Amicus Curiae Brief - Cedillo vs HHS

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Amicus Curiae Brief - Cedillo vs HHS
11
Fri, 02-05-2010 - 11:39am

http://www.rescuepost.com/files/cedillo-circuit_brief.pdf

It's a worthy read. If you are bored by procedures, start on page 13.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Fri, 02-05-2010 - 11:56am
Oh, and the good stuff starts on page 45 ie. Bustin's last minute testimony and exhibits.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Fri, 02-05-2010 - 12:09pm

Folks. This stinks.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Fri, 02-05-2010 - 1:02pm

Thanks for the link.

Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Fri, 02-05-2010 - 1:28pm

As I'm reading....


I'm just on page 15 - but this reminded me of something....


back when myself and others at my base were affected by AVA, a "special team" sent by Gen. Roadman (AIG) was sent to "investigate".

Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Fri, 02-05-2010 - 1:44pm

Unless I am mistaken (and I don't believe I am) the below does NOT meet the criteria for medical exemption.......


-----------------------------------------


On October 31, 1997, Dr. Gupta wrote to Michelle’s parents:


e have done the immunological testing that shows that Michelle has almost normal immune functions. . . .As far as vaccination is concerned, vaccinations can be postponed based on the laboratory data that shows that Michelle has significant amounts of antibodies to various vaccines that she is supposed to get. Based on that, she could get medical exception to the vaccination requirements of the school system.

Rands


Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Fri, 02-05-2010 - 2:11pm

This filed brief is different than the first one I read. Nonetheless.

Personally, I was offended by the tone of the Special Masters, and obviously, I wasn't the only one. And let's not forget that this poor family filed their claim in 1998. 1998!

There are some very good points argued in this brief, and it could be a potential disaster for The Program. Some of those are:

* the addition of vaccines without adjusting the injury table

* removing encephalopathy when it has been CLEARLY demonstrated in animal models

* Bustin's testimony was not specifically related to Michelle Cedillo, but rather other UK litigation and is now looking like a mere attempt to discredit one of the few laboratories willing to process the samples

* Zimmerman's textbook corroborating her presentation of evidence

* Dr. Rima's incorrect testimony that was unjustly extrapolated to her lab results.

There's more... but why bother? Objective people can see what's inflammatory on both sides, and what is actually fair and just. Constructing the situation where it's impossible to prove causation by Daubert's standards (because you don't look in the first place) and then crying from your soapbox that what is actually put forth doesn't prove causation makes you look like a hypocrite. It's a huge scientific shell game, and it's getting old. There is probably a better way to get people to participate in vaccination programs for the interest of the herd, rather than disregard their contribution as they watched their children suffer.

It's time to quantify the risks associated with early, repeated vaccination (since it's never been done, yet we've added vaccines exponentially since the liability was first formed). As more people and their children are injured, denying said injury is getting ready to really, really backfire.

Keep up the criticism skeptics... the snowball is just getting bigger.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Fri, 02-05-2010 - 2:21pm

Definitely not arguing here.... I "believe" it was Offitt whom stated the Program was "just and fair" and all I could think of was "WTF"?

Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Fri, 02-05-2010 - 2:28pm

For those that may not read the brief, here was an interesting footnote: (bolding added is mine).


47 In Poling ex. rel. Poling v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 02-1466V, 2008 WL 1883059


(USCFC 2008), the respondent reportedly agreed to compensate Hannah Poling, a child with an underlying mitochondrial disorder, because vaccines caused her autism. See Vaccine Case Draws New Attention to Autism Debate, available at www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/06/vaccines.autism/. Although the Poling family has sought to make the details of the government’s concession available to the public, especially to the thousands of autistic children in the OAP, the respondent has fiercely resisted the family’s effort. To date, the special master has not ruled on this motion. Michelle has cited the Poling case for several reasons. First, the respondent has purportedly conceded, at least in one case, that vaccines can cause autism. Second, the Poling case highlights the fears of both the respondent and the special masters on Michelle’s Tribunal that releasing such information will undermine the integrity of vaccines, lower immunization rates, and cause preventable illnesses to return. Finally, the Poling special master’s unprecedented refusal to release such government information evidences the Tribunal’s overriding objective – to protect the integrity of the vaccines - and explains why Michelle was denied the fundamental fairness granted to other petitioners.

Rands


Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Fri, 02-05-2010 - 2:48pm

Oh, I dunno... I'm almost thinking page 41.

Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Fri, 02-05-2010 - 3:09pm
Then again, page 47 is good too. I'm sorry, what was that again about components within vaccinations not

Rands

Pages