to breast implants, as well as distinguishable as an opinion piece or based on a small 

sample. Id. at 1–2. Other publications by Dr. Brawer identified in his CV could not be found in the 

database searched by Dr. Wallace. Second Wallace Rep. at 2.

In addition, Dr. Wallace took issue with the assertion that the FDA had recently (via public 

hearings) essentially conceded the legitimacy of claims that silicone breast implants could cause 

injury (hence allowing for the inference that the same could be true for silicone-containing 

vaccines). Second Wallace Rep. at 2. Dr. Wallace admitted such a hearing had occurred in 2019, 

but noted that the hearing’s panelists stated that (despite public complaints of post-breast implant 

complaints of symptoms by members of the public) there was insufficient scientific/medical 

support to conclude there was any implant-disease association (in particular with “rheumatologic 

or connective tissue disease diagnosis”). Id.; “FDA Executive Summary: Breast Implant Special 

Topics,” FDA Advisory Panel, dated March 25-26, 2019, filed as Ex. N (ECF No. 102-2), at 5. 

Thus, since the connection between the breast implants and symptoms comparable to what 

Petitioner complains of in this case had not been established, the comparatively-miniscule amounts 

of silicone allegedly contained in the HPV vaccine were even less likely to be associated. Second 

Wallace Rep. at 2 (defining an association as “vanishingly improbable”).

Third Report

The third written report prepared by Dr. Wallace was a one-page rejoinder to Dr. Brawer’s 

reaction to Dr. Wallace’s second report. It largely reiterates the points made in his prior reports. 

However, the third report also takes issue with the “12 additional publications” Dr. Brawer 

referenced in his own report as supporting causation. Third Wallace Rep. at 1. These items of 

literature (like others previously pointed out by Dr. Wallace) all either amount to “anecdotal 

clinical observations”/case reports specific to breast implants, scientific research not involving 

silica/silicone toxicity, or Dr. Brawer’s own writing on the topic—and while the latter does include 

an HPV vaccine-oriented article, Dr. Wallace criticized such items as conclusory or as published 

in questionable, “low impact open source” journals that require a fee for publication. Id

(referencing Brawer II). In the end, these “authoritative claims of fact” were, in Dr. Wallace’s 

estimation, not only unsubstantiated but “actually distort rather than resolve” what is at issue 

herein. Third Wallace Rep. at 1.

Fourth Report

Dr. Wallace’s final written report responds to Dr. Chiodo’s report (which as noted above 

combined a new causal theory, based on vaccine adjuvants, with criticism of Respondent’s experts’ 

qualifications). First, Dr. Wallace addressed the alternative theory, noting that it (like Dr. 

Brawer’s) lacked supporting evidence. Dr. Wallace himself attempted to substantiate the concept 
21

that the HPV vaccine could cause harm with his own electronic database literature search, but both 

studies performed abroad, like Feiring, as well as the AAS statement (the same authorities 

referenced by Dr. MacGinnitie) rebutted the contention. Fourth Wallace Rep. at 1. One review 

article went further, addressing but debunking the literature proposing that aluminum-containing 

adjuvants contained in any vaccine could produce injury, while referencing reliable contrary 

studies. R. Ameratunga et al., Evidence Refuting the Existence of Autoimmune/Autoinflammatory 

Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA), 5 J. Allerg. Clin. Immunol. Pract. 6:1551-5 e1 (2017), 

filed as Ex. S, Tab 5 (ECF No. 129-5) (“Ameratunga”), at 4 (“the association between vaccination 

and autoimmunity [due to aluminum-based adjuvants] is likely to be spurious,” and “vaccine 

adjuvant-induced ASIA does not appear to constitute a definable medical condition at this time”). 

Dr. Wallace also denied knowledge of any publications from the field of toxicology establishing 

that the small amounts of amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate contained in the HPV vaccine 

could produce injuries comparable to what Petitioner complained of. Fourth Wallace Rep. at 1.

Second, Dr. Wallace questioned whether a differential diagnosis determination by a 

medical treater was sufficient grounds for a causation finding. Fourth Wallace Rep. at 2. He noted 

that the medical practice of differential diagnosis “links symptoms, history and test results to 

disease diagnosis.” Id. In addition, Dr. Wallace noted that the Reference Manual (which Dr. 

Chiodo had cited favorably in this regard) expressly distinguished between how differential 

diagnosis would be employed in medical treatment from its use in a legal setting, thus diminishing 

the evidentiary value of a treater diagnostic finding when attempting to determine causation as a 

legal matter—the two could not be conflated such that a treater evaluation required a causation 

finding. Id.

Dr. Wallace concluded his commentary on Dr. Chiodo’s report by noting that his assertions 

about the medical acceptability of onset post-vaccination confused a mere temporal association 

between onset and vaccination with proof of a “temporal concordance”—a concept that Dr. Chiodo 

had not fully addressed. Fourth Wallace Rep. at 2.

III. Parties’ Arguments

Petitioner’s brief in support of her claim provides an abbreviated overview of her relevant 

medical history. See generally Br. at 1–3. She emphasizes the purported onset of her subsequentlychronic fatigue within two weeks of the first vaccine dose in the summer of 2012 (or late Juneearly July 2012). Id. at 1. Records from 2013, she maintains, confirm her fatigue as well as sleep 

disorder (a condition she had not experienced pre-vaccination). Id. at 2–3. By the time of the third

dose, she was informing her parents that “she did not feel right in head,” and after seeing many 

treaters was eventually diagnosed with chronic fatigue (and more specifically according to Dr. 

Brawer, “HPV Vaccine Induced Illness”). Id. at 2. Now, she requires coffee and prescribed 

medications to maintain her alertness during the day. Id. 
22

Relying on the above, Petitioner maintains she has met the evidentiary standards for a 

causation-in-fact claim. First, she argues that she has provided a reliable causation theory 

associating the HPV vaccine to her “Gardasil”-induced illness. Br. at 3–5. Dr. Brawer contends 

the HPV vaccine contains several “hidden” chemicals which interact with the immune system 

sufficient to cause an aberrant process. Id. at 3. In particular, organosiloxnanes (known to be toxic 

from the context of breast implants) are added to the vaccine and trigger a reaction—a contention 

Petitioner alleges has literature support. Id. at 3–4, citing Chen and Second Brawer Rep. 

Respondent’s expert, Dr. Wallace, by contrast, lacks foundation in clinical experience or the study 

of organosiloxanes (unlike Dr. Brawer), and ignores more recent literature on the subject. Id. at 4–

5.

Second, Petitioner maintains that the record suggests her chronic fatigue/“Gardasil”-

induced illness was likely caused by the HPV vaccine series she received, noting that she had none 

of the alleged symptoms before vaccination, and that there was no other possible explanation in 

the record for her condition. Br. at 5. And finally, she argues that the timeframe from vaccination 

to onset was medically acceptable. Id. at 6. Based on Dr. Brawer’s opinion, Petitioner specifically 

maintains that her onset began within two weeks of the first vaccine dose—or around June 28, 

2012. Id. This is consistent with “the time in which it took for Petitioner’s body to react to the 

toxic chemicals.” Id.

Respondent’s brief (four times the length of Petitioner’s six-page document) explains the 

claim’s history, noting the aspects of it that have been jettisoned along the way (summarized below 

in my procedural history of the case). Opp. at 2–7. At the outset, Respondent denies that “Gardasilimmunization induced illness” is a medically-cognizable injury in any regard. Id. at 11–15. He 

notes that Dr. Brawer’s conception of the putative condition was addressed by Dr. MacGinnitie 

but rejected as having no medical diagnostic legitimacy. Id. at 12–13. It is at most a theoretical

disease entity, but lacking the degree of medical acceptance or tested bases to treat as a legitimate 

medical condition. Id. at 15.

Otherwise, Respondent contests whether Petitioner can meet any of her burdens under the 

causation test enumerated by the Federal Circuit in Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 

F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The “can cause” first Althen prong is not met, Respondent 

argues, because one of its core factual contentions—“that organosiloxanes and/or other chemicals”

are found in the HPV vaccine, and in amounts sufficient to instigate a reaction—is unsupported 

with reliable proof, as Dr. Wallace has shown. Opp. at 16. Moreover, the next step of the theory 

(in which these toxic elements lead to harm) is equally unsubstantiated, and unpersuasively 

analogizes what is theorized to occur in the context of breast implants to vaccination. Id. at 17–18. 

Nor are the organosiloxanes themselves definitively understood to be hazardous. Id. at 18, 20. 

Neither Petitioner’s literature filings nor case reports preponderantly support her theory, while 
23

reliable large-scale studies confirm that the HPV vaccine does not likely cause the kinds of injuries 

alleged. Id. at 18–19. And Dr. Brawer’s expertise has been called into question in other judicial 

fora, whereas Dr. Wallace is eminently qualified to opine on toxicology matters. Id. at 21–22.

The other two Althen prongs are also unmet, Respondent contends. Petitioner’s second 

prong showing mainly relies on the temporal association between vaccination and symptoms 

onset—recognized to be an insufficient basis for entitlement. Opp. at 22–23. By the same token, 

Dr. Brawer’s contention that a two-week onset of fatigue (after receipt of the first HPV vaccine 

dose) is conclusory, and lacks any provided substantiation for why this period of time would be 

medically-reasonable. Id. at 24. As a result, the third, timeframe prong is also unsatisfied. Id. 

Petitioner reacted to Respondent’s brief with a reply comparable in length to her initial 

brief. See generally Reply. She notes that the parties do not seem to dispute that Petitioner 

experienced chronic fatigue, but rather whether the HPV vaccine could be causal of it. Reply at 2. 

She reiterates her argument that Dr. Brawer established the toxicity of the alleged additional 

vaccine components—while highlighting Dr. Chiodo’s contentions that there is no other 

reasonable medical explanation for her symptoms. Id. at 2–3. Petitioner only briefly revisits her 

prong two contentions (emphasizing Petitioner’s “progressive worsening” between doses as 

further bulwarking an association with the vaccine). Id. at 3. But she expands on her prong three 

showing, citing certain literature she filed that suggests that post-HPV vaccine autoimmune 

reactions would occur within three weeks of the first or second dose, while it could take months 

for the “definite clinical manifestations.” Id. at 4. Thus, the initial onset of Petitioner’s fatigue and 

subsequent course was consistent. Id. at 4–5.

