MMR & autism Not just bad science but also falsified

poet123

Nicki wrote: »

The legal test for a medical negligence claim is not beyond reasonable doubt which is the criminal test, but on the balance of probability. Which means 51% more likely than not, or any percentage higher than that.

At the risk of repeating myself this was the conclusion with no mention of the balance pf probability or % of proof.

"The logical sequela of these findings of fact is that Petitioners have carried their burden of proof on the issue of vaccine-related causation."

pwllbwdr

poet123 wrote: »

Why payout $$$$ without reason?

Litigation risk is the main reason for the payout of lots of $ in many court cases which are settled.

poet123

pwllbwdr wrote: »

Litigation risk is the main reason for the payout of lots of $ in many court cases which are settled.

We are not talking about cases settled out of court, for obvious reasons there are no records of them in the public domain. There are probably many, many ,of them we will never hear about as the claimants have been gagged in order to assure their payout.

These are the cases which have got to court and where causation by MMR has been proven.

Nicki

poet123 wrote: »

At the risk of repeating myself this was the conclusion with no mention of the balance pf probability or % of proof.

"The logical sequela of these findings of fact is that Petitioners have carried their burden of proof on the issue of vaccine-related causation."

Sorry I don't understand what you mean by this post. Your post which I replied to claimed that the legal test for medical negligence was beyond reasonable doubt. It isn't. It is always "balance of probability" which means 51% unless a specific direction is given that a more stringent percentage should be applied, which tends only to happen where criminal allegations are being made in a civil action. The judgment wouldn't refer to the burden of proof, unless it was different to the normal civil standard usually applied.

I don't agree with your views, and it is clear that although you justify them by reference to some litigation that you don't have the legal expertise to enable you to understand how the legal process works. I suspect that the same applies to your medical analysis.

verysillyguy06

So, the US would rather agree to lots of court cases and payout by going down this route rather than 'fighting' and establishing that there is no need for any payouts?

poet123

Nicki wrote: »

Sorry I don't understand what you mean by this post. Your post which I replied to claimed that the legal test for medical negligence was beyond reasonable doubt. It isn't. It is always "balance of probability" which means 51% unless a specific direction is given that a more stringent percentage should be applied, which tends only to happen where criminal allegations are being made in a civil action. The judgment wouldn't refer to the burden of proof, unless it was different to the normal civil standard usually applied.

I don't agree with your views, and it is clear that although you justify them by reference to some litigation that you don't have the legal expertise to enable you to understand how the legal process works. I suspect that the same applies to your medical analysis.

Actually, if you read my post re reasonable doubt it was in response to CM stating that prisoners had been wrongly convicted. We were at that point discussing criminal cases, not cases of medical negligence.

I am aware that in cases of medical negligence it is a balance of probability and that the % is as you describe. The bottom line that you cannot get past is the causation.

Thank you for your summation of my legal espertise, however it is at least as good as yours!! and having two lawyers in my immediate family and a top Barrister who specialises in medical ethics cases in my extended family, I think I am better placed than most to understand the nuances of jurisprudence.

For your own reasons you may disagree with my views, that is your prerogative, only you know why you disagree. However, the facts remain that in the cases cited and many others, causation has been proven to the required standard, in no sphere of life is one expected to do more.

I didnt have my kids vaccinated with the MMR, my own decision was vinidicated by the outcome of their measles infection, it was mild and had no long lasting effects. You, I assume did vaccinate and are (I assume) equally happy with the outcome. I respect your choice, please accord me the same courtesy.

Nicki

verysillyguy06 wrote: »

So, the US would rather agree to lots of court cases and payout by going down this route rather than 'fighting' and establishing that there is no need for any payouts?

I suspect the cost benefit analysis is that its better to do so. The US civil system is jury based and awards punitive as well as compensatory damages. Therefore to lose a case would be to risk a multi million dollar award plus establishing a precedent for future claims. It's therefore more advantageous to settle for a more modest award out of court. The counterside to this is that the claimants, knowing that they stand to win many millions of dollars in court if successful, would only settle out of court if they were not very confident that they would win their case.

If it is true therefore that there have been several out of court settlements, then this suggests that the evidence is not clear cut, and that should the matter go to trial both parties think it could go either way, rather than that the vaccine manufacturers are in any way admitting liability. I would very strongly suspect that all the settlements are without any formal admission of liability.

Nicki

poet123 wrote: »

Thank you for your summation of my legal espertise, however it is at least as good as yours!! and having two lawyers in my immediate family and a top Barrister who specialises in medical ethics cases in my extended family I think I am better placed than most to understand the nuances of jurisprudence.


[\QUOTE.]

I have a law degree from a top university and more than 10 years post qualification experience as a solicitor. However I have no relatives who are lawyers so I'll bow to your superior qualifications and experience :rotfl::rotfl:

If only I'd known that legal expertise was genetic, or obtained by osmosis, I could have saved myself many years of hard work!

poet123

Nicki wrote: »

poet123 wrote: »

Thank you for your summation of my legal espertise, however it is at least as good as yours!! and having two lawyers in my immediate family and a top Barrister who specialises in medical ethics cases in my extended family I think I am better placed than most to understand the nuances of jurisprudence.


[\QUOTE.]

I have a law degree from a top university and more than 10 years post qualification experience as a solicitor. However I have no relatives who are lawyers so I'll bow to your superior qualifications and experience :rotfl::rotfl:

If only I'd known that legal expertise was genetic, or obtained by osmosis, I could have saved myself many years of hard work!

Fair cop!:T

However, I have to say that you are not demonstrating that expertise here, having wrongly attributed my comments re reasonable doubt! I would have expected the detail of that not to have escaped a legally trained mind.

Nor would I have expected you to have queried a vaccine damage court judgement in which causation is clearly attributed.

pwllbwdr

poet123 wrote: »

We are not talking about cases settled out of court, for obvious reasons there are no records of them in the public domain. There are probably many, many ,of them we will never hear about as the claimants have been gagged in order to assure their payout.

These are the cases which have got to court and where causation by MMR has been proven.

Ah - I misunderstood. You said "why pay out $$$$ without reason". The reason then is "because we lost the court case". Like all litigation.