Mothering Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
He lost.

http://ia902504.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.cofc.2340/gov.uscourts.cofc.2340.118.0.pdf

I have not finished reading, but WOW this thing is beyond fascinating to read.

Some interesting parts that I will update later as I go through include:

1) The section about Hannah Poling. The Special Master clarifies that her case was NOT an example of the courts/government conceding that vaccines caused or exacerbated autism like many non-vaxers claim. This is going to be handy in countering that bit of misinformation.

I am well aware, of course, that during the years since the “test cases” were decided, in two cases involving vaccinees suffering from ASDs, Vaccine Act compensation was granted. But in neither of those cases did the Respondent concede, nor did a special master find, that there was any “causation-in-fact” connection between a vaccination and the vaccinee’s ASD. Instead, in both cases it was conceded or found that the vaccinee displayed the symptoms of a Table Injury within the Table time frame after vaccination. (See Section I above).

In Poling v. HHS, the presiding special master clarified that the family was compensated because the Respondent conceded that the Poling child had suffered a Table Injury--not because the Respondent or the special master had concluded that any vaccination had contributed to causing or aggravating the child’s ASD. See Poling v. HHS, No. 02-1466V, 2011 WL 678559, at *1 (Fed. Cir Spec. Mstr. Jan. 28, 2011) (a fees decision, but noting specifically that the case was compensated as a Table Injury).

Second, in Wright v. HHS, No. 12-423, 2015 WL 6665600 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015), Special Master Vowell concluded that a child, later diagnosed with ASD, suffered a “Table Injury” after a vaccination. However, she stressed that she was not finding that the vaccinee’s ASD in that case was “caused-in-fact” by the vaccination--to the contrary, she specifically found that the evidence in that case did not support a “causation-in-fact” claim.

The compensation of these two cases, thus does not afford any support to the notion that vaccinations can contribute to the causation of autism. In setting up the Vaccine Act compensation system, Congress forthrightly acknowledged that the Table Injury presumptions would result in compensation for some injuries that were not, in fact, truly vaccine-caused. H.R. Rept. No. 99-908, 18, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6344, 6359. (“The Committee recognizes that there is public debate over the incidence of illnesses that coincidentally occur within a short time of vaccination. The Committee further recognizes that the deeming of a vaccine-relatedness adopted here may provide compensation to some children whose illness is not, in fact, vaccine related.”)
Also interesting were his son's medical records that indicated he had been behind on milestones starting at 4 months of age, and at his 15 month check up, before he received his 15-month vaccines that Hooker claimed contributed to his autism, he had failed to reach every developmental milestone except one:

SRH received his 15-month well child examination on May 26, 1999, and was found to be “healthy.” (Ex. 35, p. 13.) However, at this visit his developmental progress chart indicates that SRH had not achieved most of the expected milestones. (Id., p. 24.) His Denver II developmental progress chart indicates that he could not speak six words, could not run or climb stairs, could not remove garments or use a spoon, and could not stack two cubes, -- indeed, he failed all but one of the developmental milestones for 15 months.
Also interesting is the judge's destruction of Hooker's "experts". This whole thing is a gold-mine of information and surely a blow to the vaxxed team.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
852 Posts
Really interesting, especially about the milestones not being reached. I know we had a controversy here recently about what parents are able to remember about their child's development and the proximity and order of when things happen, but I think it's really true (SPEAKING AS A PARENT) that symptoms are weird things; they're hard to always recognize in real time. Looking back on my daughter's preschool and early school years I often have lightbulb moments about behaviors of hers that were outside of the norm but didn't seem like a big deal, and then became much more obvious later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I love the takedown of his "experts". It starts on page 36. One example:

Another significant reason why I must deny Petitioners’ claim is that I found Respondent’s experts to be vastly better qualified than the experts upon whom Petitioners relied. Respondent’s experts, Bennet Leventhal, Edward Cetaruk, and Gerald Raymond, are all medical doctors with outstanding credentials in their fields of expertise, each of whom has worked at renowned medical centers for many years. Each of them has expertise directly related to the causation theory advanced by Petitioners.

In contrast, Petitioners’ experts are far less qualified, and/or suffer from serious credibility problems. In the sub-sections that follow, I will discuss the lack of qualifications of each of Petitioners’ experts, in comparison to the qualifications of Respondent’s experts.

A. Stephen Smith, M.D.

The curriculum vitae of one of Petitioners’ two primary experts, Dr. Stephen Smith, has not been filed. Thus, the only filed information concerning Dr. Smith’s educational background and qualifications consists of his own brief statements about his practice contained in his expert report, plus copies of disciplinary rulings against him by a state regulatory agency.21 As noted in Section V(A)(1), those rulings indicate that Dr. Smith graduated from medical school in 1980, and received a license to practice medicine in June 1981. (Ex. J, p. 6, ¶¶ 1.1, 1.2.) He did not complete any medical residency (id.), and is not board-certified in any medical specialty (Ex. K, p. 2, ¶ 2.1). He “practices allopathic medicine as well as alternative medicine.” (Ex. J, ¶ 1.2.)

Dr. Smith’s expert report filed in this case states that “I specialize in integrative medicine and chronic diseases such as autism, fibromyalgia, and autoimmune disorders. I’ve been working with autistic children and children with developmental delays for over 20 years.” (Ex. 29, p. 1.) However, there is nothing in the record of this case suggesting that he possesses any specialized education or training as an expert concerning ASDs.

Further, the above-mentioned disciplinary actions against Dr. Smith are directly relevant to the issues presented in this case. Exhibit J describes the ruling of the Washington State Medical Quality Assurance Commission (“Commission”) in 2007, concerning Dr. Smith’s prescription of “multiple traditional and non-traditional medications” to a teenage patient that Dr. Smith diagnosed as suffering from “mercury toxicity.” (Ex. J, pp. 6-7 of 12.) The Commission determined that Dr. Smith subjected the patient to risky treatment without proper justification. (Id., pp. 7-8.) The Commission determined that Dr. Smith’s actions constituted unprofessional conduct, and required that he undergo remedial training. (Id., p. 9.)

Exhibit K describes a ruling in 2014, concerning Dr. Smith’s treatment of a different teenager, who had been diagnosed with autism. (Ex. K, p. 2 of 10.) In that case, Dr. Smith diagnosed a “toxic encephalopathy” related to lead poisoning (id., p. 4), and used a procedure known as “chelation” to treat the alleged excess lead in the patient’s system (id., pp. 2-3). The Commission identified multiple failures by Dr. Smith to meet the standard of care for this patient, including his diagnosis of “toxic encephalopathy or lead poisoning despite the fact that there was no evidence to support this diagnosis.” (Id., pp. 3-4.) As a result of these findings, the Commission imposed a fine and prohibited Dr. Smith from treating patients under the age of 18. (Id., pp. 5-6.) In fact, he was forbidden to treat any patient without first demonstrating that the patient was concurrently under the care of some other primary care physician. (Id., p. 6.) The Commission also prohibited Dr. Smith from “using provocative agents prior to testing patients for heavy metal toxicity *** in his practice.” (Id., p. 5.) Dr. Smith was forbidden to use any such tests performed by someone else “as a basis for diagnosing or treating heavy metal toxicity.” (Id.) The ruling also prescribed that Dr. Smith would be subject in the future to periodic inspections of his office and medical records to guarantee compliance. (Id., p. 6.) In short, Dr. Smith’s medical practice was drastically restricted.22

Thus, Dr. Smith’s credibility in this case, for a diagnosis similar to those he made in the disciplinary cases, is severely reduced, especially in comparison to Respondent’s experts. He is not a credible expert.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mamabear0314

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Thanks for posting this, I was reading it today. As a lawyer, I am astonished by their strategy in this case. Hitching your wagon to the Geiers is a very strange move--the courts have repeatedly looked at their research and repeatedly found that it's not credible; they're also tainted with some ugly ethical issues related to the harsh drugs they've used on autistic children without good cause or results. I can't imagine any lawyer looking at their history and thinking there was the remotest chance that this time the court would believe them, in light of the drubbing they've received previously and the lack of any new science to support them. Law isn't a pinata, you can't just hit the same theories over and over and over again until one day money comes out.

A lot of other basic legal stuff seems off to me, too. Filing under a theory that's time-barred is an easier mistake to make than people think, but it's still a huge mistake. The court let them proceed under an alternate theory (which is the kind of enormously, bend-over-backwards helpful move that would never happen in normal court), but how did they not see that they'd need to plead that theory from the beginning?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Thanks for posting this, I was reading it today. As a lawyer, I am astonished by their strategy in this case. Hitching your wagon to the Geiers is a very strange move--the courts have repeatedly looked at their research and repeatedly found that it's not credible; they're also tainted with some ugly ethical issues related to the harsh drugs they've used on autistic children without good cause or results. I can't imagine any lawyer looking at their history and thinking there was the remotest chance that this time the court would believe them, in light of the drubbing they've received previously and the lack of any new science to support them. Law isn't a pinata, you can't just hit the same theories over and over and over again until one day money comes out.

A lot of other basic legal stuff seems off to me, too. Filing under a theory that's time-barred is an easier mistake to make than people think, but it's still a huge mistake. The court let them proceed under an alternate theory (which is the kind of enormously, bend-over-backwards helpful move that would never happen in normal court), but how did they not see that they'd need to plead that theory from the beginning?
From reading parts of the ruling, it sounds like the experts were pretty disorganized. They had conflicting theories, and their testimonies didn't match up with the medical records. Their strategy seemed to be "let's throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks". I'm not surprised he lost the case. Fascinating that anti-vaxers have so much trouble finding real experts that agree with their "vaccines cause autism" theory, isn't it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Here's another case, R.K. on behalf of A.K. I think this is R. Krakow, an anti-vax activist and lawyer:

https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2003vv0632-357-0; https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2003vv0632-358-0

More bizarre legal strategy. They apparently failed to pursue the case to the point that the court dismissed it for failure to prosecute, only to petition successfully for reconsideration (another indication of how much the VICP bends over backwards for claimants, which is not a bad thing at all). More terrible experts, too.

This one is particularly interesting because A.K. got separate vaccines instead of the MMR shot; lacking the MMR to blame, they said it was the flu shot that caused his autism. No good science to support the theory, of course.

And like Hooker, this appears to be another case in which autism was evident before vaccination.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
Here's another case, R.K. on behalf of A.K. I think this is R. Krakow, an anti-vax activist and lawyer:

https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2003vv0632-357-0; https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2003vv0632-358-0

More bizarre legal strategy. They apparently failed to pursue the case to the point that the court dismissed it for failure to prosecute, only to petition successfully for reconsideration (another indication of how much the VICP bends over backwards for claimants, which is not a bad thing at all). More terrible experts, too.

This one is particularly interesting because A.K. got separate vaccines instead of the MMR shot; lacking the MMR to blame, they said it was the flu shot that caused his autism. No good science to support the theory, of course.

And like Hooker, this appears to be another case in which autism was evident before vaccination.
Leftbrainrightbrain has a new post up about this case. https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2...not-vaccine-injured-no-mitochondrial-disease/

From the documents:

“The measles, mumps, and rubella [“MMR’] vaccines are ordinarily administered in a combined MMR vaccination, but A.K. received his in three separate vaccinations administered on December 1, 2000 (mumps); December 19, 2000 (measles), and January 2, 2001 (rubella), when he was between 13-14 months of age”
To which LBRB responds thusly:

Yes. The Krakow family was following the Wakefield-recommended “separate the MMR into single vaccines” schedule. Didn’t prevent autism. This seems like valuable information for the autism community, but Mr. Krakow chose to hold this information back.
So much for that theory, huh? :)
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top