IV. Procedural History

This matter was initiated nearly eight years ago—an inordinate amount of time for even 

the most complex of claims (but an especially troublesome fact given where the claim has ended 

up). The matter was originally assigned to a different special master, and Petitioner was 

represented by different counsel as well. After the filing of a first round of expert reports (offering 

a theory different from what is currently maintained), the case was set for trial to be held May 

2019 (ECF No. 67). However (and as noted above), Petitioner jettisoned her initial set of experts 

and proceeded with the current causal theory espoused by Dr. Brawer, causing the hearing to be 

cancelled so that additional expert input could be obtained. ECF No. 86.

While the second round of expert reports were generated and filed, prior counsel withdrew 

from the case in April 2020. ECF No. 106. The case was subsequently reassigned to me almost a 

year later, on March 5, 2021. ECF No. 120. Not long thereafter, and in the midst of final expert 

filings, I set deadlines for the briefing of a motion for ruling on the record, based on my 
24

determination that the case could reasonably be resolved without a hearing. Briefing was 

completed in June 2022, and the matter is now ripe for resolution.

V. Applicable Law 

A. Petitioner’s Overall Burden in Vaccine Program Cases

To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either: (1) that 

he suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—

corresponding to one of the vaccinations in question within a statutorily prescribed period of time 

or, in the alternative, (2) that his illnesses were actually caused by a vaccine (a “Non-Table 

Injury”). See Sections 13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1), and 14(a), as amended by 42 C.F.R. § 100.3; § 

11(c)(1)(C)(ii)(I); see also Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed. 

Cir. 2010); Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 440 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006).12

In this case, Petitioner cannot assert a Table claim based on the contention that the HPV vaccine 

can cause chronic fatigue.

For both Table and Non-Table claims, Vaccine Program petitioners bear a “preponderance 

of the evidence” burden of proof. Section 13(1)(a). That is, a petitioner must offer evidence that 

leads the “trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence 

before [he] may find in favor of the party who has the burden to persuade the judge of the fact’s 

existence.” Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322 n.2; see also Snowbank Enter. v. United States, 6 Cl. Ct. 

476, 486 (1984) (mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient under a preponderance standard). 

Proof of medical certainty is not required. Bunting v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 931 F.2d 

867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In particular, a petitioner must demonstrate that the vaccine was “not 

only [the] but-for cause of the injury but also a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.” 

Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1321 (quoting Shyface v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 165 F.3d 1344, 

1352–53 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); Pafford v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 451 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. 

Cir. 2006). A petitioner may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely on his assertions; 

rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent 

physician. Section 13(a)(1).

In attempting to establish entitlement to a Vaccine Program award of compensation for a 

Non-Table claim, a petitioner must satisfy all three of the elements established by the Federal 

Circuit in Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278: “(1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and 

the injury; (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason 

12 Decisions of special masters (some of which I reference in this ruling) constitute persuasive but not binding 

authority. Hanlon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 40 Fed. Cl. 625, 630 (1998). By contrast, Federal Circuit rulings 

concerning legal issues are binding on special masters. Guillory v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 59 Fed. Cl. 121, 

124 (2003), aff’d104 F. Appx. 712 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see alsoSpooner v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 13-159V, 

2014 WL 504728, at *7 n.12 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 16, 2014).
25

for the injury; and (3) a showing of proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and 

injury.” 

Each of the Althen prongs requires a different showing. Under Althen prong one, petitioners 

must provide a “reputable medical theory,” demonstrating that the vaccine received can cause the 

type of injury alleged. Pafford, 451 F.3d at 1355–56 (citations omitted). To satisfy this prong, a 

petitioner’s theory must be based on a “sound and reliable medical or scientific explanation.” 

Knudsen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 35 F.3d 543, 548 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Such a theory must 

only be “legally probable, not medically or scientifically certain.” Id. at 549.

Petitioners may satisfy the first Althen prong without resort to medical literature, 

epidemiological studies, demonstration of a specific mechanism, or a generally accepted medical 

theory. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing 

Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1325–26). Special masters, despite their expertise, are not empowered by 

statute to conclusively resolve what are essentially thorny scientific and medical questions, and 

thus scientific evidence offered to establish Althen prong one is viewed “not through the lens of 

the laboratorian, but instead from the vantage point of the Vaccine Act’s preponderant evidence 

standard.” Id. at 1380. Accordingly, special masters must take care not to increase the burden 

placed on petitioners in offering a scientific theory linking vaccine to injury. Contreras, 121 Fed. 

Cl. at 245 (“[p]lausibility . . . in many cases may be enough to satisfy Althen prong one” (emphasis 

in original)). 

In discussing the evidentiary standard applicable to the first Althen prong, the Federal 

Circuit has consistently rejected the contention that it can be satisfied merely by establishing the 

proposed causal theory’s scientific or medical plausibility. See Boatmon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 

Servs., 941 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also LaLonde v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 

746 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[h]owever, in the past we have made clear that simply 

identifying a ‘plausible’ theory of causation is insufficient for a petitioner to meet her burden of 

proof.” (citing Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322)). And petitioners always have the ultimate burden of 

establishing their overall Vaccine Act claim with preponderant evidence. W.C. v. Sec’y of Health 

& Hum. Servs., 704 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted); Tarsell v. United States,

133 Fed. Cl. 782, 793 (2017) (noting that Moberly “addresses the petitioner’s overall burden of 

proving causation-in-fact under the Vaccine Act” by a preponderance standard).

The second Althen prong requires proof of a logical sequence of cause and effect, usually 

supported by facts derived from a petitioner’s medical records. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278; Andreu, 

569 F.3d at 1375–77; Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1326; Grant v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 956 

F.2d 1144, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In establishing that a vaccine “did cause” injury, the opinions 

and views of the injured party’s treating physicians are entitled to some weight. Andreu, 569 F.3d 

at 1367; Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1326 (“medical records and medical opinion testimony are favored 
26

in vaccine cases, as treating physicians are likely to be in the best position to determine whether a 

‘logical sequence of cause and effect show[s] that the vaccination was the reason for the injury’”) 

(quoting Althen, 418 F.3d at 1280). Medical records are generally viewed as particularly 

trustworthy evidence, since they are created contemporaneously with the treatment of the patient. 

Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Medical records and statements of a treating physician, however, do not per se bind the 

special master to adopt the conclusions of such an individual, even if they must be considered and 

carefully evaluated. Section 13(b)(1) (providing that “[a]ny such diagnosis, conclusion, judgment, 

test result, report, or summary shall not be binding on the special master or court”); Snyder v. Sec’y 

of Health & Hum. Servs., 88 Fed. Cl. 706, 746 n.67 (2009) (“there is nothing . . . that mandates 

that the testimony of a treating physician is sacrosanct—that it must be accepted in its entirety and 

cannot be rebutted”). As with expert testimony offered to establish a theory of causation, the 

opinions or diagnoses of treating physicians are only as trustworthy as the reasonableness of their 

suppositions or bases. The views of treating physicians should be weighed against other, contrary 

evidence also present in the record—including conflicting opinions among such individuals. 

Hibbard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 742, 749 (2011) (not arbitrary or capricious 

for special master to weigh competing treating physicians’ conclusions against each other), aff’d, 

698 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Veryzer v. Sec’y of Dept. of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 06-522V, 

2011 WL 1935813, at *17 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 29, 2011), mot. for review denied, 100 Fed. 

Cl. 344, 356 (2011), aff’d without opinion, 475 F. Appx. 765 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

The third Althen prong requires establishing a “proximate temporal relationship” between 

the vaccination and the injury alleged. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1281. That term has been equated to the 

phrase “medically-acceptable temporal relationship.” Id. A petitioner must offer “preponderant 

proof that the onset of symptoms occurred within a timeframe which, given the medical 

understanding of the disorder’s etiology, it is medically acceptable to infer causation.” de Bazan 

v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 539 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The explanation for what 

is a medically acceptable timeframe must align with the theory of how the relevant vaccine can 

cause an injury (Althen prong one’s requirement). Id. at 1352; Shapiro v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 

Servs., 101 Fed. Cl. 532, 542 (2011), recons. denied after remand, 105 Fed. Cl. 353 (2012), aff’d 

mem., 503 F. Appx. 952 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Koehn v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11-355V, 

2013 WL 3214877 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 30, 2013), mot. for rev. denied (Fed. Cl. Dec. 3, 

2013), aff’d, 773 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

B. Legal Standards Governing Factual Determinations 

The process for making determinations in Vaccine Program cases regarding factual issues 

begins with consideration of the medical records. Section 11(c)(2). The special master is required 

to consider “all [] relevant medical and scientific evidence contained in the record,” including “any 
27

diagnosis, conclusion, medical judgment, or autopsy or coroner’s report which is contained in the 

record regarding the nature, causation, and aggravation of the petitioner’s illness, disability, injury, 

condition, or death,” as well as the “results of any diagnostic or evaluative test which are contained 

in the record and the summaries and conclusions.” Section 13(b)(1)(A). The special master is then 

required to weigh the evidence presented, including contemporaneous medical records and 

testimony. See Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (it is 

within the special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to 

contemporaneous medical records than to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the 

events in question that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is evidenced by 

a rational determination).

Medical records that are created contemporaneously with the events they describe are 

presumed to be accurate and “complete” (i.e., presenting all relevant information on a patient’s 

health problems). Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528; Doe/70 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 95 Fed. 

Cl. 598, 608 (2010) (“[g]iven the inconsistencies between petitioner’s testimony and his 

contemporaneous medical records, the special master’s decision to rely on petitioner’s medical 

records was rational and consistent with applicable law”), aff’d sub nom. Rickett v. Sec’y of Health 

& Hum. Servs., 468 F. Appx. 952 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential opinion). This presumption 

is based on the linked propositions that (i) sick people visit medical professionals; (ii) sick people 

honestly report their health problems to those professionals; and (iii) medical professionals record 

what they are told or observe when examining their patients in as accurate a manner as possible, 

so that they are aware of enough relevant facts to make appropriate treatment decisions. Sanchez 

v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11-685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. 

Apr. 10, 2013); Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 26 Cl. Ct. 537, 543 (1992), aff’d, 993 

F.2d at 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[i]t strains reason to conclude that petitioners would fail to 

accurately report the onset of their daughter’s symptoms”).

Accordingly, if the medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, then they should 

be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20. Indeed, contemporaneous 

medical records are generally found to be deserving of greater evidentiary weight than oral 

testimony—especially where such testimony conflicts with the record evidence. Cucuras, 993 F.2d 

at 1528; see also Murphy, 23 Cl. Ct. at 733 (citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 

U.S. 364, 396 (1947) (“[i]t has generally been held that oral testimony which is in conflict with 

contemporaneous documents is entitled to little evidentiary weight.”)).

There are, however, situations in which compelling oral testimony may be more persuasive 

than written records, such as where records are deemed to be incomplete or inaccurate. Campbell 

v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 69 Fed. Cl. 775, 779 (2006) (“like any norm based upon common 

sense and experience, this rule should not be treated as an absolute and must yield where the factual 

predicates for its application are weak or lacking”); Lowrie, 2005 WL 6117475, at *19 (“’[w]ritten 
28

records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which 

are internally consistent’”) (quoting Murphy, 23 Cl. Ct. at 733)). Ultimately, a determination 

regarding a witness’s credibility is needed when determining the weight that such testimony should 

be afforded. Andreu, 569 F.3d at 1379; Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 

1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

When witness testimony is offered to overcome the presumption of accuracy afforded to 

contemporaneous medical records, such testimony must be “consistent, clear, cogent, and 

compelling.” Sanchez, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 

No. 90-2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)). In determining the 

accuracy and completeness of medical records, the Court of Federal Claims has listed four possible 

explanations for inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later 

testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that happened 

during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to document everything 

reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events when presenting testimony; 

or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did not exist. Lalonde v. Sec’y of Health 

& Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013), aff’d, 746 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In making 

a determination regarding whether to afford greater weight to contemporaneous medical records 

or other evidence, such as testimony at hearing, there must be evidence that this decision was the 

result of a rational determination. Burns, 3 F.3d at 417.

C. Analysis of Expert Testimony 

Establishing a sound and reliable medical theory often requires a petitioner to present 

expert testimony in support of his claim. Lampe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 219 F.3d 1357, 

1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Vaccine Program expert testimony is usually evaluated according to the 

factors for analyzing scientific reliability set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 

Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 594–96 (1993). See Cedillo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 617 F.3d 1328, 

1339 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Terran v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 195 F.3d 1302, 1316 (Fed. 

Cir. 1999)). “The Daubert factors for analyzing the reliability of testimony are: (1) whether a 

theory or technique can be (and has been) tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been 

subjected to peer review and publication; (3) whether there is a known or potential rate of error 

and whether there are standards for controlling the error; and (4) whether the theory or technique 

enjoys general acceptance within a relevant scientific community.” Terran, 195 F.3d at 1316 n.2 

(citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592–95).

The Daubert factors play a slightly different role in Vaccine Program cases than they do 

when applied in other federal judicial fora (such as the district courts). Daubert factors are usually 

employed by judges (in the performance of their evidentiary gatekeeper roles) to exclude evidence 

that is unreliable and/or could confuse a jury. In Vaccine Program cases, by contrast, these factors 

are used in the weighing of the reliability of scientific evidence proffered. Davis v. Sec’y of Health 
29

& Hum. Servs., 94 Fed. Cl. 53, 66–67 (2010) (“uniquely in this Circuit, the Daubert factors have 

been employed also as an acceptable evidentiary-gauging tool with respect to persuasiveness of 

expert testimony already admitted”). The flexible use of the Daubert factors to evaluate the 

persuasiveness and reliability of expert testimony has routinely been upheld. See e.g., Snyder, 88 

Fed. Cl. at 742–45. In this matter (as in numerous other Vaccine Program cases), Daubert has not 

been employed at the threshold, to determine what evidence should be admitted, but instead to 

determine whether expert testimony offered is reliable and/or persuasive.

Respondent frequently offers one or more experts of his own in order to rebut a petitioner’s 

case. Where both sides offer expert testimony, a special master’s decision may be “based on the 

credibility of the experts and the relative persuasiveness of their competing theories.” 

Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 618 F.3d 1339,1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing 

Lampe, 219 F.3d at 1362). However, nothing requires the acceptance of an expert’s conclusion 

“connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert,” especially if “there is simply too 

great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” Snyder, 88 Fed. Cl. at 743 

(quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997)); see also Isaac v. Sec’y of Health & 

Hum. Servs., No. 08-601V, 2012 WL 3609993, at *17 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 30, 2012), mot. 

for rev. denied, 108 Fed. Cl. 743 (2013), aff’d, 540 F. Appx. 999 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Cedillo, 

617 F.3d at 1339). Weighing the relative persuasiveness of competing expert testimony, based on 

a particular expert’s credibility, is part of the overall reliability analysis to which special masters 

must subject expert testimony in Vaccine Program cases. Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1325–26 

(“[a]ssessments as to the reliability of expert testimony often turn on credibility determinations”); 

see also Porter v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 663 F.3d 1242, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“this 

court has unambiguously explained that special masters are expected to consider the credibility of 

expert witnesses in evaluating petitions for compensation under the Vaccine Act”).

Expert opinions based on unsupported facts may be given relatively little weight. See 

Dobrydnev v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 556 F. Appx. 976, 992–93 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[a] 

doctor’s conclusion is only as good as the facts upon which it is based”) (citing Brooke Group Ltd. 

v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 242 (1993) (“[w]hen an expert assumes 

facts that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, a finder of fact may properly reject 

the expert’s opinion”)). Expert opinions that fail to address or are at odds with contemporaneous 

medical records may therefore be less persuasive than those which correspond to such records. See 

Gerami v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 12-442V, 2013 WL 5998109, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. Oct. 11, 2013), aff’d, 127 Fed. Cl. 299 (2014).

