Re: MDNC Daubert Opinion.pdf Here are the judgment and opinion

[Guest guest]

FOR KrakowRhogam IS LOADED WITH THIMERSOL.INCIDENCE OF AUTISM IN Recipients IS 7 TO 9 FOLD Higher THAN IN first BORN infants of Rh neg mothers who did not receive Rhogam. HHF MDNC Daubert Opinion.pdf Here are the judgment and opinionAttached is an opinion and Judgment from the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissing Doe v. Ortho-Clinical, a case claiming RhoGam caused "autism".FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINAJOHN AND JANE DOE 2, )INDIVIDUALLY, and as GUARDIANS )AD LITEM, OF MINOR CHILD DOE 2, ))Plaintiffs, )v. ) 1:03CV00669)ORTHO-CLINICAL )DIAGNOSTICS, INC., ))Defendant. )ORDER & JUDGMENTBEATY, District Judge.For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion filed contemporaneously herewith,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant’s Motion toExclude All Testimony that Thimerosal-Containing RhoGAM Causes Autism [Document #63]is GRANTED. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs cannot prove causation, Defendant’s Motion forSummary Judgment [Document #94] is also GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITHPREJUDICE. Finally, the Court further finds that Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’Expert Suzanne Parisian, M.D. [Document #65] is DENIED AS MOOT.This, the 6th day of July, 2006.United States District Judge

[Guest guest]

This certainly is bad news. Just today I learned that the Rho-D

product I received when pregnant, HypRho-D, contained 80-120 mcg.

thimerosal per full dose, or the equivalent of 4-5 flu vaccines.

This was given at 26 weeks gestation.

Does anyone think we will ever have a successful civil case? I am

beginning to lose hope.

>

> Attached is an opinion and Judgment from the US District Court for

the

> Middle District of North Carolina dismissing Doe v. Ortho-

Clinical, a

> case claiming RhoGam caused " autism " .

>

>

> FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

> JOHN AND JANE DOE 2, )

> INDIVIDUALLY, and as GUARDIANS )

> AD LITEM, OF MINOR CHILD DOE 2, )

> )

> Plaintiffs, )

> v. ) 1:03CV00669

> )

> ORTHO-CLINICAL )

> DIAGNOSTICS, INC., )

> )

> Defendant. )

> ORDER & JUDGMENT

> BEATY, District Judge.

> For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion filed

> contemporaneously herewith,

> IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant's Motion

to

> Exclude All Testimony that Thimerosal-Containing RhoGAM Causes

Autism

> [Document #63]

> is GRANTED. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs cannot prove

causation,

> Defendant's Motion for

> Summary Judgment [Document #94] is also GRANTED and this case is

> DISMISSED WITH

> PREJUDICE. Finally, the Court further finds that Defendant's

Motion to

> Exclude Plaintiffs'

> Expert Suzanne Parisian, M.D. [Document #65] is DENIED AS MOOT.

> This, the 6th day of July, 2006.

> United States District Judge

>

[Guest guest]

How does one prove causal when no one can get adequate scientific

study to prove it? Oh yeah, that's why the VSD data was trashed...

Debi

>

> Attached is an opinion and Judgment from the US District Court for the

> Middle District of North Carolina dismissing Doe v. Ortho-Clinical, a

> case claiming RhoGam caused " autism " .

>

>

> FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

> JOHN AND JANE DOE 2, )

> INDIVIDUALLY, and as GUARDIANS )

> AD LITEM, OF MINOR CHILD DOE 2, )

> )

> Plaintiffs, )

> v. ) 1:03CV00669

> )

> ORTHO-CLINICAL )

> DIAGNOSTICS, INC., )

> )

> Defendant. )

> ORDER & JUDGMENT

> BEATY, District Judge.

> For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion filed

> contemporaneously herewith,

> IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant's Motion to

> Exclude All Testimony that Thimerosal-Containing RhoGAM Causes Autism

> [Document #63]

> is GRANTED. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs cannot prove causation,

> Defendant's Motion for

> Summary Judgment [Document #94] is also GRANTED and this case is

> DISMISSED WITH

> PREJUDICE. Finally, the Court further finds that Defendant's Motion to

> Exclude Plaintiffs'

> Expert Suzanne Parisian, M.D. [Document #65] is DENIED AS MOOT.

> This, the 6th day of July, 2006.

> United States District Judge

>

[Guest guest]

The amount of thimerosal received in this case was only 10 micrograms,

and there were other points that made it less than the optimal case,

and the ruling does not mean that other cases cannot go forward. They

can and should go forward. This is far from the end of the story on

RhoGAM cases. In fact, it is just the beginning.

4b.

Re: MDNC Daubert Opinion.pdf Here are the judgment and opinion

Posted by: " McDonough " kevntimmcd@...   hgmadre

Thu Jul 6, 2006 8:40 pm (PST)

This certainly is bad news. Just today I learned that the Rho-D

product I received when pregnant, HypRho-D, contained 80-120 mcg.

thimerosal per full dose, or the equivalent of 4-5 flu vaccines.

This was given at 26 weeks gestation.

Does anyone think we will ever have a successful civil case? I am

beginning to lose hope.

>

> Attached is an opinion and Judgment from the US District Court for

the

> Middle District of North Carolina dismissing Doe v. Ortho-

Clinical, a

> case claiming RhoGam caused " autism " .

