Re: Re: US Court Rules In Favour Of Family In MMR Vaccine Case - Ben Zeller Jr

[Guest guest]

You tried. Now you know. If you hadn't and something happened, you would wish

you had sent it.

Don't let it discourage you from spreading the word to others. The few you reach

will be so grateful you didn't hold that info back just because your family

didn't want it.

Winnie

Re: US Court Rules In Favour Of Family In MMR Vaccine

Case - Ben Zeller Jr

Vaccinations

> I sent the video clip of this story to my brothers and my

> husbands

> sister because I really dont want to see any of my neices and

> nephews

> poisoned by vaccines.

> I got a reply back from my sister in law basically telling me to

> back

> off and respect their decision. It really irritates me when

> people

> say that because they are the parents they have a right to raise

> their children they way they choose. And legally they do. But

> morally no one has the right to harm their child. Especially if

> there is any doubt as to the safety of these drugs. I love all

> my

> neices and nephews very much. They are wonderful children, and

> it'd

> be nice to keep them that way. It drives me crazy to think that

> their parents are gambling with their health, all out of blind

> trust

> in the medical field.

> Fortunately, we have convinced one of my brothers not to

> vaccinate

> his boy. That one small victory is worth so much to me.

> Sorry about my ranting. I just had to get that out.

> , SD

>

> In Vaccinations , Sheri Nakken wrote:

> >

> > From: " Clifford G. "

> >

> >

> > pdf>US

> > Court Rules In Favour Of Family In MMR Vaccine Case Ben Zeller Jr

> >

> > The US Court ruled [July 2008] in favour of this

> > little boy Zeller that as a result of

> > the MMR vaccination received on 17 November 2004,

> > , suffered persistent, intractable

> > seizures, encephalopathy, and developmental delay.

> >

> > All other published decisions are

> > > op0=%3D & filter0=**ALL** & op1=%

> 3D & filter1=**ALL** & op2=OR & filter2=**ALL**>found

> > here.

> >

> > Please note that:-

> > * the standard of proof being applied in this

> > special US Court is identical to that in the English Court.

> > * just like the English Court, these cases

> > are decided by judge alone sitting without a jury.

> > " It also seems evident that the vaccine was a

> > substantial factor in causing the injury found by

> > the Court, which, prima facie, would appear to

> > satisfy the element of proximate cause in this

> > case. Applying the traditional legal rule from

> > Tort law, that Respondent takes Petitioner as he

> > finds him (a.k.a. the " Eggshell Skull Rule " ), the

> > fact that may have had a genetic

> > predisposition or a physiologic susceptibility

> > does not defeat Petitioner's case as a

> > superseding factor. So long as the vaccine was a

> > substantial factor, and its influence was not

> > overborne by a superseding cause, the Court is

> > justified in ruling that the proximate causation requirement

> is

> satisfied.

> > The logical sequela of these findings of fact is

> > that Petitioners have carried their burden of

> > proof on the issue of vaccine-related causation.

> > Inasmuch as the other elements of § 300aa–11 (

> > and © have already been satisfied, the Court

> > holds that Petitioners have met their burden on

> > their case in chief, on the ultimate issue of entitlement to

> compensation.

> > The burden now shifts to Respondent to proffer a

> > factor unrelated to the vaccine as either a more

> > likely cause of the injury found by the Court, or

> > as a superseding cause of the injury that

> > obviated any effect of the vaccine. This

> > Respondent has not done. The only medical

> > explanation proffered by Respondent was the

> > predestination of intractable

> > seizures, encephalopathy, and developmental

> > delay based on an undetermined genetic

> > predisposition toward neurodegeneration. As

> > discussed by the Court above when addressing

> > proximate causation on Petitioner's case in

> > chief, the Court's findings in this case are

> > inconsistent with a ruling that 's

> > genetic susceptibilities overbore the effect of

> > the vaccine as a superseding cause. Likewise,

> > there is not a preponderance of evidence from

> > within the medical records that any specific

> > alternative diagnosis–not a single named etiology

> > confirmed by testing–could be identified.

> > Unconfirmed speculation by a few treating

> > doctors, as with Dr. Wiznitzer's hypothesization,

> > were unconfirmed by testing in the first

> > instance, and unsupported by the medical records

> > in the second. Consequently, the Court concludes

> > that there is not a factor unrelated to overcome

> > Petitioner's evidence on causation. "

> >

> >

> >

> > --------------------------------------------------------

> > Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

> > Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA &

> Wales UK

> > Vaccines -

> > http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm Vaccine

> > Dangers & Childhood Disease & Homeopathy Email classes start

> in

> January 2009

> >

> >

> >