Walker-Smith’s acquittal does not exonerate Andrew Wakefield

This post responds to the anti-vaccine claim that by reversing the finding that Prof. John Walker-Smith, the senior author on Andrew Wakefield’s Lancet paper, was guilty of serious ethical violations, a British Court also cleared Andrew Wakefield from the findings of a General Medical Council panel against him. No, that is incorrect.

 

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/refuting-tropes-andrew-wakefield-wronged/

Andrew Wakefield’s Appeal to the Texas Courts

Andrew Wakefield filed a libel suit against Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee, and the British Medical Journal with the Texas Court, seen by many as an attempt to punish critics and galvanize supporter. These posts cover the story of that appeal.

 

  1. Andrew Wakefield’s suit against Brian Deer and BMJ rejected by the Court of Appeals: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/litigating-debate-tactic-andrew-wakefields-appeal-denied/
  2. Andrew Wakefield asks the Supreme Court for extension of time to file with them: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/andrew-wakefield-keeps-trying-appeal/

So far, no appeal was filed with the Supreme Court.

Anti-Vaccine activists use tactics – including litigation – to silence opponents

This article covers three situations in which anti-vaccine activists mounted unjustified, problematic attacks against critics, in an attempt to silence them:

A. Attempting to get Dr. Paul Offit fired over a comment about autism.

B. Threatening Dr. Emily Willingham with a lawsuit with no basis.

C. Attacking high school students who made a pro-vaccine film.

 

http://www.immunizeusa.org/media/52996/anti-vaccine-intimidation-daily-journal-may-14-2014-1-.pdf

Influenza Vaccine Mandates and Health Care Workers: a Response

Responding to Attorney Alan Phillips’ claims claiming that there are many things unconstitutional or illegal in imposing such mandates.

 

This is the second in a two-part series: in the first part, Skeptical Raptor tackles Attorney Phillips’ science-based claims. Here, I address his legal claims. http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/natural-news-wrong-mandatory-vaccinations-part-2/

Influenza Vaccines Mandates and Health Care Workers: Federal Labor Law

This post is the second post to examine a recent New Jersey case addressing the situation of a nurse, June Valent, who was dismissed after refusing to be vaccinated against influenza. Her hospital offered a religious and medical exemption, but she refused to make use of them, emphasizing her reasons were secular. The hospital dismissed her and refused to pay unemployment benefits for seven weeks. The court found in her favor.

 

This post focuses on the question whether a healthcare worker opposing influenza vaccine mandates can demand a medical exemption under the Americans with Disabilities Act or a religious exemption under Title VII to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming discrimination.

 

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/health-care-workers-flu-vaccines-work-place-discrimination/

Healthcare workers, Influenza and the Constitution: Reporting on the Valent Case

This post examines a recent New Jersey case addressing the situation of a nurse, June Valent, who was dismissed after refusing to be vaccinated against influenza. Her hospital offered a religious and medical exemption, but she refused to make use of them, emphasizing her reasons were secular. The hospital dismissed her and refused to pay unemployment benefits for seven weeks. The court found in her favor.

 

The post explains the problems with the court’s decision, and the problems with the hospital’s policy from a constitutional point of view.

 

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/faith-vaccines-religion-healthcare-workers/

NVICP: Responding to the AP report

In a series of articles in several news papers, authors reported on an associated press report and criticized the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for delays, claiming it mistreated petitioners. They used a case of an alleged vaccine injury to demonstrate the program’s faults.

 

This post explains the problems with the articles and with the use of the case in question:

http://shotofprevention.com/2014/11/25/the-vaccine-injury-compensation-program-what-does-the-ap-report-really-show/

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program v. the Courts

On the background of attempts by anti-vaccine activists to do away with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, our no-fault program for compensating vaccine injuries, I explain why the program is better for petitioners than the regular courts.

 

See:

http://shotofprevention.com/2013/11/08/congressional-briefing-attempts-to-discredit-vaccine-injury-compensation/

 

Or:

http://www.uchastings.edu/news/articles/2013/11/reiss-vaccine-injury.php

School Immunization Requirements revisited: Phillips

The district court in Phillips upheld denying exemption and excluding unvaccinated children from school during an outbreak. We should mobilize.

I did not write about the appeal results in the 2nd Circuit court of appeals because there’s no new ground there. But here is a good analysis by Andy Baker from the Network for Public Health Law: https://www.networkforphl.org/the_network_blog/2015/01/21/539/public_health_in_court_school_exclusion_of_unvaccinated_children