>

>

> FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

> JOHN AND JANE DOE 2, )

> INDIVIDUALLY, and as GUARDIANS )

> AD LITEM, OF MINOR CHILD DOE 2, )

> )

> Plaintiffs, )

> v. ) 1:03CV00669

> )

> ORTHO-CLINICAL )

> DIAGNOSTICS, INC., )

> )

> Defendant. )

> ORDER & JUDGMENT

> BEATY, District Judge.

> For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion filed

> contemporaneously herewith,

> IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant's Motion

to

> Exclude All Testimony that Thimerosal-Containing RhoGAM Causes

Autism

> [Document #63]

> is GRANTED. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs cannot prove

causation,

> Defendant's Motion for

> Summary Judgment [Document #94] is also GRANTED and this case is

> DISMISSED WITH

> PREJUDICE. Finally, the Court further finds that Defendant's

Motion to

> Exclude Plaintiffs'

> Expert Suzanne Parisian, M.D. [Document #65] is DENIED AS MOOT.

> This, the 6th day of July, 2006.

> United States District Judge

>

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post

Messages in this topic (3)

[Guest guest]

It has been suggested that my statement that the NC case that was

dismissed was not an " optimal " case was a disservice to those children

exposed to RhoGAM in utero, even if the exposure was to " only " 10

micrograms. Let me clarify that I do not think that 10 micrograms is a

small dose, and as has been pointed out to me, that this bolus dose for

a fetus can cause damage. My point is only that the the dose was cited

by the Judge as being relatively small and the dose was mentioned by

the Judge as one small factor that enabled him to dismiss the

scientific support that this dose caused " autism. " There are cases with

facts, i.e. higher doses of exposure, that would have been more

difficult for a Judge to dismiss. I do not agree with the Court's

opinion, and my view that this was not the " optimal " case is intended

only to suggest that there exist strong cases out there that can be

prosecuted.

I also am not suggesting that the attorneys were at fault. It is my

understanding that they did a terrific job in taking on and prosecuting

the first RhoGAM case to go to a Daubert hearing.

Ultimately, my point is that those who are disappointed by the decision

should not feel that this one decision will block all cases. In fact,

even though the decision was not a good one, the Judge did state that

his opinion did not mean that a plaintiff could never prove that

thimerosal in RhoGAM causes autism.

In fact, other RhoGAM cases are moving forward.

> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

>

> At 09:48 7/7/06 -0400, you wrote:

>>

>> The amount of thimerosal received in

>> this case was only 10 micrograms, and

>> there were other points that made it

>> less than the optimal case, and the

>> ruling does not mean that other cases

>> cannot go forward. They can and should

>> go forward. This is far from the end

>> of the story on RhoGAM cases. In fact,

>> it is just the beginning.

>>

>>

>>

>> 4b.

>> Re: MDNC Daubert Opinion.pdf Here are the judgment and opinion

>> Posted by: " McDonough " kevntimmcd@...   hgmadre

[Guest guest]

In their zeal to find someone accountable for the cause and onset of their son's Autism, the parents and specifically their legal council have done a serious diservice to the cause of legally establishing a clear and unequivocal nexus between administration of thimerosal into a human being and it's direct role in the onset of that person or their immediate offspring's Autism. Having read the opinion, together with my wife who is a legal research attorney for a circuit court judge in Michigan, we conclude that the jugde in this case reached the only logical conclusion he could This decision necessitates that three things have to occur. 1. NEXUS BETWEEN Hg AND NEUROLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT Proper, peer reviewed competant research must be conducted, which clearly CONCLUDES

the neurological toxicity of Hg (mercury) when it is introduced into any living creature, be it animal or human. It is imperative to show that it WILL not MIGHT cause NEUROLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTAL DAMAGE to a developing embryo and fetus. This is very important because every case which comes before the court will include the defendant's counsel, whomever they are, focussing on the expertise and qualification of the plaintiff's expertwitnesses. This case illustrates the importance and necessity of getting all plaintiff's ducks lined up and well prepared. So, every case brought before the courts in future must clearly show that Hg is neurotoxic and that it will impact fetal neurological development. Then the nexus between Hg and Autism CAN be shown, because, Autism IS a neurological disorder. 2. ADEQUATE THOROUGH PREPARATION Adequate legal counsel must thoroughly

prepare their case/s before they go to trial. This includes a well researched review of their experts, specifically addressing their qualifications and competance to testify in the matter/s being brought before the court In this case Dr Geir, while undoubtedly a brilliant physician, was shown to be flawed and lacking in key aspects which the court held were significantly germaine to the plaintiff's case. In this case the court found that neither Dr Boyd Haley nor Dr. Lucier were qualified to testify because they weren't experts on Autism. It also found that Dr Geier is neither qualified in pediatric neurology nor epidemiology. (This doesn't mean that Drs. Haley, Lucier and Geier cannot testify to certain aspects of a case, however, the issue in this case (as will be in most cases) was causation.) Quoting from the Daubert opinion and Rule 702 of Federal Rules of

Evidence..."if scientific or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." This means that EVERY defendants' council will pick apart, focus upon and exploit every plaintiffs' experts according to this rule 702. They will demonstrate to EVERY court EVERY time when a plaintiffs expert is testifying OUTSIDE of their EXPERTISE, as was done so in this case. Incidental to the courts findings regarding Dr

