Another Rare Win in the NVICP

MMR triggered Encephalitis in Child's Death

Cross Posting an article from the Vaccine Induced Infant Death working group.

Lead author Patrick White, Davoe Price, Tomo Noguchi, Wayne Rohde

Another Rare Win in the NVICP: The Rodela Family Proves MMR-Triggered Encephalitis in Their Child’s Death

Series: How Families Are Winning Nearly Impossible NVICP Cases – Part II

In Part I of this series, we examined the groundbreaking victory in Sims v. HHS—a case where parents proved that routine vaccinations triggered an acute encephalopathy that killed their 11-week-old infant within hours. That decision was rightly described as a “rare accomplishment” in a system where infant and child death cases often fail for various reasons that are largely arbitrary and out of the petitioner’s control.

Now, in Part II, we turn to another major development:

the 2024 entitlement ruling in Rodela v. HHS, where Special Master Horner concluded that the MMR vaccine caused a Table encephalitis leading to the death of 14-month-old Violet Rodela.

On paper, these are two very different cases—different ages, different vaccines, different timelines. But in practice, Rodela reinforces the same message as Sims: An unknown number of so-called “unexplained” pediatric deaths are, in reality, caused by routine childhood vaccines.

Furthermore, it shows that these cases can be winnable when petitioners build a coherent, pathology-aligned narrative supported by strong experts.

Why the Rodela Case Matters in the Context of Sims

The Sims ruling demonstrated that acute encephalopathy can be proven even when symptoms unfold in just a few hours and the autopsy lacks evidence of significant inflammation or any focal injury. The Special Master accepted the reality that infants express neurological decline differently than older children or adults, and

recognized that subtle pathological findings can nonetheless be significant in the context of young infants.

Rodela adds an additional piece:

· Where Sims v. HHS exhibits how certain SIDS deaths are actually vaccine-induced, Rodela extends that principle by showing that a death first classified as a Sudden

Unexplained Death in Childhood (SUDC) was ultimately proven in the VICP to have been caused by the child’s earlier vaccinations.

· It also shows how a longer timeline (19 days from vaccine to death) does not preclude vaccine-causation.

Together, Sims and Rodela begin to form a practical guide for petitioners: Symptoms + timing + neuropathology = a complete narrative the Special Master can accept.

(Note: SIDS/SUDC have no symptoms and no identifying pathology. In fact there is no positive diagnostic criteria at all – because they are NOT diseases.¹ SIDS is merely a description of an outcome, a term used to acknowledge a failure to make a diagnosis. This is a major reason why every case attempting to prove a vaccine caused SIDS/SUDC has inevitably failed. (e.g. Boatmon, Anklam))

Case Overview: What Happened in Rodela

Violet Rodela received her MMR shot on February 20, 2015, along with four other vaccines. Over the next several days, her parents observed subtle but concerning behavioral changes captured in home videos. On March 4, twelve days post-MMR, her mother witnessed a seizure-like episode involving staring, unresponsiveness, and post-event confusion. She did not recognize this event as a seizure at the time and no medical treatment was sought.

On March 11, nineteen days post-vaccination, Violet was found unresponsive and without a pulse in her bed after being put down for a nap.

The autopsy labeled the death “undetermined,” but tissue examination revealed signs of brain inflammation in multiple regions. Pathologist Dr. Robert Shuman connected those findings to an encephalitic process that began at least 7–14 days before her death.

How Petitioners Built Their Winning Case (and Why It Worked)

Petitioners succeeded by proving two key points:

1. They demonstrated a Table encephalitis with onset occurring in the 5–15 day window after vaccination

Unlike Sims, which was litigated as both a Table encephalopathy and an off-Table theory, Rodela was purely a Table claim. That meant the family had to show:

· Inflammation of the brain, and

· Neurologic dysfunction,

· With onset between days 5 and 15 after MMR.

At the time this case was filed, there was no regulatory definition for encephalitis. Therefore, Special Master Horner adopted the definition:

“inflammation of the brain parenchyma associated with neurologic dysfunction.”

The evidence aligned neatly:

1. Astrocytosis and microglial activation was visible on histology. Dr. Shuman explained that reactive astrocytes develop 7-14 days after the initial onset of inflammation.

Additionally, infiltrating immune cells (i.e. lymphocytes) were observed in the brain by all three pathologists that reviewed the tissue samples. Dr. Harris, one of the government’s go-to pathology experts, begrudgingly conceded that

“technically those lymphocytes should not be there and from that technical standpoint, a cuff of lymphocytes would constitute the definition of encephalitis.” (Rodela v. HHS, No. 17-236V, Entitlement decision page 28)

2. A witnessed seizure on day 12 post-vaccine. Experts from both sides agreed that the March 4^th event was consistent with a seizure.

Dr. Elaine Wirrell testified for the government as an expert in pediatric neurology. In her first report, Dr. Wirrell was doubtful that the “starring episode” reported by Violet’s mother was “truly a seizure.” Later during the hearing, however, she admitted that she agreed with Dr. Shuman’s characterization of this episode as a focal seizure originating in the temporal lobe.

3. Behavioral abnormalities appearing around days 6–7 in home videos.

Mr. Rodela recorded a video specifically because he found the behavior concerning and out of character. The video shows Violet on the floor of their living room, having difficulty standing up and showing frustration as a result. Dr. Shuman described this as either a simple motor seizure or a post-ictal state following a seizure.

Taken together, this was temporal and biological overlap that respondent could not overcome.

2. They established that the neuropathologic findings were not incidental—they were the disease

Respondent’s experts in Rodela made a familiar argument:

“Yes, inflammation is present, but it’s not enough inflammation to be significant.”

This is the same posture experts often take in infant death cases, including in Sims. But here, petitioners had:

· Microglial activation (“first responders” of inflammation)

· Reactive astrocytes demonstrating at least a week of ongoing injury

· Lymphocytic perivascular cuffing—a classic sign of encephalitis

· Neurophagocytosis of damaged neurons

Respondent’s pathologist even conceded that inflammation can be identified by resident immune cells alone.

The Special Master agreed: this was inflammation that constituted pathological evidence of disease. In other words, it was not artifact, and it was not incidental.

And critically, he connected this neuroinflammation to the seizure, the behavioral changes, and ultimately the death, thus fulfilling the “neurologic dysfunction” requirement.

How Rodela Compliments What We Learned from Sims

There is a meaningful symmetry between these two decisions:

1. Both cases recognize that infants rarely present with classic textbook signs of brain inflammation.

The Court acknowledged that neither toddlers nor infants manifest adult-style encephalitic behavior.

2. Both cases credit neuropathology where clinical documentation is limited or absent.

In Sims, the autopsy findings were subtle. The pathologist who performed the autopsy either did not recognize or did not report the cerebral edema (brain swelling) that was identified by both pathology experts during the VICP litigation.

In Rodela, the pathology findings were stronger but nonetheless glossed over by the medical examiner and contested by the government, both of whom determined the death was best classified as a sudden unexplained death. Dr. Shuman found evidence of inflammation consistent with encephalitis in every tissue sample that was taken. As he explained it: “four out of four is 100 percent,” meaning that there was evidence to support widespread inflammation in Violet’s brain.

It’s worth noting that at the coroner’s office, each of the five pathologists on staff reviewed Violet’s case, checking for any sign of what could have caused the girl’s death.

“Her body was pristine,” Matthew Rodela said officials told the family.

Dr. Shuman is a rare exception to the rule that pathologists do not know what to look for in these cases, and they cannot recognize vaccine injury when they see it.

This is exactly why unexplained deaths represent the second and third leading causes of infant mortality in America (behind only birth defects). The whole medical community lives in a land of make-believe where vaccines are nothing but Safe and Effective™ - and that is the reason they regard the “cause of SIDS” as the greatest mystery the world has ever seen.

3. Both cases reject “vague alternative theories.”

Respondent offered possibilities—viral infection, SUDC-like processes—but not evidence. The Special Master emphasized that a plausible alternative is not enough.

4. Both decisions articulate potential elements of an evidentiary framework for future petitioners.

If petitioners can show:

· A biologically plausible mechanism

· A credible timeline

· Pathological evidence and age-appropriate symptoms consistent with the mechanism

…the Court has shown it is willing to rule for petitioners—even in death cases, even when the autopsy and clinical picture is ambiguous.

What This Means for Future NVICP Litigation

The Rodela ruling, like Sims, helps clarify how the Program should handle encephalitis and encephalopathy claims in young children:

· Pathology counts, especially when clinical signs were missed or not documented.

· Timing can be inferred from cellular markers like astrocyte maturation.

· Seizures and behavior changes matter, even if subtle.

· Highly qualified experts matter, especially neuropathologists who are adept at describing scientific explanations of injury mechanisms.

· The Table presumption has real teeth, and once established, HHS must offer more than their typical conclusion that the case is “best classified as an unexplained death.”

For practitioners, Rodela teaches that deaths occurring well after vaccination can still fall squarely within a picture of vaccine-causation if the pathology findings are present to bridge the gap.

However, there is an important caveat which is that the specific legal strategy employed in the Rodela case – alleging a Table encephalitis – is not likely to be an option for death cases under the current regulations. Shortly after Rodela was filed, an update to the Table (effective March 21, 2017) added strict requirements (e.g. specific MRI/EEG findings) to establish a Table encephalitis. Under the current Table, this would be a completely different case as the petitioner would not have the same presumption of causation.

Closing Thoughts: Anna Sims and Violet Rodela Are Not Outliers

The most striking takeaway from studying these cases is this:

Neither win was an accident. These were not fluke decisions. Special Master Roth, Special Master Horner, and Judge Lerner all ruled in favor of the families because it was the only correct decision in light of the factual records and controlling law.

Both cases were built on disciplined, evidence-driven storytelling that clearly explained how the child’s symptoms and pathology evidenced a specific injury which was shown to be temporally locked to their recent vaccinations.

Sims and Rodela may be outliers with respect to case outcomes, but the tragic stories of the lives and deaths of Anna Sims and Violet Rodela are not unique.

Thousands of pediatric deaths each year are attributed to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome or other similar categories of unexplained deaths.

A CDC Manual explains that “SIDS occurs most commonly in infants two to four months of age and rarely after eight months of age” and that 90% of cases “occur during a critical period of rapid growth and development of the brain during the first six months of life.”

The CDC says SIDS accounts for about 2300 deaths per year. How many of these children receive 0 vaccines before they died? How many of them had 6 vaccines the same day they died, like Anna Sims, whose death was classified as “undetermined cause”?

We don’t have answers to these questions because this information is not even tracked (at least not in any way that’s publicly acknowledged).

One Last Thought: I can’t help but wonder if this “critical period” of “rapid brain development” is maybe not the best time to inject the children with known toxic materials in order to provoke an immune response.

I guess I just don’t get it because I’m not a doctor.

---

Wayne Rohde, author of 2 books on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program would like to thank Patrick White (lead author of this article), Davoe Price and Tomo Noguchi as members of the Vaccine Induced Infant Death (VIID) working group.