Originally Posted by Katman
sounds like that not to distant future is being backpedaled into the distance
111000101000100010011110
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
Forum whore
Yeah, my crystal ball is broken at the moment so we'll just have to wait and see instead.
111000101000100010011110
So, as usual, your illogic was examined and found lacking, who else is it that keeps crying doom then backing down and telling us to wait and see about a thing; something about a rapture isn't it?
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
Ta
Didn't you give figures on what's been paid out already? I might have imagined it.
I reckon it's making claim payments already. Just not as much as is being put away is all. Same as ACC.
Forum whore
3.3 billion dollars have been paid out since the compensation program started in 1986.
Ta
So they're paying out to the unfortunate cunts that get the disease and die anyway.
I'd probably give a lot more weight to your argument if there were successful cases paid out for autism or even gastrointestinal issues.
Forum whore
Do yourself a favour Drew and read up on the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program before making yourself look even more silly.
Ta
Easier to look silly here and let some other sap do the leg work. What do I care what anyone that frequents this place thinks?
Forum whore
Well I'll cut you some slack Drew.
I'll continue to make you look silly when you give me the opportunity but I won't call you names.
Anorak
Drew in the USA there is nothing they will not file frivolous lawsuits over.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ce-drinks.html
Liebeck v. McDonald's
coffee spilled in lap.....
2.7 million dollars
Aitken v. NBC
$2.5 million
Fear factor was too icky
Roller v. Blaine & Copperfield
Magicians stole his secret powers
$2 million
Peters v. Universal Studios
Horror movie was too scary
Bank Robber Gets Shot After Pointing Gun at Deputy; Sues City for Medical Bills
After receiving a pair of slugs while fleeing a police officer, this bank robber sued the County for $6.3 million
8-year-old New York Boy is Sued by His Aunt for a “Careless” Hug
Two New York Women File $40 Million Lawsuit Over ‘Like, Five or Six Scratches’ They Received From a Gas Explosion Blocks Away
Florida Woman is Suing FedEx for Tripping Over a Package Left at Her Doorstep
Allen Heckard sued Michael Jordan and Nike founder Phil Knight for $832 million. He claimed to suffer defamation, permanent injury, and emotional pain and suffering because people often mistook him for the basketball star.
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Forum whore
Why are you talking about lawsuits?
The VICP was introduced to avoid lawsuits.
Anorak
Which is exactly the point............. or do you not comprehend what a frivolous lawsuit is?
Don't bother answering. We know you don't answer questions........
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Forum whore
What the fuck are you on about?
Anorak
I would say three levels of common Logic beyond what you can comprehend. Likely two beyond Yokel.
Don't worry its just a conspiracy, created to make you look stupid. I am sure you think you are clever, and lets be serious, it's only your opinion that matters
Your Mate Andrew Wakefeild.
Its very odd that your CONSPIRACY RADAR can't see anything amiss with him............
In February 2004, after a four-month investigation, reporter Brian Deer wrote in The Sunday Times of London that, prior to submitting his paper to The Lancet, Wakefield had received £55,000 from Legal Aid Board solicitors seeking evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers, that several of the parents quoted as saying that MMR had damaged their children were also litigants, and that Wakefield did not inform colleagues or medical authorities of the conflict of interest. When the editors of The Lancet learned about this, they said that based on Deer's evidence, Wakefield's paper should have never been published because its findings were "entirely flawed." Although Wakefield maintained that the legal aid funding was for a separate, unpublished study[ (a position later rejected by a panel of the UK General Medical Council), the editors of The Lancet judged that the funding source should have been disclosed to them. Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief, wrote, "It seems obvious now that had we appreciated the full context in which the work reported in the 1998 Lancet paper by Wakefield and colleagues was done, publication would not have taken place in the way that it did." Several of Dr. Wakefield's co-researchers also strongly criticized the lack of disclosure.
Deer continued his reporting in a Channel 4 Dispatches television documentary, MMR: What They Didn't Tell You, broadcast on 18 November 2004. This documentary alleged that Wakefield had applied for patents on a vaccine that was a rival of the MMR vaccine, and that he knew of test results from his own laboratory at the Royal Free Hospital that contradicted his own claims. Wakefield's patent application was also noted in Paul Offit's 2008 book, Autism's False Prophets.
In January 2005, Wakefield sued Channel 4, 20/20 Productions, and the investigative reporter Brian Deer, who presented the Dispatches programme. However, after two years of litigation, and the revelation of more than £400,000 in undisclosed payments by lawyers to Wakefield, he discontinued his action and paid all the defendants' costs.
