SCOTUS rules against Bruesewitz Family claims ... - Page 4 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#91 of 103 Old 03-09-2011, 12:41 PM
 
ammiga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post

I posted this earlier, but I'm not sure if you caught it:

 

I would expect that problems that have been proven to be caused by vaccines would be compensated. I would also expect that problems that have been proven to not be caused by vaccines would not be compensated. But that's not the case. Often they are both compensated, even when presented with studies that show no correlation between vaccines and said injury. You can see this exemplified in the cases of Margaret Althen, Rose Capizzano, and Dorothy Werderitsch. All complained of injuries from their vaccines. All of those trials the judges were presented with the numerous studies that there is no correlation between their individual vaccines and their complaints. All of them won anyway. Because the standard is to come up with a plausible-sounding theory of how the vaccine could have damaged them, even if the research shows it's untrue.

 

I understand what you're saying about the Vaccine Court. If it's so easy to get a ruling in your favor, why isn't it be widely abused, as other courts are? My only guess is that many people are not aware of its existence. Although, there is evidence that those kinds of suits are on the upswing, and unfortunately VAERS is taking the fall for it: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/117/2/387
 



 



 

And my guess is that it isn't as easy as stated. I would expect a few cases to have been decided in line with the rules... they need examples of how liberal they are. Most judges, politicians, business execs, etc break from their pattern to have examples to the contrary- it's the way of the world. Overall, I think most know vaccine court is  a battle that can't be won.
 

 

ammiga is offline  
#92 of 103 Old 03-09-2011, 02:53 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by ammiga View Post



And my guess is that it isn't as easy as stated. I would expect a few cases to have been decided in line with the rules... they need examples of how liberal they are. Most judges, politicians, business execs, etc break from their pattern to have examples to the contrary- it's the way of the world. Overall, I think most know vaccine court is  a battle that can't be won.
 

 


And I think that no matter what information we had, it wouldn't be compelling enough for you.  You've decided what you think, which is fine, but give the info a fair shot.

 

I'd really like to see some examples of the bolded however.  Politicians, well they lie all the time.  Business execs are equally untrustworthy.  Judges?  Can you give me some concrete examples?

 

ETA - It would be interesting to see the stats about the vaccine court - how many cases filed, how many dismissed, how many awarded damages, etc.

 

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
#93 of 103 Old 03-09-2011, 03:39 PM
 
heathergirl67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post




And I think that no matter what information we had, it wouldn't be compelling enough for you.  You've decided what you think, which is fine, but give the info a fair shot.

 

I'd really like to see some examples of the bolded however.  Politicians, well they lie all the time.  Business execs are equally untrustworthy.  Judges?  Can you give me some concrete examples?

 

ETA - It would be interesting to see the stats about the vaccine court - how many cases filed, how many dismissed, how many awarded damages, etc.

 



ITTA. Especially since this link was posted upthread that lays out exactly how often the vax court compensates complainants. Especially considering that of non-autism cases since 2000, there have been 1163 that have been compensated, compared to 949 who were dismissed (and even of those dismissed, they often had their attorney's fees compensated). It seems like in the past decade especially, you're odds of winning are greater than not when you file in vax court. So I'm not sure where the "they're stricter in practice than on paper" is coming from.

 

heathergirl67 is offline  
#94 of 103 Old 03-09-2011, 05:09 PM
 
ammiga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post




And I think that no matter what information we had, it wouldn't be compelling enough for you.  You've decided what you think, which is fine, but give the info a fair shot.

 

I'd really like to see some examples of the bolded however.  Politicians, well they lie all the time.  Business execs are equally untrustworthy.  Judges?  Can you give me some concrete examples?

 

ETA - It would be interesting to see the stats about the vaccine court - how many cases filed, how many dismissed, how many awarded damages, etc.

 


I honestly do not have time or energy to get you examples of the judges. But they are elected officials, frequently looking for reappointment and/or advancement. Their record is as important to their career as any politician. If it is truly a topic that interests you, there are many resources on the subject.

 

 

 

ammiga is offline  
#95 of 103 Old 03-09-2011, 05:28 PM
 
ammiga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post





ITTA. Especially since this link was posted upthread that lays out exactly how often the vax court compensates complainants. Especially considering that of non-autism cases since 2000, there have been 1163 that have been compensated, compared to 949 who were dismissed (and even of those dismissed, they often had their attorney's fees compensated). It seems like in the past decade especially, you're odds of winning are greater than not when you file in vax court. So I'm not sure where the "they're stricter in practice than on paper" is coming from.

