Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Product Liability Law & StrategyLJN NewslettersNewsSections

Thimerosal and Autism: A Paradigm for Judges to Act As Gatekeepers

By Victor E. Schwartz and Micah L. Hobbs

One of the principal problems in our civil justice system is holding a defendant responsible for some very bad harm that it did not cause. Acting as 'gatekeepers,' judges are the key persons who can prevent this injustice, and many keep out both so-called 'junk science' and preserve the integrity of our legal system. Some very well meaning judges, however, do not do so. Sometimes, they can be persuaded to allow a jury to have a look at a case that should have been dismissed.

Articles in both legal and scientific journals can foster these unfortunate results. For example, an article titled 'No Longer Immune?' which appeared in the July 2006 issue of the ABA Journal, left the impression that a legitimate debate, both legal and scientific, exists about whether the vaccine preservative, Thimerosal', causes autism. The foundation for the article's controversy about Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism needs to be challenged and put to rest. In that regard, numerous independent researchers and public health authorities have rejected the theory that an increase in Thimerosal-containing vaccines caused a rapid increase in the rate of autism. Continuing to treat this theory as legitimate and plausible causes fear and confusion among parents and the general public. Resources that are currently being used to pursue illusory proof of this theory should be redirected toward other potentially promising research regarding autism. Shifting the focus off Thimerosal and onto the genetic basis of autism will serve the best interests of children affected by autism and their families. Such a shift will also benefit the scientific and pharmaceutical communities whose resources might better be utilized for more productive research and development.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers Image

There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases Image

The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?