In 2006, Deer reported in The Sunday Times that Wakefield had been paid £435,643, plus expenses, by British trial lawyers attempting to prove that the vaccine was dangerous, with the undisclosed payments beginning two years before the Lancet paper's publication. This funding came from the UK legal aid fund, a fund intended to provide legal services to the poor.Your conduct as set out at paragraph 32.a. was,
i. dishonest,
Found proved
ii. irresponsible,
Found proved
iii. resulted in a misleading description of the patient population in the Lancet paper;
Found provedThe Panel is satisfied that you had such a duty, as set out in paragraph 31.c.ii.The Panel is persuaded by all the correspondence in the Lancet Journal volume 351 dated 2 May 1998 regarding a suggestion by correspondents to the Lancet that there was a biased selection of patients in the Lancet Paper of 28 February 1998, of which you were one of the senior authors. The Panel has found that your statement as set out in paragraph 35.a. does not respond fully and accurately to the queries made by correspondents to the Lancet. The Panel is satisfied that the statement you made would be considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest. Additionally, you knew that this statement omitted necessary and relevant information, such as the active role you played in the referral process, and the fact that the referral letters in four cases made no mention of any gastrointestinal symptoms and the fact that the investigations had been carried out under Project 172-96 for research purposes. Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct in this regard was dishonest and irresponsible.b. In the circumstances set out in paragraphs 32.a., 34.a. and 34.b.this statement was,
i. dishonest,
Found proved
ii. irresponsible,
Found proved
iii. contrary to your duty to ensure that the information provided by you was accurate;
Found provedIn reaching its decision, the Panel notes that the project reported in the Lancet paper was established with the purpose to investigate a postulated new syndrome and yet the Lancet paper did not describe this fact at all. Because you drafted and wrote the final version of the paper, and omitted correct information about the purpose of the study or the patient population, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct was irresponsible and dishonest. The Panel is satisfied that your conduct at paragraph 32.awould be considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest.That's without Deers investigationThe Panel is satisfied that you had such a duty, as set out in paragraph 31.c.ii.The Panel is persuaded by all the correspondence in the Lancet Journal volume 351 dated 2 May 1998 regarding a suggestion by correspondents to the Lancet that there was a biased selection of patients in the Lancet Paper of 28February 1998, of which you were one of the senior authors. The Panel has found that your statement as set out in paragraph 35.a. does not respond fully and accurately to the queries made by correspondents to the Lancet. The Panel is satisfied that the statement you made would be considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest. Additionally, you knew that this statement omitted necessary and relevant information, such as the active role you played in the referral process, and the fact that the referral letters in four cases made no mention of any gastrointestinal symptoms and the fact that the investigations had been carried out under Project 172-96 for research purposes. Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct in this regard was dishonest and irresponsible
In the first part of his investigation, Deer showed how Wakefield was able to manufacture the appearance of a medical syndrome that would hoodwink parents and large parts of the medical establishment with a fraud that “unleashed fear, parental guilt, costly government intervention, and outbreaks of infectious disease."
In the second part, he shows how the discredited doctor planned secret businesses intended to make huge sums of money, in the U.K. and the U.S., from his allegations.
The BMJ report says that Wakefield met medical school managers to discuss a joint business even while the first child to be fully investigated in his research was still in the hospital; and how just days after publication of his Lancet article, he brought business associates to his place of work at the Royal Free Medical School in London to continue negotiations.
Drawing on investigations and information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, Deer says Wakefield and his associates used financial forecasts that predicted they could make up to £28 million (about $43.7 million) a year from the diagnostic kits alone.
Deals Could Have Netted Millions
The kits in question were for diagnosing patients with autism. Deer obtained one 35-page document marked "private and confidential" which confidently predicted: “It is estimated that by year 3, income from this testing could be about £3,300,000 rising to about £28,000,000 as diagnostic testing in support of therapeutic regimes come on stream.”
Would-be investors were told that “the initial market for the diagnostic will be litigation-driven testing of patients with AE [autistic enterocolitis, an unproven condition concocted by Wakefield] from both the UK and the USA”.
Deer’s investigation also reveals that Wakefield was offered support to try to replicate his results, gained from just 12 children, with a larger validated study of up to 150 patients, but that he refused to carry out the work, claiming that his academic freedom would be jeopardized.
A further claim in the BMJ article is the existence of a business, named after Wakefield’s wife, which was intended to develop his own "replacement" vaccines, diagnostic testing kits, and other products which only stood any real chance of success if public confidence in the MMR vaccine was damaged..
http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/ne...journal-claims
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Anarchic Wild Child
Ackshally .. this summary is quite interesting. The VICP was set up in America over 1980s fears for the over the DPT vaccine (diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), and tetanus.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks