“Paul Offit,
M.D., co-inventor of the rotavirus
vaccine RotaTeq, writes
that the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) “seems to have
turned its back on science.” Instead of a preponderance of evidence, it
now simply requires that an expert propose a plausible mechanism for
vaccine injury.”

Clearly, Offit knows nothing
of the standard approach to the
assessment of adverse drug reactions when this is a subject he should
know fully if he has any concern for vaccine safety and therefore for
the child health safety of US kids. 

When deciding if a drug caused an adverse drug reaction, biological
plausibility is all that is required.  See:-

Adverse
Reaction Reporting and IMMP - Causality Assessment of Suspected Adverse
Medicine Reactions

Whereas of course,
dechallenge, rechallenge and dose-response are
far more important, and of course the Japanese data is conclusive:-

Strong
Evidence Mercury & Vaccines Cause Autism

So this also means Offit is
ignorant of a key aspect of
pharmacology (adverse drug reaction reporting) which every medical
general practitioner should know. 

Additionally, Offit is just as ignorant about evidence. 
Biological
plausibility will obviously meet also the “preponderance of evidence”
requirement.  It assists in the decision of whether it is “more
plausible than not” which I think everyone recognises is a
“preponderance of evidence” except of course for Dr Offit. 

Aren’t his colleagues at the Childrens’ Hospital of Philadelphia
embarrassed yet by this man?