Geier, a very smart friend of ours admonished a while back that they believed Dr Geier's research was flawed, because it relied on VAERS data which is inherently unreliable. It is a passive reporting system, meaning that it is based upon self reporting, is incomplete and the diagnoses of Autism are not confirmed ie. someone can simply report that their child has autism without their being any independent confirmation of the diagnosis. Sadly, this person's observation has now been memorialized in a public record through Judge Beaty's well reasoned, well written opinion. 3 SEPERATION OF EMOTION . A separation of the emotional anger which is understandable in all of us, when preparing the cases from the clear focus of developing and presenting a case. This case should never have gone to trial. it was unwinnable from outset,

because, currently there ISN'T sufficient research to prove the nexus of Hg and Autism by legal standards, Defendent's clearly demonstrated this, and the court held that neither General nor Specific Causation of Autism from Thimerosal had been proven in this case. The one shining light is, that for at least the last 10 years, no research has proven a clear genetic aetiology for Autism either so environmental factors are finally being discussed by the "mainstream" as a co-factor. Protesting in public and picketing conferences, lobbying politicians etc.. is fine, well and good, but it is a FAR CRY from developing the fundamental basics for proving a case in court. This case was a shoddy, hasty, shoot from the hip Hail play, doomed from the second the filing left the lawyer's hand. All it has done is provide ammunition for detractors to use in future cases. The

vitriolic harrangue often expressed by posters on this list might make us all feel good but it will NEVER play out as an effective strategy in a court of law. CATCH 22 We need to get laws passed which set aside statute of limitation deadlines, so that there is sufficient time to conduct proper research. We're in a catch 22 situation. We can't file because we can't prove, because the research isn't done, and if we wait, we lose our legal opportunity to do so because of time elapsing. This is where CAN, Autism Speaks and other organizations MUST come in. This issue is the most pressing. We must prove the toxicity of Hg in the general context, then we can tie it to anything and, get it banned from everything ! ! ! If it can be proven, then the nexus will be a general one and linking it to onset of Autism will be much easier. We need to throw Autism into the

general pool of syndromes, conditions call them what you will. This will negate us being marginalized or viewed as extremist angry kooks out for bloody revenge. We sincerely hope that this ruling will be a lesson to all who wish to legally pursue a course of action because the courts' rulings will (and we are fearful, has) set negative precedent that will effect anyone who comes after them and seeks to pursue legal avenues of recourse. n" J. Krakow" <rkrakow@...> wrote: Attached is an opinion and Judgment from the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissing Doe v. Ortho-Clinical, a case claiming RhoGam caused "autism".FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINAJOHN AND JANE DOE 2, )INDIVIDUALLY, and

as GUARDIANS )AD LITEM, OF MINOR CHILD DOE 2, ))Plaintiffs, )v. ) 1:03CV00669)ORTHO-CLINICAL )DIAGNOSTICS, INC., ))Defendant. )ORDER & JUDGMENTBEATY, District Judge.For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion filed contemporaneously herewith,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant’s Motion toExclude All Testimony that Thimerosal-Containing RhoGAM Causes Autism [Document #63]is GRANTED. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs cannot prove causation, Defendant’s Motion forSummary Judgment [Document #94] is also GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITHPREJUDICE. Finally, the Court further finds that Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’Expert Suzanne Parisian, M.D. [Document #65] is DENIED AS MOOT.This, the 6th day of July, 2006.United States District Judge

Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Small Business.

[Guest guest]

In their zeal to find someone accountable for the cause and onset of their son's Autism, the parents and specifically their legal council have done a serious diservice to the cause of legally establishing a clear and unequivocal nexus between administration of thimerosal into a human being and it's direct role in the onset of that person or their immediate offspring's Autism. Having read the opinion, together with my wife who is a legal research attorney for a circuit court judge in Michigan, we conclude that the jugde in this case reached the only logical conclusion he could This decision necessitates that three things have to occur. 1. NEXUS BETWEEN Hg AND NEUROLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT Proper, peer reviewed competant research must be conducted, which clearly CONCLUDES

the neurological toxicity of Hg (mercury) when it is introduced into any living creature, be it animal or human. It is imperative to show that it WILL not MIGHT cause NEUROLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTAL DAMAGE to a developing embryo and fetus. This is very important because every case which comes before the court will include the defendant's counsel, whomever they are, focussing on the expertise and qualification of the plaintiff's expertwitnesses. This case illustrates the importance and necessity of getting all plaintiff's ducks lined up and well prepared. So, every case brought before the courts in future must clearly show that Hg is neurotoxic and that it will impact fetal neurological development. Then the nexus between Hg and Autism CAN be shown, because, Autism IS a neurological disorder. 2. ADEQUATE THOROUGH PREPARATION Adequate legal counsel must thoroughly

prepare their case/s before they go to trial. This includes a well researched review of their experts, specifically addressing their qualifications and competance to testify in the matter/s being brought before the court In this case Dr Geir, while undoubtedly a brilliant physician, was shown to be flawed and lacking in key aspects which the court held were significantly germaine to the plaintiff's case. In this case the court found that neither Dr Boyd Haley nor Dr. Lucier were qualified to testify because they weren't experts on Autism. It also found that Dr Geier is neither qualified in pediatric neurology nor epidemiology. (This doesn't mean that Drs. Haley, Lucier and Geier cannot testify to certain aspects of a case, however, the issue in this case (as will be in most cases) was causation.) Quoting from the Daubert opinion and Rule 702 of Federal Rules of