D. Consideration of Medical Literature 

Both parties filed medical and scientific literature in this case, but not every filed item 

factors into the outcome of this decision. While I have reviewed all the medical literature submitted 
30

in this case, I discuss only those articles that are most relevant to my determination and/or are 

central to Petitioner’s case—just as I have not exhaustively discussed every individual medical 

record filed. Moriarty v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 844 F.3d 1322, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2016) 

(“[w]e generally presume that a special master considered the relevant record evidence even 

though he does not explicitly reference such evidence in his decision”) (citation omitted); see also 

Paterek v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 527 F. Appx. 875, 884 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[f]inding 

certain information not relevant does not lead to—and likely undermines—the conclusion that it 

was not considered”).

E. Determining Matter on Record Rather Than at Hearing

I have opted to decide this case based on written submissions and evidentiary filings, 

including the numerous expert reports that have been submitted. The Vaccine Act and Rules not 

only contemplate but encourage special masters to decide petitions (or components of a claim) 

on the papers rather than via evidentiary hearing, where (in the exercise of their discretion) they 

conclude that the former means of adjudication will properly and fairly resolve the case. Section 

12(d)(2)(D); Vaccine Rule 8(d). The Federal Circuit has recently affirmed this practice. 

Kreizenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 945 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2020). It 

simply is not the case that every Vaccine Act claim need be resolved by hearing—even where 

the petitioner explicitly so requests.

ANALYSIS

I. HPV Vaccine-Based Claims are Largely Unsuccessful

I begin by noting that claims the HPV vaccine can cause nonspecific symptoms like 

fatigue, or more specific interference with the autonomic nervous system sufficient to trigger 

autonomic dysfunction manifesting in a variety of ways (from tachycardia, to generalized 

orthostatic intolerance, to postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (“POTS”)), have routinely 

been dismissed. See e.g., America v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-542V, 2022 WL 

278151, at *27 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 4, 2022) (neurocardiogenic syncope); Hughes v. Sec'y 

of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-930V, 2021 WL 839092 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 4, 2021)

(complex regional pain syndrome (“CRPS”) and/or POTS), mot. for review den’d, 154 Fed. Cl. 

640 (2021); E.S. v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-480V, 2020 WL 9076620, at *42 (Fed. 

Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 13, 2020) (small fiber neuropathy), mot. for review den’d, 154 Fed. Cl. 149 

(2021); McKown v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1451V, 2019 WL 4072113 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. July 15, 2019) (POTS and eczema); Johnson v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 

14-254V, 2018 WL 2051760 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 23, 2018) (POTS and fatigue); Combs v. 

Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-878V, 2018 WL 1581672 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 15, 

2018) (vasovagal syncope); see also Otto v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1144V, 2020 
31

WL 4719285 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 17, 2020) (case involving HPV vaccine dismissed after 

hearing at claimant’s request).

It just so happens that I have decided many of these cases myself (several after a trial as 

well), giving me some background in understanding the science and reasoning behind this kind of 

claim. Although these prior determinations do not bind the outcome herein (and admittedly the 

theory that the HPV vaccine contains undisclosed toxic ingredients was not squarely at issue in 

these numerous prior cases), I need not pretend that the present case is overall unique, or bury my 

head in the sand and disregard how similar matters have been resolved in the past. I also reference 

these prior determinations because much of the literature offered herein to show the HPV vaccine 

can be associated with fatigue or various forms of dysautonomia have been deemed unreliable or 

unpersuasive. See, e.g., Hughes, 2021 WL 839092, at *14, 31, and 33, and Johnson, 2018 WL 

2051760, at *8, 12, and 24 (discussing weaknesses of Ozawa); E.S., 2020 WL 9076620, at *14, 

44 (discussing Ikeda). In short, a claimant seeking to prove the HPV vaccine causes generalized 

and otherwise non-specific kinds of symptoms has a steep hill to climb.

II. Petitioner Has Not Preponderantly Established a Cognizable Vaccine Injury

Numerous Program cases note that claimants must establish some kind of recognized injury, 

rather than simply list deleterious symptoms occurring in a post-vaccination timeframe. 

Broekelschen, 618 F.3d at 1346, 1349. It is thus often necessary at the outset of analyzing a petition 

to determine whether a given alleged injury has been preponderantly established in the first place. 

Locane v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 685 F.3d 1375, 1381 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Lombardi v. 

Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 656 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

This poses a threshold deficiency with this case—for the medical record does not 

preponderantly establish that Ms. McDonald has experienced an unusual degree of fatigue. Indeed, 

there is little objective proof of fatigue in the months after her initial receipt of the HPV vaccine 

doses, with no real concrete medical confirmation of this kind of problem before January 2013.13

In addition, Petitioner’s experts have not at all established that the medical community recognizes 

the existence of any kind of HPV vaccine/“Gardasil” injury featuring persistent and debilitating 

fatigue comparable to what is alleged. For purposes of analysis, however, I will assume that 

Petitioner’s medical history does establish unusually-chronic fatigue, in order to evaluate whether 

Petitioner has demonstrated “more likely than not” that the HPV vaccine was responsible for her 

alleged condition.

13 There is some reliable record support for a hypersomnia diagnosis, based on a sleep test Petitioner underwent in 

September 2013. See generally Ex 14 at 29, 31. But this occurred too long after vaccination to credibly associate it 

with the HPV vaccine, especially given the paucity of consistent evidence of chronic fatigue from the alleged onset 

time in the summer of 2012, and treaters who gave this test result weight in associating the vaccine with Petitioner’s 

fatigue arrived at their opinion in a conclusory manner, without any discussion of how vaccination led to this condition.
32

II. Petitioner Has Not Carried Her Burden of Demonstrating Causation Based on the 

Three Althen Prongs

Analysis of a claimant’s success in meeting the Althen prongs relevant to causation often

requires careful review of each prong individually, with discussion of the evidence offered on each 

element pro and con, in order to demonstrate how various items of evidence were weighed. In 

particular, special masters frequently must delve deeply into the filed expert reports and 

literature—both to ensure they understand the causation theory offered, and also to weigh whether 

the individual items of evidence relied upon are worthy of being deemed probative.

Not here. Petitioner’s inability to meet her burden of proof with preponderant showings on 

any of the causation prongs is fairly self-evident, and can be discerned without the kind of in-depth 

evaluation that other cases demand. The demands of the Program’s ever-burgeoning docket 

obligate special masters to make wise use of their time, and in so doing focus less attention on 

claims that are more obviously deficient, reserving their attentions for complex or fact-heavy cases 

in which more reliable and evidentiarily-supported claims are advanced. Hence, I will only roughly 

sketch the significant deficiencies of Petitioner’s overall showing.14

First, Petitioner cannot demonstrate that the HPV vaccine can produce a toxic reaction 

comparable to the (alleged) reaction15 induced by silicone-containing breast implants. In fact, there 

is no reliable proof to establish that organosiloxanes are even included in the HPV vaccine, with 

Dr. Brawer relying on a combined “can’t prove a negative” argument that nothing disproves they 

are not included, plus the contention that they are needed to prevent cloudiness (even though the 

vaccine’s own package insert discloses that cloudiness occurs with the vaccine). Dr. Brawer also 

did not establish with reliable proof (beyond his own ipse dixit assertions) that the amounts of 

these substances—if they could be shown to be found in the vaccine—would be sufficient to spark 

a toxic reaction. How the silicone substances would do this is wholly unsupported by independent 

proof—no studies or reliable scientific/medical articles establish any risk of chronic fatigue from 

the inclusion of these substances in a vaccine. Ultimately, Dr. Brawer relied too much on 

commentary and articles he had written (which, as Respondent’s experts pointed out, had 

questionable legitimacy as independent, reliable items published in accordance with peer-reviewed 

14 Notably, another special master (when confronted with a similar combination of expert opinions from Drs. Brawer 

and Chiodo regarding the toxicity of silicone-based “secret” HPV vaccine components) acted more expeditiously (via 

a Rule 5 conference, while the case was pending but well before hearing) to point out the case’s glaring deficiencies, 

and went so far as to question the claim’s reasonable basis. See Brunker v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-

683V, 2023 WL 21255, at *3–6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 29, 2022) (reducing awarded fees and costs after claim’s 

voluntary dismissal). In doing so, the special master noted not only that the expert opinions and other evidence had 

substantial deficiencies, but also that (as here) Dr. Chiodo’s expert theory was inexplicably inconsistent with Dr. 

Brawer’s. Brunker, 2023 WL 21255, at *5–6.

15 Dr. Brawer certainly did not establish that breast implants themselves are toxic, but I will assume for sake of 

discussion that he offered preponderant proof to that end.
33

practices) to prove his points, rather than on facially-reliable research or study results. It is far from 

evident that Dr. Brawer, a rheumatologist, even possesses the expertise to offer the opinion he has. 

And his combative approach in reacting to Respondent’s experts with unnecessary derogatory 

comment only served to diminish his credibility and persuasiveness.

Dr. Chiodo’s alternative theory was no more successful. His theory is inconsistent with Dr. 

Brawer’s opinion, who not only proposes a non-autoimmune-mediated reaction due to an 

unidentified vaccine ingredient, butseemed to agree in his reports that the latter explanation for 

causation in the context of the HPV vaccine had been successfully rebutted by science. See First 

Brawer Rep. at 3–4 (noting that “recent publications” as of 2018 had “negated most if not all” 

associations between the HPV vaccine and adverse autoimmune-mediated reactions). More so, Dr. 

Chiodo’s opinion about the role adjuvants might play in triggering an autoimmune response 

perilously borders the discredited “ASIA” theory (which contendsthat aluminum included as an 

adjuvant in vaccines can trigger a variety of autoimmune illnesses). Ameratunga; see also Monzon 

v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1055V, 2021 WL 2711289, at *8 n.6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. June 2, 2021) (“[t]he ASIA theory for adjuvant-induced autoimmunity has never been 

deemed medically reliable in any prior Program cases.” (citations omitted)). Otherwise, Dr. 

Chiodo’s opinion is even less well-substantiated than what Dr. Brawer offered. And Dr. Chiodo 

devoted time in his report to discussing the proper standard for evaluating causation in Program 

cases—despite the fact that Program experts are not called upon to offer opinions on legal 

questions, but should instead provide opinions based on medical or scientific expertise only.

This matter underscores the difference between a “plausible” theory (here, barely so) and 

one that has reliable scientific/medical support—and more importantly, why the latteris the proper 

standard for evaluating whether a claimant has met her Althen prong one burden. It is not beyond 

the realm of possibility that the same substance that could arguably be toxic in one medical context 

(when included as a breast implant ingredient) could in a different context (vaccination) have a 

comparable impact. But to reach the level of preponderance, a claimant would need to offer 

reliable items of literature specific to vaccination, or otherwise showing that an extremely small 

amount of silicon-containing ingredients (in comparison to the amounts in a breast implant) could 

cause an injury comparable to what is alleged in this case. The claimant might also opt to identify 

experts who had demonstrated research knowledge of the issue and utilize their services in 

“connecting the dots” despite the absence of more direct proof (a more than permissible strategy 

in Vaccine Act cases). A successful Althen prong one showing may begin with only a plausible 

theory, but that theory must then be fleshed out with reliable scientific and medical evidence if it 

is to rise above interesting speculation.

But the proposed theories Petitioner’s experts offered were almost wholly without such 

support, given not only the paucity of evidence establishing that the organosiloxanes could cause 

long-term fatigue, but the very absence of proof they are even contained in the vaccine in the first 
34

place. It simply has not been demonstrated that “more likely than not” the HPV vaccine can cause 

chronic fatigue due to undisclosed ingredients comparable to substances contained in silicone 

breast implants.

Second, the remaining two Althen prongs were also unsupported with sufficient reliable 

and persuasive proof. I cannot possibly conclude, for example, that the HPV vaccine Petitioner 

received did likely cause her subsequent fatigue. Nothing from the medical record corroborates 

the alleged toxic reaction until long after the HPV dosage course was completed, and although 

some later treaters suggested the vaccine was causal, I discount their views (either because they 

were practitioners of alternative medicine unqualified to offer a credible causation opinion, or 

because their causality assessment was provided too long after Petitioner’s vaccinations and 

purported onset). The medical record does not even confirm symptoms in the six months or so 

from Petitioner’s first dose of the HPV vaccine, while showing times later when Petitioner did not 

actively report issues. It has also not been shown that the version of the HPV vaccine she received 

did contain organosiloxanes, and without that finding, the fact that this ingredient “could cause” 

an injury is meaningless. 

Petitioner also did not establish that her symptoms began in a medically-reasonable 

timeframe after vaccination. The record does not demonstrate or corroborate symptoms in the fall 

of 2012, after the first HPV dose, and no reliable explanation has been provided for why months 

would pass between the second and third doses before Petitioner would begin to complain of 

symptoms (in January 2013). And Dr. Brawer did not provide a persuasive explanation for how 

the two vaccine doses might interact, or why the first would produce no concerning symptoms 

(while the second would initially prompt slightly different symptoms than the fatigue that 

Petitioner ultimately asserts she experienced). He also did no more than maintain that the 

acceptability of the timeframe from vaccination to onset (allegedly two weeks after the first dose) 

arose from the literal temporal relationship between vaccination and when Petitioner began to 

complain of fatigue, without showing what about the toxicity of the undisclosed vaccine ingredient 

would cause her fatigue to progress as it did. At most, Petitioner relies on her symptoms beginning 

“after” vaccination—an insufficient basis for finding the third Althen prong has been met.

III. This Matter Was Appropriately Resolved Without a Hearing

In ruling on the record, I am choosing not to hold a hearing—contrary to Petitioner’s 

request. Determining how best to resolve a case is a matter that lies generally within my discretion, 

but I shall nevertheless explain why a hearing was not required.

Prior decisions have recognized that a special master’s discretion in deciding whether to 

conduct an evidentiary hearing “is tempered by Vaccine Rule 3(b),” or the duty to “afford[] each 

party a full and fair opportunity to present its case.” Hovey v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Hum. 
35

Servs., 38 Fed. Cl. 397, 400–01 (1997) (citing Rule 3(b)). But that rule also includes the obligation 

of creation of a record “sufficient to allow review of the special master’s decision.” Id. And such 

a record can be created based solely on the filings in the case (which are more often than not 

voluminous, including medical record documents, expert reports, and attorney brief filings). 

Accordingly, the fact that a claim is legitimately disputed, such that the special master must 

exercise his intellectual faculties in order to resolve disputes of fact or law, is not itself grounds for 

a trial (for if it were, trials would be required in every disputed case). Special masters are expressly 

empowered to resolve fact disputes without a hearing—so long as a party has been given the proper 

“full and fair” chance to prove their claim.

The present claim could be, and was, resolved fairly without live testimony from the 

experts. The case turns almost exclusively on whether the HPV vaccine can cause chronic 

fatigue—and as noted, I have familiarity with HPV vaccine-oriented claims. Moreover, 

Petitioner’s showing was ineffective—a conclusion that I can reach simply on the basis of the 

written submissions, record, and expert reports filed. Indeed, although I did not manage the case 

for the entirety of its life, and although I do not decide this matter on the basis of anything other 

than the theory ultimately offered, Petitioner’s willingness to jettison theories, and experts, during 

its course underscores the extent to which the claim was futilely in search of a persuasive theory. 

The theory ultimately landed upon was simply too thin and unpersuasive—a determination I would 

surely have reached even had I heard testimony from Petitioner’s experts.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner has not preponderantly established that the HPV vaccine doses she received can 

cause “Gardasil illness,” or did so to her, in the manner her experts have opined. Accordingly, 

she is not entitled to damages, and her claim warrants dismissal. In the absence of a timely-filed 

motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter 

judgment in accord with this Decision. 16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

16 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their 

right to seek review.