 


There are ways I could be convinced, but I haven't seen any so far.
 

The numbers I see don't add up the same way you see them. I also think there are other numbers that matter that aren't on the chart. Either way, I'm not going to convince you, and you haven't shown me anything that could convince me. This discussion seems to just be going around and around, so I'll pretty much bow out now.

 

 

 

 

ammiga is offline  
#96 of 103 Old 03-09-2011, 07:04 PM
 
Otto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Where the end of the world began
Posts: 645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ammiga View Post

I honestly do not have time or energy to get you examples of the judges. But they are elected officials, frequently looking for reappointment and/or advancement.


Reappointment is of course not an issue for Article III judges. In the 10 states with elected trial-court and higher judges since at least 1976, retention rates tend to hover around 80% (PDF; "in only 56 of the 6,306 judicial retention elections were judges not retained") come rain or shine--in other words, one has to go out of one's way to avoid retention. So, the remainder, those subject to political reappointment, are to be presumed to be constantly scheming away to occasionally decide cases in a way that will somehow subliminally facilitate this?

Otto is offline  
#97 of 103 Old 03-09-2011, 07:19 PM - Thread Starter
 
member234098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 3,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

.

member234098 is offline  
#98 of 103 Old 03-10-2011, 05:02 AM
 
ammiga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto View Post


Reappointment is of course not an issue for Article III judges. In the 10 states with elected trial-court and higher judges since at least 1976, retention rates tend to hover around 80% (PDF; "in only 56 of the 6,306 judicial retention elections were judges not retained") come rain or shine--in other words, one has to go out of one's way to avoid retention. So, the remainder, those subject to political reappointment, are to be presumed to be constantly scheming away to occasionally decide cases in a way that will somehow subliminally facilitate this?



I happen to live in a state with elected judges and see this behavior on the news all the time around elections. I also know it happens when judges are looking for advancement and need examples on both sides of the fence for how they rule, so they look fair minded. I did not say that they constantly scheme. But they do look out for career advancement, like everyone else. Since this isn't related to the vaccine courts, I will not comment on it any further.

 

 

 

ammiga is offline  
#99 of 103 Old 03-10-2011, 06:17 AM
 
heathergirl67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Would you mind elaborating on the bolded?  I am genuinely curious.
 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ammigaView Post



 



There are ways I could be convinced, but I haven't seen any so far.
 

The numbers I see don't add up the same way you see them. I also think there are other numbers that matter that aren't on the chart. Either way, I'm not going to convince you, and you haven't shown me anything that could convince me. This discussion seems to just be going around and around, so I'll pretty much bow out now. 

 

 

Quote:
ITTA. Especially since this link was posted upthread that lays out exactly how often the vax court compensates complainants. Especially considering that of non-autism cases since 2000, there have been 1163 that have been compensated, compared to 949 who were dismissed (and even of those dismissed, they often had their attorney's fees compensated). It seems like in the past decade especially, you're odds of winning are greater than not when you file in vax court. So I'm not sure where the "they're stricter in practice than on paper" is coming from  

 

 

 

 

 



 

heathergirl67 is offline  
#100 of 103 Old 03-10-2011, 07:58 AM
 
ammiga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by miriam View Post

:scratch

 

I do not believe the masters in vaccine court ever come up for a vote.   What are you talking about?  


I was talking about judges in general, as an example of how people looking for career advancement try to placate both sides of an issue. I also used politicians and business execs. To me, that relates to how the vaccine masters also play both sides... mostly on their side, but with a few thrown in on the other side to say, "see, I am fair and so is the system".

 

 

ammiga is offline  
#101 of 103 Old 03-10-2011, 08:00 AM
 
ammiga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post


Would you mind elaborating on the bolded?  I am genuinely curious.
 

 



 



There are many ways to interpret numbers. You can start at some point in time, when they work for you, to say "see?" They also can be misleading with what they do and do not include.

ammiga is offline  
#102 of 103 Old 03-23-2011, 09:39 AM - Thread Starter
 
member234098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 3,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Y

member234098 is offline  
#103 of 103 Old 03-23-2011, 09:42 AM - Thread Starter
 
member234098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 3,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I

member234098 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off