Evidence..."if scientific or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." This means that EVERY defendants' council will pick apart, focus upon and exploit every plaintiffs' experts according to this rule 702. They will demonstrate to EVERY court EVERY time when a plaintiffs expert is testifying OUTSIDE of their EXPERTISE, as was done so in this case. Incidental to the courts findings regarding Dr

Geier, a very smart friend of ours admonished a while back that they believed Dr Geier's research was flawed, because it relied on VAERS data which is inherently unreliable. It is a passive reporting system, meaning that it is based upon self reporting, is incomplete and the diagnoses of Autism are not confirmed ie. someone can simply report that their child has autism without their being any independent confirmation of the diagnosis. Sadly, this person's observation has now been memorialized in a public record through Judge Beaty's well reasoned, well written opinion. 3 SEPERATION OF EMOTION . A separation of the emotional anger which is understandable in all of us, when preparing the cases from the clear focus of developing and presenting a case. This case should never have gone to trial. it was unwinnable from outset,

because, currently there ISN'T sufficient research to prove the nexus of Hg and Autism by legal standards, Defendent's clearly demonstrated this, and the court held that neither General nor Specific Causation of Autism from Thimerosal had been proven in this case. The one shining light is, that for at least the last 10 years, no research has proven a clear genetic aetiology for Autism either so environmental factors are finally being discussed by the "mainstream" as a co-factor. Protesting in public and picketing conferences, lobbying politicians etc.. is fine, well and good, but it is a FAR CRY from developing the fundamental basics for proving a case in court. This case was a shoddy, hasty, shoot from the hip Hail play, doomed from the second the filing left the lawyer's hand. All it has done is provide ammunition for detractors to use in future cases. The

vitriolic harrangue often expressed by posters on this list might make us all feel good but it will NEVER play out as an effective strategy in a court of law. CATCH 22 We need to get laws passed which set aside statute of limitation deadlines, so that there is sufficient time to conduct proper research. We're in a catch 22 situation. We can't file because we can't prove, because the research isn't done, and if we wait, we lose our legal opportunity to do so because of time elapsing. This is where CAN, Autism Speaks and other organizations MUST come in. This issue is the most pressing. We must prove the toxicity of Hg in the general context, then we can tie it to anything and, get it banned from everything ! ! ! If it can be proven, then the nexus will be a general one and linking it to onset of Autism will be much easier. We need to throw Autism into the

general pool of syndromes, conditions call them what you will. This will negate us being marginalized or viewed as extremist angry kooks out for bloody revenge. We sincerely hope that this ruling will be a lesson to all who wish to legally pursue a course of action because the courts' rulings will (and we are fearful, has) set negative precedent that will effect anyone who comes after them and seeks to pursue legal avenues of recourse. n" J. Krakow" <rkrakow@...> wrote: Attached is an opinion and Judgment from the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissing Doe v. Ortho-Clinical, a case claiming RhoGam caused "autism".FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINAJOHN AND JANE DOE 2, )INDIVIDUALLY, and

as GUARDIANS )AD LITEM, OF MINOR CHILD DOE 2, ))Plaintiffs, )v. ) 1:03CV00669)ORTHO-CLINICAL )DIAGNOSTICS, INC., ))Defendant. )ORDER & JUDGMENTBEATY, District Judge.For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion filed contemporaneously herewith,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant’s Motion toExclude All Testimony that Thimerosal-Containing RhoGAM Causes Autism [Document #63]is GRANTED. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs cannot prove causation, Defendant’s Motion forSummary Judgment [Document #94] is also GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITHPREJUDICE. Finally, the Court further finds that Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’Expert Suzanne Parisian, M.D. [Document #65] is DENIED AS MOOT.This, the 6th day of July, 2006.United States District Judge

Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Small Business.

[Guest guest]

n Wendrow,

Unless your wife has reviewed the

transcripts of all of the testimony

that was given and not just what

was contained in the opinion, how

can she KNOW that the judge reached

a logical conclusion, much less the

" only logical conclusion he could " ???

Since, based on your testimony, all

your wife did was read the opinion,

it is obvious that her reasoning is,

at best, " circular " -- the opinion

seems to be logically consistent

therefore the conclusions reached

based on the opinion must be logical,

and, since it is logical, it must be

valid!

Hopefully, all who read your " judge's

opinion is logical " -based analysis

will realize that it is an opinion

based on a " judge's opinion " whose

authorship and validity you and your

wife failed to even examine!

As a scientist (and not a lawyer, but the

brother of two lawyers, one of whom is

not automatically " awed " by a " federal

judge's written opinion " ), the statements

you make here should be IGNORED because

they are NOT based on a study of the

testimony (the facts) in the case but,

according to your own words, on the

judge's opinion, an opinion that you

accept as valid without providing any

proof of its validity.

Based on what I read, the judge first

threw out the experts by apparently

misusing a Daubert hearing (which is

only supposed to address the competence

and relevance of both sides' experts)

to try parts of the case and, based on

his throwing out the plaintiff's experts,

dismissed the case.

