Talk:National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

message: I excised this entire paragraph due to lack of a reference:
"On February 18th, 2009, the parents of 10-year-old Bailey Banks were awarded a lump sum of more than $810,000 (plus an estimated $30-40,000 per year for services and care) in compensation by the Court, which ruled that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine had caused acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) and resulting Pervasive Developmental Delay. Special Master Richard Abell ruled that the plaintiff had successfully demonstrated that "the MMR vaccine at issue actually caused the conditions from which Bailey suffered and continues to suffer". (end of cut)
Now I came to this page looking for some evidence to support this statement, and only found this unverified claim. Currently there is an ad campaign being run in the USA which cites this case as "proof that vaccines cause autism". 
What I have not yet been able to find is independent evidence supporting this claim. I found this seemingly biased (but biased in the other direction) article which alleges that the quote saying "MMR caused the autism" is being completely misrepresented. I don't wish to be guilty of bias in either direction, so I'm not going to cite something which seems to have an agenda. 
Bottom line: if there is a clear and impartial source for the statement above please reinsert and correctly reference it. It's a court hearing so it seems likely that the entire hearing transcript is available somewhere (although I have not been able to find it). Manning (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Banks Autism claim

message: There needs to be a section detailing how this system of federal court is illegal under the constitution as it violates the 7th amendment rights of litigants.
The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Legal Dictionary expands:The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in most civil suits that are heard in federal court. ...Lawsuits that seek money damages, conversely, are traditionally treated as legal claims.  - that is to say, 7th amendment protections apply.
--Michael.suede (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any reliable sources on this? A law-review article would be nice. Eubulides (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate About Constitutionality Of This Court

message: Reading the section "The 5th circuit court reached its conclusion by first looking to the statutory intent of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and determining that the intent of the statute was to protect the financial stability of vaccine manufacturers. In this case, thiomersal was held to be not a vaccine, but merely a preservative; and, as such, its manufacturers could not use the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act as a defense."
I cannot find anywhere that the 5th court said was the statute was to protect the manufacturers financial stability
I used this as source:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0260995cv0p.pdf
Can anyone clarify this?
Regards
Spicey tofu (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we know of no source for the claim (or for its notability) I  that passage to reflect what I found in a reliable news account of the story, and cited that account. Eubulides (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: thiomersal bypass

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Vaccine court. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150707005552/http://phys.org/news/2008-03-analysis-vaccine-autism-link-unproven.html to http://phys.org/news/2008-03-analysis-vaccine-autism-link-unproven.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed "nearly" from the sentence, "...the medical and scientific communities nearly unanimously deny...". If you want to put the "nearly" back into the sentence, then it is incumbent on you to provide a peer-reviewed, publication, in a reliable medical, or scientific, journal linking MMR to autism as a reference, that has not been later retracted, nor come into serious question since publication. Nick Beeson (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, the only "scientists" that think that vaccines are linked to autism are not really scientists, and it's published in predatory, extremely low impact factor, junk journals. There is absolutely not one piece of real scientific evidence that describes any causal link anywhere between vaccines and autism. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearly