The Dengvaxia boomerang

Don’t look now but the Dengvaxia cases and controversy are beginning to boomerang and may end up landing at the feet or face of those who started it.

When the DOJ announced through Undersecretary Raul Vasquez that it had dropped 98 Dengvaxia cases, most people were more interested in the “why” than the “what” and to the credit of Undersecretary Vasquez, he clearly explained many of the “whys” as well as the “whats.”

During a curbside interview shared on YouTube, Usec. Vasquez ended up giving an almost complete legal brief on how the Dengvaxia cases were brought to court, spread out and filed in different courts in the Philippines, containing essentially the same information and allegations.

I imagined the cases filed multiplying in “gremlin-like” fashion while carrying defective legal genes that have now resulted in a legal boomerang of sorts. Aside from the multiple “almost copy paste” cases, I recall that the Office of the Solicitor General had previously asked that some 500 cases be consolidated for faster resolution.

That may have been what triggered a massive review of cases by the DOJ starting with the initial 98, to be followed by another 15 and subsequently “hundreds more.” As a result, what used to be confusing and largely misunderstood about the Dengvaxia controversy is now being placed under serious legal and factual scrutiny. Science, law and facts are turning the tables on the defective and destructive claims that created the Dengvaxia controversy.

For transparency’s sake, I received a copy of the decision that was over a hundred pages, eating up about 30 pages just for respondents and complainants, followed by medical summaries of 83 children who allegedly died because of the Dengvaxia vaccine.

The summaries included name and age of patient, date of inoculation, place of inoculation, date of death, cause of death on certificate (antecedent and underlying cause), cause of death on Public Attorney’s Office/PAO medical findings based on autopsy reported VLD with NLD secondary to Dengvaxia.

Most if not a majority of the deaths occurred months, even a year to two years, after inoculation. This information is vital because any adverse reaction or effect from the vaccine should have happened within a period of eight days for there to be an association based on WHO expert reports.

Causes of death on certificate included pneumonia with “brittle bone disease,” acute hydrocephalus with pneumonia, tuberculosis meningitis, multiple organ failure w/ acute gastroenteritis, viral encephalitis, acute coronary syndrome with hypostatic pneumonia and Pott’s disease, rheumatic heart disease, septic shock with mycobacterium tuberculosis, septic shock.

The list goes on but what was highlighted in the resolution was the fact that many of the deaths occurred one to two and a half years after the children were inoculated and the children could have acquired the said diseases by other means.

The DOJ leaned on science by way of the expert testimony of “Dr. Scott Halstead, one of the world’s foremost authorities on viruses transmitted by mosquitoes, including dengue, said during the Senate Blue Ribbon committee probe into the vaccine that the diagnosis of Dengvaxia cannot be based on autopsy.”

DOJ also cited the affidavit of Dr. Raymundo W. Lo, an expert witness, and quoted him as stating that viscerotropism and neurotropism are terms that cannot be attributed to deceased (dead) person, but only to live human subjects because the effects can only be seen in living persons.

Thus, the DOJ highlighted in its resolution: “Since it appears that viscerotropism (VLD) and neurotropism (NLD) cannot be determined via an autopsy, little or no probative value should be attributed to the PAO Forensic Reports.”

The DOJ also added that “Dr. Halstead stated at a Senate hearing that a simple autopsy would not be able to determine whether a death was the result of Dengvaxia vaccination. Instead, what is necessary is to determine the presence of dengue vaccine particles in the tissue samples using histopathologic examination.”

“However, this examination was not done by Dr. Erfe nor does it appear anywhere in the PAO RRM. This is a major defect or deficiency in the PAO process and results.”

In the case of Garin and Hartigan Go, in establishing everything that the two defendants did in processing the approval and funding of the Dengvaxia vaccine and concluding that they should therefore be held liable, the complainants ended up showing that Garin and Hartigan Go actually did their jobs conscientiously and were therefore not “reckless.”

In terms of liability for the vaccination program, both individuals “had already left the DOH.” “At the time, the PNDF, implementation and expansion of the program were made by Garin’s successor, Secretary Paulyn Jean Ubial who, incidentally, was exonerated from the charge of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.”

“What’s more, the PAO reports and PAO forensic examination reports are all self-serving. The same people who prepared the reports are representing the complainants as counsels. The witnesses do not have personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances relevant to the case.”

To prove that health workers sought consent of students prior to vaccination, they presented data from Regions III, IV-A and NCR that showed that 217,226 students did not give their consent out of 729,105 who were eligible for the vaccine. In addition, a list of students who were deemed ineligible due to existing medical symptoms was included.

The DOJ also pointed out that the Dengvaxia vaccine underwent trials and testing by the FDA. “Verily, factual findings of administrative officials are generally…accorded not only respect but, at times, even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence.”

A quotable quote from the resolution: “Allegations are not proof and whatever suspicion, speculation or guesswork cannot supplant nor remedy the lack of evidence.”

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]