Hopefully, your next attack will be based

on more that a reading of a legal opinion

but rather a review of all the testimony

given as well as its relevance to the

issues raised and not just the " bits " the

the writer of the opinion chose to publish.

In addition, you may find that some of the

information presented was not provided in

the court hearings but apparently obtained

by means other than those legally available

to the judge from information that is

supposedly sealed from all but the Justice

Department's lawyers in the Vaccine Court.

As to the issue of studies in VAERS, I can

only point out that: a) the CDC uses VAERS

when it suits its purposes and the Geirs

have published studies on other databases,

including the VSD, that have supported their

VAERS findings and yet the judge failed to

even note this FACT.

I could go on, but see no need, because it

is obvious to me that, for whatever reasons

(and there is at least one that is the 300-lb

gorilla in the room that I know of that the

judge was not mentioned by the judge), the

published opinion on the experts was not, per

se, based on " Daubert " but rather only on

this judge's apparent misuse of a " Daubert "

hearing and the " legal " process to find

sufficient " factiods, " some of which are

seemingly not relevant, to disqualify the

experts in this case.

Respectfully,

Dr. King

http://www.dr-king.com

PS: The studies that you say are needed

have, in fact, in some cases, already

been conducted and are in the process

of being published.

Moreover, to date, the differential

diagnosis methodology used by the

Geiers has repeatedly been found to

be valid and to accurately separate

the majority of those who have been,

for whatever reasons, mercury poisoned

from the few who have a recognized or

suspected genetic cause for their

diagnosis in the SPECTRUM of autustic

disorders.

Finally, since the issue was not the

condition (autism) of the injured

child, which was accepted by both

sides, but rather the cause of the

autism, the only specialties in which

a diagnostic expert testifying to

" specific causation " here needs to be

qualified in seem to be medicine and

genetics provided, as is the case here,

the board certified geneticist has had

years of experience in diagnosis and

has developed a scientifically sound

and appropriate differential diagnostic

technique to separate " A " (mercury-

poisoned children) from " B " (those who

have NOT been mercury poisoned).

Based on this admittedly " simple " logic

(based on Ockham's Razor), Dr. Geier has

established that he is qualified as

an expert in differentially diagnosing

people of all ages, including children,

who have been mercury poisoned from a

population (children diagnosed with autism

in this case) that contains both those

who have been mercury poisoned [currently

estimated at > 85%] and those who have not

been mercury poisoned [currently estimated

at < 15%].

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At 05:54 7/9/06 -0700, you wrote:

>

>In their zeal to find someone accountable

>for the cause and onset of their son's Autism,

>the parents and specifically their legal

>council have done a serious diservice to

>the cause of legally establishing a clear and

<unequivocal nexus between administration of

>thimerosal into a human being and it's direct

>role in the onset of that person or their

>immediate offspring's Autism.

>

> Having read the opinion, together with my wife

>who is a legal research attorney for a circuit

>court judge in Michigan, we conclude that the

>jugde in this case reached the only logical

>conclusion he could

>

> This decision necessitates that three things have to occur.

>

> 1. NEXUS BETWEEN Hg AND NEUROLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

>

> Proper, peer reviewed competant research

>must be conducted, which clearly

> CONCLUDES the neurological toxicity of Hg

>(mercury) when it is introduced into any living

>creature, be it animal or human. It is imperative

>to show that it WILL not MIGHT cause NEUROLOGICAL

>DEVELOPMENTAL DAMAGE to a developing embryo and

>fetus. This is very important because every case

>which comes before the court will include the

>defendant's counsel, whomever they are, focussing

>on the expertise and qualification of the plaintiff's

>expertwitnesses.

>

> This case illustrates the importance and necessity

>of getting all plaintiff's ducks lined up and well

>prepared. So, every case brought before the courts

>in future must clearly show that Hg is neurotoxic

>and that it will impact fetal neurological

>development. Then the nexus between Hg and Autism

>CAN be shown, because, Autism IS a neurological

>disorder.

>

> 2. ADEQUATE THOROUGH PREPARATION

> Adequate legal counsel must thoroughly

>prepare their case/s before they go to trial.

>This includes a well researched review of their

>experts, specifically addressing their

>qualifications and competance to testify in

>the matter/s being brought before the court

> In this case Dr Geir, while undoubtedly a

>brilliant physician, was shown to be flawed and

>lacking in key aspects which the court held were

>significantly germaine to the plaintiff's case.

> In this case the court found that neither

>Dr Boyd Haley nor Dr. Lucier were qualified to

>testify because they weren't experts on Autism.

>It also found that Dr Geier is neither qualified

>in pediatric neurology nor epidemiology. (This

>doesn't mean that Drs. Haley, Lucier and Geier

>cannot testify to certain aspects of a case,

>however, the issue in this case (as will be in

>most cases) was causation.)

>

> Quoting from the Daubert opinion and Rule 702

>of Federal Rules of Evidence... " if scientific or

>other specialized knowledge will assist the trier

>of fact to understand the evidence or to determine

>a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert

>by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or

>education, may testify thereto in the form of

>opinion or otherwise, if

> (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient

> facts or data

> (2) the testimony is the product of reliable

> principles and methods, and

> (3) the witness has applied the principles and

> methods reliably to the facts of the case. "

> This means that EVERY defendants' council will

>pick apart, focus upon and exploit every

>plaintiffs' experts according to this rule 702.

