Guest guest Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 --Doesn't anyone care that are kids are getting the shaft again? - In , " sammysouthie " <sammysouthie@...> wrote: > > > 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.