http://autism-news-beat.com/archives/1243#comments"On September 25, America’s favorite daytime think tank, Fox and Friends, alleged that vaccines cause autism, and that the US government is covering it up. And because this is Fox News, the story comes packaged in outrage: the US Federal Court of Claims is asking parents for a medical expert’s opinion of how the injury may have occurred. Apparently, it’s not enough to merely allege injury in court – one must offer a rational explanation for how it could have happened.
“The letter basically asked us to provide them with a theory of why we believe the vaccines caused the autism, and to provide them with a medical expert’s opinion, which is the difficult part,” explained Dana Hall, who appears to be speaking for all 5,000 petitioners in the Autism Omnibus Proceedings, to outraged Fox Friend Alisyn Camerota. “We have the theories. We are not able to find medical experts who are willing to come forth and risk losing their medical license and to help our children.” Furthermore, said Hall, the evidence exists to link vaccines to autism – “it’s just a matter of looking in the right places.” Because Hall took her case to Fox News, there was no attempt to follow up with fair and balanced questions, such as “Why would a medical expert face professional sanctions for giving an evidence-based opinion?”, or “Why didn’t the petitioners’ attorneys and medical experts look in the right places for the evidence that vaccines cause autism?”
...
If Camerota had done her homework, she would have known that “vaccine court” was created during the Reagan Administration because the “nearly impossible legal hoops” that parents faced in vaccine injury cases were clogging up courts and forcing manufacturers out of the business. The “not normal” rules that Holland excoriates work in favor of parents. Simply put, if vaccine A is known to cause side effect B within X days following vaccination (called a table injury), and the facts of a case line up with the table injury, the case is usually settled. It’s a “more likely than not” standard of evidence that is nowhere near what plaintiffs face in civil court. In addition, plaintiff’s legal costs are covered win or lose, and decisions are reached much faster than would occur in civil court.
In short, few if any of the 5,000 claims would have stood a chance in civil court, where parents pay huge legal bills, and judges are bound by far tougher rules of evidence.
..."--------------------------------------------------------
I had no idea that Fox went down this road. I should have known, since science is not exactly a priority for Fox, and, well, they're obviously not too focused on honest journalism, and well, I'm being far too kind to Fox, aren't I?
:(
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
