• Pages

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Subscribe Via Email

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Meta

  • « | Home | »

    Court Say No To Vaccine Autism Link – Justice or Just Playing By The Rules

    By Mark Schauss | February 13, 2009

    Just yesterday, a special USĀ federal court declared Thursday that MMR vaccines were not a cause of autism. I wanted to find a way to put the ruling into context when I ran into two posts by a friend, Dr. Andrew Cutler, author of Hair Test Interpretation: Finding Hidden Toxicities and “Amalgam Illness:” Diagnosis and Treatment, that was on the Autism-Mercury Yahoo newsgroup.

    The first one:

    “Any lawyer will tell you that we have a legal system, not a justice system. The thing to do is stick to helping your kid, and view this as a political problem. Once the judges think the politicians want them to find that vaccines cause autism, they’ll reverse themselves. Until then no amount of evidence will suffice.”

    The second one:

    “just like white supremacists and the Ku Klux Klan were overjoyed by the Dred Scott and Plessey v. Ferguson rulings of the United States Supreme Court, blog ravers today are overjoyed by the vaccine court ruling. Hopefully everyone will take it upon themselves to drown the blogs in reality.

    Points to make:

    The Kangaroo court proceedings allowed the plaintiffs to COMPLAIN, but denied them the right to discovery so they had no means of actually gathering and presenting any evidence in support of their case; and The Kangaroo court conspired with the government’s pseudoexperts to redefine the burden of proof, changing it from the 50% that is ‘a preponderance of the evidence’ to the 95% that the perpetrators demanded, so that when even the perpetrator’s own studies showed the plaintiffs were right the court denied them justice and ruled against them.

    In a legal sense this is the same as if OJ Simpson had gotten to automatically prevail in the civil case wherein he was found responsible for Nichole’s death because he had been found “not guilty” in a criminal case where proof was required beyond a reasonble doubt.

    This is a great example to use since most of the blog ravers think OJ is guilty of killing his wife.”

    Sometimes things need to be said in a forceful and bluntly honest way. Thank you Andy!!!

    Topics: Health, Opinion, Neurological Disorders, Politics, autism | No Comments »

    Comments