We need to e-mail talk show host Re: this corrupt judge

[Guest guest]

The idea that causation must be a popularly held position within the

scientific community is the moral equal to finding an individual

dragged before the bar guilty based on the size of the accompanying

lynch mob. This is how the judge desires to be remembered?

Butter is good for you. Butter is bad for you. Coffee is good for

you. Coffee is bad for you. Day in and day out we see this so called

scientific community publicly waging a war of competitive

contradiction.

Is there one sentence, one phrase in the public transcripts which

openly testifies that a genetic claim is the only view acceptable? To

the contrary there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that a genetic

link to the causation of autism exists. None of the genetic research

to date is relevant, but rather coincidental in the most obscure

studies possible.

Will this judge provide complete transcripts from testimony on what

was stated behind closed doors?

There is no way on earth that a lawyer sworn to represent a disabled

child would ever allow a judge to render a ruling based on the

popularity of a completely unproven theory.

I have not read transcripts, but on its' face, I suspect a lack of

testimony on record which would allow this judge to make such a

dubious rush to disqualify expert testimony. Clearly the judge is

grand-standing in what obviously appears to be an grand effort to

popularize acceptance of one solitary and extremely vague theory.

In short, apart from a lack of a throughout trial including testimony

from well-apparent unpopluar scientists, the well-composed personal

beliefs of the judge echo the national publicity efforts of the

vaccine industrial complex. The judge claims to know exactly what the

mind of the scientific community is on this matter. This is

impossible without hearing both sides of the issue.

The judge has become confused between examining true science and non-

specific generalization. It is clear by dialogue this judge has been

heavily influenced by the court of public opinion.

The best way to move forward is to bring out the fact that the so

called scientific community has produced valid dialogue acknowledging

that thimerosal has them in a tight spot on the issue, including the

verbal transcript stating they are in an unfavorable situation

relating to law suits. This makes the so called scientific community

extremely suspect.

Simpsonwood. Simpsonwood. Simpsonwood.

> >

> >

> > Guys, We need to do something about this. Isn't it

unconstitutional

> > to hear one sides evidence and not the others? I wonder how much

$

> > this corrupt judge recieved from wyeth? Why can't the public

> see/hear

> > this evidence is it too damning to the defendants[drug co.]Since

> when

> > does a judge have any credentials to decide what is and is not

> > science?

> >

> >

> > MADISON, N.J., Jan. 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Wyeth announced

> > today that The Honorable Stuart R. Berger of the Circuit Court

for

> > Baltimore City in Baltimore, land, has granted Wyeth's motion

> to

> > preclude plaintiffs' expert witnesses in an alleged vaccine

injury

> > case from testifying that exposure to thimerosal-containing

> vaccines

> > can cause autism. The court's decision, in the case of Blackwell,

> et

> > al. v. Sigma Aldrich, Inc., et al., followed a 10-day evidentiary

> > hearing held last August.

> >

> > Judge Berger found that " thimerosal in vaccines does not cause or

> > contribute to neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, "

noting

> > that " it is generally accepted in the relevant scientific

community

> > that autism is genetic in origin except in rare instances of

> prenatal

> > exposures to certain substances at defined periods during

> pregnancy. "

> >

> > Judge Berger held that plaintiffs had failed to show that the

> > methodologies underlying their expert witnesses' opinions are

> > generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community. He

also

> > held that plaintiffs' expert witnesses were not qualified " by

> > knowledge, skill, experience, training or education " or that they

> > could not set forth a sufficient factual basis to support the

> > causation opinions that plaintiffs wished to present to the jury.

> >

> > " We believe that the court's decision is in complete accord with

> the

> > overwhelming scientific evidence that there is no link between

> > vaccines and autism. The court correctly applied land law to

> bar

> > unfounded opinion testimony on scientific issues, " says J.

> > ch, lead trial counsel for Wyeth in this litigation, who is

a

> > partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

> >

>