6 responses

  1. dkmnow
    April 5, 2008

    Spot-on.

    BTW, has anyone posted about this over at the “asperger” comm on LiveJournal? Last time I checked, no-one had. I’d’ve been tickled to do it myself, but, well, you already know that story. “Asperger” has what, 1400 members? 1700? Or something?

    (hint, hint)

    😉

    Which reminds me, I need to copy my latest post over to InsaneJournal …

    Reply

  2. codeman38
    April 5, 2008

    dkmnow: I just posted about it over at the LJ Asperger comm.

    Reply

  3. dkmnow
    April 5, 2008

    Awrsum! Now that I’ve finished my homework over at InsaneJournal, I’ll go check it out. 🙂

    BTW, this site is blazingly fast about posting comments. ZIP! ZING! ZAPPP!

    Me likes!

    Reply

  4. Liz Ditz
    April 11, 2008

    Thanks for commenting on this.

    I am one of the 100+ bloggers mentioned in item 5 of the subpoena.

    I am keeping a running list of responses to the Seidel subpoena at I Speak of Dreams. I’ve added your blog.

    Reply

  5. Liz Ditz
    July 13, 2008

    Closing the loop: here’s what Shoemaker was trying to prevent Seidel from publishing:

    Billing the Adversary

    Numerous decisions issued over the twenty year history of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) document the extent to which the limits on attorney compensation have been tested by practitioners seeking remuneration from its taxpayer-financed coffers. The following review summarizes decisions involving the recently-sanctioned VICP specialist Clifford Shoemaker, Esq. — a central instigator of the campaign to convince the public of the speculative, scientifically unsupported hypothesis that a significant number of cases of autism result from vaccine injury, co-founder of the Institute for Chronic Illnesses, and a founding member its Institutional Review Board, which sponsors and provides ethical oversight of medical research and experimentation on autistic children and adolescents conducted by his long-time colleague Dr. Mark Geier.

    Inspecting the Outstretched Palm

    The potential for procedural and billing improprieties by Vaccine Injury Compensation Program petitioners’ attorneys — especially those representing numerous clients with similar, speculative claims — is made painfully evident in Special Master Denise Vowell’s recent fee and cost decision in Carrington v. HHS, Case 99-495V (Fed.Cl.Spec.Mstr., June 18, 2008) (unpublished), posted to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims website three days ago.

    Numerous decisions issued over the twenty year history of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) document the extent to which the limits on attorney compensation have been tested by practitioners seeking remuneration from its taxpayer-financed coffers. The following review summarizes decisions involving the recently-sanctioned VICP specialist Clifford Shoemaker, Esq. — a central instigator of the campaign to convince the public of the speculative, scientifically unsupported hypothesis that a significant number of cases of autism result from vaccine injury, co-founder of the Institute for Chronic Illnesses, and a founding member its Institutional Review Board, which sponsors and provides ethical oversight of medical research and experimentation on autistic children and adolescents conducted by his long-time colleague Dr. Mark Geier.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top
mobile desktop