>They will demonstrate to EVERY court EVERY time

>when a plaintiffs expert is testifying OUTSIDE of

>their EXPERTISE, as was done so in this case.

>

> Incidental to the courts findings regarding

>Dr Geier, a very smart friend of ours admonished

>a while back that they believed Dr Geier's research

> was flawed, because it relied on VAERS data which

>is inherently unreliable. It is a passive reporting

>system, meaning that it is based upon self reporting,

>is incomplete and the diagnoses of Autism are not

>confirmed ie. someone can simply report that their

>child has autism without their being any independent

>confirmation of the diagnosis.

>

> Sadly, this person's observation has now been

>memorialized in a public record through Judge

>Beaty's well reasoned, well written opinion.

>

> 3 SEPERATION OF EMOTION

> . A separation of the emotional anger which is

>understandable in all of us, when preparing the

>cases from the clear focus of developing and

>presenting a case.

>

> This case should never have gone to trial.

>it was unwinnable from outset, because, currently

>there ISN'T sufficient research to prove the nexus

>of Hg and Autism by legal standards, Defendent's

>clearly demonstrated this, and the court held that

>neither General nor Specific Causation of Autism

>from Thimerosal had been proven in this case.

>

> The one shining light is, that for at least the

>last 10 years, no research has proven a clear

>genetic aetiology for Autism either so environmental

>factors are finally being discussed by the

> " mainstream " as a co-factor.

>

> Protesting in public and picketing conferences,

>lobbying politicians etc.. is fine, well and good,

>but it is a FAR CRY from developing the

>fundamental basics for proving a case in court.

>This case was a shoddy, hasty, shoot from the hip

>Hail play, doomed from the second the filing

>left the lawyer's hand. All it has done is provide

>ammunition for detractors to use in future cases.

>The vitriolic harrangue often expressed by posters

>on this list might make us all feel good but it will

>NEVER play out as an effective strategy in a court

>of law.

>

> CATCH 22

> We need to get laws passed which set aside statute

>of limitation deadlines, so that there is sufficient

>time to conduct proper research. We're in a catch

>22 situation. We can't file because we can't prove,

>because the research isn't done, and if we wait, we

>lose our legal opportunity to do so because of time

>elapsing.

> This is where CAN, Autism Speaks and other

>organizations MUST come in.

>

> This issue is the most pressing. We must prove the

>toxicity of Hg in the general context, then we can

>tie it to anything and, get it banned from everything

>! ! ! If it can be proven, then the nexus will be

>a general one and linking it to onset of Autism will

>be much easier. We need to throw Autism into the

> general pool of syndromes, conditions call them

>what you will. This will negate us being marginalized

>or viewed as extremist angry kooks out for bloody revenge.

>

> We sincerely hope that this ruling will be a lesson

>to all who wish to legally pursue a course of action

>because the courts' rulings will (and we are fearful,

>has) set negative precedent that will effect anyone who

>comes after them and seeks to pursue legal avenues of

>recourse.

>

> n

>

> " J. Krakow " <rkrakow@...> wrote:

>> Attached is an opinion and Judgment from the US District Court for the

>>Middle District of North Carolina dismissing Doe v. Ortho-Clinical, a

>>case claiming RhoGam caused " autism " .

>>

>>

>>FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

>>JOHN AND JANE DOE 2, )

>>INDIVIDUALLY, and as GUARDIANS )

>>AD LITEM, OF MINOR CHILD DOE 2, )

>>)

>>Plaintiffs, )

>>v. ) 1:03CV00669

>>)

>>ORTHO-CLINICAL )

>>DIAGNOSTICS, INC., )

>>)

>>Defendant. )

>>ORDER & JUDGMENT

>>BEATY, District Judge.

>>For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion filed

>>contemporaneously herewith,

>>IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant’s Motion to

>>Exclude All Testimony that Thimerosal-Containing RhoGAM Causes Autism

>>[Document #63]

>>is GRANTED. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs cannot prove causation,

>>Defendant’s Motion for

>>Summary Judgment [Document #94] is also GRANTED and this case is

>>DISMISSED WITH

>>PREJUDICE. Finally, the Court further finds that Defendant’s Motion to

>>Exclude Plaintiffs’

>>Expert Suzanne Parisian, M.D. [Document #65] is DENIED AS MOOT.

>>This, the 6th day of July, 2006.

>>United States District Judge

>>

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

I still say that the studies need to be conclusive and present compelling evidence of the simple fact that Hg is SEVERELY NEUROTOXIC and has no place in any medicinal preparation intended for human consumption. A good case will present this aspect first then tie in Autism because it is acknowledged in the scientific community as a NEUROLOGICAL disorder. Obviously legal councils are not doing a good enough presentation of this very significantly important aspect when leading testimony from witnesses. If the research is a cut and dried issue as you say in your email, then there should be no problem. This just codifies my point that legal council did not adequately prepare for this case. Again I'm not the enemy here, I'm just expressing concern because I know how well prepared and dangerous our opposition is. You might not like me for expressing this but the tenor and

tone of many posts is too emotional and will NEVER play well in a court of law. Public opinion is one thing, legal opinion is what counts and achieves desired results You and your brothers can differ all you like on the merits of whether Judge Beaty erred in holding a Daubert hearing, but, he did and he's made a ruling that will be very difficult to challenge let alone get overturned take care n" G. King" <drking@...> wrote: n Wendrow,Unless your wife has reviewed the transcripts of all of the testimonythat was given and not just what was contained in the opinion, howcan she KNOW that the judge reacheda logical conclusion, much less the"only logical conclusion he could"???Since, based on your

testimony, allyour wife did was read the opinion,it is obvious that her reasoning is,at best, "circular" -- the opinion seems to be logically consistenttherefore the conclusions reachedbased on the opinion must be logical,and, since it is logical, it must be valid!Hopefully, all who read your "judge'sopinion is logical"-based analysiswill realize that it is an opinion based on a "judge's opinion" whose authorship and validity you and your wife failed to even examine!As a scientist (and not a lawyer, but thebrother of two lawyers, one of whom isnot automatically "awed" by a "federaljudge's written opinion"), the statementsyou make here should be IGNORED because they are NOT based on a study of the testimony (the facts) in the case but, according to your own words, on the judge's opinion, an opinion that you accept as valid without providing any proof of its

validity.Based on what I read, the judge first threw out the experts by apparently misusing a Daubert hearing (which is only supposed to address the competenceand relevance of both sides' experts)to try parts of the case and, based on his throwing out the plaintiff's experts,dismissed the case.Hopefully, your next attack will be basedon more that a reading of a legal opinionbut rather a review of all the testimony given as well as its relevance to the issues raised and not just the "bits" thethe writer of the opinion chose to publish.In addition, you may find that some of theinformation presented was not provided inthe court hearings but apparently obtainedby means other than those legally availableto the judge from information that is supposedly sealed from all but the JusticeDepartment's lawyers in the Vaccine Court.As to the issue of studies in VAERS, I can only

point out that: a) the CDC uses VAERSwhen it suits its purposes and the Geirshave published studies on other databases,including the VSD, that have supported theirVAERS findings and yet the judge failed to even note this FACT.I could go on, but see no need, because itis obvious to me that, for whatever reasons(and there is at least one that is the 300-lb gorilla in the room that I know of that the judge was not mentioned by the judge), the published opinion on the experts was not, perse, based on "Daubert" but rather only onthis judge's apparent misuse of a "Daubert"hearing and the "legal" process to find sufficient "factiods," some of which areseemingly not relevant, to disqualify the experts in this case.Respectfully,Dr. Kinghttp://www.dr-king.comPS: The studies that you say are neededhave, in fact, in some cases, alreadybeen conducted and are in the

processof being published.Moreover, to date, the differential diagnosis methodology used by the Geiers has repeatedly been found to be valid and to accurately separatethe majority of those who have been,for whatever reasons, mercury poisonedfrom the few who have a recognized orsuspected genetic cause for their diagnosis in the SPECTRUM of autusticdisorders.Finally, since the issue was not the condition (autism) of the injured child, which was accepted by both sides, but rather the cause of theautism, the only specialties in which a diagnostic expert testifying to "specific causation" here needs to be qualified in seem to be medicine and genetics provided, as is the case here, the board certified geneticist has had years of experience in diagnosis and has developed a scientifically sound and appropriate differential diagnostic technique to separate "A"

(mercury-poisoned children) from "B" (those who have NOT been mercury poisoned).Based on this admittedly "simple" logic (based on Ockham's Razor), Dr. Geier has established that he is qualified as an expert in differentially diagnosing people of all ages, including children, who have been mercury poisoned from a population (children diagnosed with autismin this case) that contains both thosewho have been mercury poisoned [currentlyestimated at > 85%] and those who have not been mercury poisoned [currently estimatedat < 15%]. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ At 05:54 7/9/06 -0700, you wrote:>>In their zeal to find someone accountable >for the cause and onset of their son's Autism, >the parents and specifically their legal >council have done a serious diservice to >the cause of legally establishing a clear and >thimerosal into a human being and it's direct >role in the onset of that person or their >immediate offspring's Autism.> > Having read the opinion, together with my wife >who is a legal research attorney for a circuit>court judge in Michigan, we conclude that the >jugde in this case reached the only logical >conclusion he could> > This decision necessitates that three things have to occur.> > 1. NEXUS BETWEEN Hg AND NEUROLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT> > Proper, peer reviewed competant research >must be conducted, which clearly> CONCLUDES the neurological toxicity of Hg >(mercury) when it is introduced into any living >creature, be it animal or human. It is imperative>to show that it WILL not MIGHT cause NEUROLOGICAL >DEVELOPMENTAL DAMAGE to a developing embryo and >fetus. This is very important because every case

>which comes before the court will include the >defendant's counsel, whomever they are, focussing>on the expertise and qualification of the plaintiff's >expertwitnesses. > > This case illustrates the importance and necessity>of getting all plaintiff's ducks lined up and well >prepared. So, every case brought before the courts >in future must clearly show that Hg is neurotoxic >and that it will impact fetal neurological >development. Then the nexus between Hg and Autism >CAN be shown, because, Autism IS a neurological >disorder.> > 2. ADEQUATE THOROUGH PREPARATION > Adequate legal counsel must thoroughly >prepare their case/s before they go to trial. >This includes a well researched review of their >experts, specifically addressing their >qualifications and competance to testify in >the matter/s being brought before the

court> In this case Dr Geir, while undoubtedly a >brilliant physician, was shown to be flawed and >lacking in key aspects which the court held were >significantly germaine to the plaintiff's case.> In this case the court found that neither >Dr Boyd Haley nor Dr. Lucier were qualified to >testify because they weren't experts on Autism. >It also found that Dr Geier is neither qualified >in pediatric neurology nor epidemiology. (This >doesn't mean that Drs. Haley, Lucier and Geier >cannot testify to certain aspects of a case,>however, the issue in this case (as will be in >most cases) was causation.) > > Quoting from the Daubert opinion and Rule 702 >of Federal Rules of Evidence..."if scientific or >other specialized knowledge will assist the trier >of fact to understand the evidence or to determine >a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an

expert>by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or >education, may testify thereto in the form of >opinion or otherwise, if > (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient > facts or data> (2) the testimony is the product of reliable> principles and methods, and> (3) the witness has applied the principles and > methods reliably to the facts of the case." > This means that EVERY defendants' council will >pick apart, focus upon and exploit every >plaintiffs' experts according to this rule 702. >They will demonstrate to EVERY court EVERY time >when a plaintiffs expert is testifying OUTSIDE of >their EXPERTISE, as was done so in this case.> > Incidental to the courts findings regarding >Dr Geier, a very smart friend of ours admonished >a while back that they believed Dr Geier's research> was flawed, because it relied on VAERS data which

>is inherently unreliable. It is a passive reporting >system, meaning that it is based upon self reporting, >is incomplete and the diagnoses of Autism are not >confirmed ie. someone can simply report that their >child has autism without their being any independent >confirmation of the diagnosis.> > Sadly, this person's observation has now been >memorialized in a public record through Judge >Beaty's well reasoned, well written opinion.> > 3 SEPERATION OF EMOTION> . A separation of the emotional anger which is >understandable in all of us, when preparing the >cases from the clear focus of developing and >presenting a case.> > This case should never have gone to trial. >it was unwinnable from outset, because, currently >there ISN'T sufficient research to prove the nexus >of Hg and Autism by legal standards, Defendent's

>clearly demonstrated this, and the court held that >neither General nor Specific Causation of Autism >from Thimerosal had been proven in this case.> > The one shining light is, that for at least the >last 10 years, no research has proven a clear>genetic aetiology for Autism either so environmental>factors are finally being discussed by the >"mainstream" as a co-factor.> > Protesting in public and picketing conferences, >lobbying politicians etc.. is fine, well and good, >but it is a FAR CRY from developing the >fundamental basics for proving a case in court. >This case was a shoddy, hasty, shoot from the hip >Hail play, doomed from the second the filing >left the lawyer's hand. All it has done is provide >ammunition for detractors to use in future cases. >The vitriolic harrangue often expressed by posters >on this list might make

us all feel good but it will >NEVER play out as an effective strategy in a court>of law.> > CATCH 22> We need to get laws passed which set aside statute>of limitation deadlines, so that there is sufficient>time to conduct proper research. We're in a catch>22 situation. We can't file because we can't prove, >because the research isn't done, and if we wait, we >lose our legal opportunity to do so because of time >elapsing.> This is where CAN, Autism Speaks and other >organizations MUST come in. > > This issue is the most pressing. We must prove the >toxicity of Hg in the general context, then we can >tie it to anything and, get it banned from everything >! ! ! If it can be proven, then the nexus will be >a general one and linking it to onset of Autism will >be much easier. We need to throw Autism into the> general pool of

syndromes, conditions call them >what you will. This will negate us being marginalized >or viewed as extremist angry kooks out for bloody revenge. > > We sincerely hope that this ruling will be a lesson>to all who wish to legally pursue a course of action>because the courts' rulings will (and we are fearful, >has) set negative precedent that will effect anyone who>comes after them and seeks to pursue legal avenues of >recourse.> > n>>" J. Krakow" wrote:>> Attached is an opinion and Judgment from the US District Court for the >>Middle District of North Carolina dismissing Doe v. Ortho-Clinical, a >>case claiming RhoGam caused "autism".>>>>>>FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA>>JOHN AND JANE DOE 2, )>>INDIVIDUALLY, and as GUARDIANS )>>AD LITEM, OF MINOR

CHILD DOE 2, )>>)>>Plaintiffs, )>>v. ) 1:03CV00669>>)>>ORTHO-CLINICAL )>>DIAGNOSTICS, INC., )>>)>>Defendant. )>>ORDER & JUDGMENT>>BEATY, District Judge.>>For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion filed >>contemporaneously herewith,>>IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant’s Motion to>>Exclude All Testimony that Thimerosal-Containing RhoGAM Causes Autism >>[Document #63]>>is GRANTED. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs cannot prove causation, >>Defendant’s Motion for>>Summary Judgment [Document #94] is also GRANTED and this case is >>DISMISSED WITH>>PREJUDICE. Finally, the Court further finds that Defendant’s Motion to >>Exclude Plaintiffs’>>Expert Suzanne Parisian, M.D. [Document #65] is DENIED AS MOOT.>>This, the 6th day

of July, 2006.>>United States District Judge>>>>>>

How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.