It's a worthy read. If you are bored by procedures, start on page 13.
Oh, I dunno... I'm almost thinking page 41.
For those that may not read the brief, here was an interesting footnote: (bolding added is mine).
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"?
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.
Unless I am mistaken (and I don't believe I am) the below does NOT meet the criteria for medical exemption.......
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".
Thanks for the link.