Why a concession? (was: Dr Gupta on CNN again

[Guest guest]

It is a little hard to second guess the strategy of the lawyers

looking at things from the outside. But here are some other

considerations. First, it could be argued that it was worse for the

government to make a concession than it would have been to be ruled

against. If they lost a ruling, they could claim that the stupid,

non-science " judge " made a lay mistake. But they didn't lose a ruling,

they conceded. Now they can't claim legal mentality bias to make

appeals. But overall, it makes little difference to the rest of the

cases if the connection was conceded or lost on ruling. Either way,

Pandora's box has been opened and the vaccine-autism connection has

been established.

Why the government made the concession, rather than wait to get ruled

against, is still much a mystery to most observers on both sides of

the matter.

To me, there seems to be two possible other reasons than the one you

suggest:

1. They made a huge mistake.

2. They were boxed in to concede by conditions or facts we are not

yet aware of. If true, they only bought a little time, not much else.

(This may be a part of reason #1.)

Let me rush to add that I am not a legal expert in these things and I

have no particular inside knowledge on these cases.

Lenny

>

> The reason the govt. conceeded this case was to avoid

> having a ruling made. They knew this was so blatantly

> obvious that if the trial proceeded it would not only

> lose, and therefore open the door for a true

> biological mechanism for vaccines to trigger autism,

> but that it would also invalidate all the statistical

> manipulations that the govt. has built its stance

> upon.

>

> It is the very reason thi series of events transpired.

>

> Now I do not blame the Polings for proceeding as they

> have, but I can't help but wonder if the lot of us

> wouldn't have been better served if the petitioners'

> lawyers had said " no thanx " to the concession and

> offered settlement and instead said let us proceed to

> trial in '08 as scheduled...

>

> Dr Gupta on CNN again

> Posted by: " Nanstiel " erik@...

> quantumerik

> Thu Mar 6, 2008 10:12 am (PST)

> I recorded the Gupta interview, also.

>

> What a weenie. Does anyone want to see it? Basically,

> he harped on the gene that gave rise

> (or perhaps just a predisposition? ) to the

> mitochondrial disease that Hannah has and

> implied that may have had more to do with autism than

> the vaccines. He also hammered

> the point that the concession was not a " ruling " that

> vaccines cause autism.

>

> He did everything he could to soften the blow of this

> case.

>

> I wonder what he really believes? Is he just

> protecting his job?

>

>

>

>

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

> Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

> http://www./r/hs

>