Jan 06 2011
Modern Liberal Science: Make Money Via Fraudulent Law Suits
Call it the John Edwards brand of sleazy science combined with sleazy law. It is the method by which unscrupulous lawyers and scientists coordinate to make millions of dollars in complex lawsuits in front of juries who don’t have the education and training to sit in judgment:
In 1985, Edwards represented a five-year-old child born with cerebral palsy – a child whose mother’s doctor did not choose to perform an immediate Caesarean delivery when a fetal monitor showed she was in distress. Edwards won a $6.5 million verdict for his client, but five weeks later, the presiding judge sustained the verdict, but overturned the award on grounds that it was “excessive” and that it appeared “to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice,” adding that in his opinion “the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.”[35] He offered the plaintiffs $3.25 million, half of the jury’s award, but the child’s family appealed the case and received $4.25 million in a settlement.[35] Winning this case established the North Carolina precedent of physician and hospital liability for failing to determine if the patient understood the risks of a particular procedure.[36]
After this trial, Edwards gained national attention as a plaintiff’s lawyer. He filed at least twenty similar lawsuits in the years following and achieved verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million for his clients. Similar lawsuits followed across the country. When asked about an increase in Caesarean deliveries nationwide, perhaps to avoid similar medical malpractice lawsuits, Edwards said, “The question is, would you rather have cases where that happens instead of having cases where you don’t intervene and a child either becomes disabled for life or dies in utero?”[35]
Caesarean is not natural, and therefore may not be better for mother or child. The greedy idiot John Edwards does not know for sure – nor does he care. He made his millions, got his mansion and mistress and became a slimy US Senator. The new American success story for those on the left.
Fast forward to today and the fraudulent childhood vaccine scare:
An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study’s author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study — and that there was “no doubt” Wakefield was responsible.
…
Wakefield has been unable to reproduce his results in the face of criticism, and other researchers have been unable to match them. Most of his co-authors withdrew their names from the study in 2004 after learning he had had been paid by a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers — a serious conflict of interest he failed to disclose. After years on controversy, the Lancet, the prestigious journal that originally published the research, retracted Wakefield’s paper last February.
…
According to BMJ, Wakefield received more than 435,000 pounds ($674,000) from the lawyers.
Scientists who testify in court get paid. I would not be surprised if they get paid contingent on winning the lawsuit. Science has been distorted from learning the truth about reality and making progress for humankind to do what it takes to make a quick buck. And the result of this greed is always disaster – just like with Edwards:
The now-discredited paper panicked many parents and led to a sharp drop in the number of children getting the vaccine that prevents measles, mumps and rubella. Vaccination rates dropped sharply in Britain after its publication, falling as low as 80% by 2004. Measles cases have gone up sharply in the ensuing years.
In the United States, more cases of measles were reported in 2008 than in any other year since 1997, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More than 90% of those infected had not been vaccinated or their vaccination status was unknown, the CDC reported.
“But perhaps as important as the scare’s effect on infectious disease is the energy, emotion and money that have been diverted away from efforts to understand the real causes of autism and how to help children and families who live with it,” the BMJ editorial states.
It should be criminal to divert public funds and energies like this for personal gain. But then that would require all scientist to be held accountable for the public damage they do – which would mean the IPCC and others in on the global warming scam would be in serious trouble for their false theories and fudged data:
This is a potentially huge story with a nasty smell of conspiracy about it. There appears to be a concerted effort to whitewash serious failings at the Met Office, with the assistance of a senior climate change propagandist at the BBC who is fully bought in to the Met Office’s warmist agenda.
The Telegraph reports today that: ‘The Met Office knew that Britain was facing an early and exceptionally cold winter but failed to warn the public, hampering preparations for some of the coldest weather on record.’ The
H/T WUWT. It is liberal ‘news’ outlets (a.k.a propaganda outlets) that keep the truth of these scams from being fully exposed. The above story notes how the MET office actually publicly predicted above average warming – per their liberal propaganda desires. But to claim now they knew it would be bitterly cold and nasty in the UK, and hid this fact with the knowledge of other government entities, is truly a stark admission. Even if the MET were trying to cover up their earlier arrogance and incompetence, to admit the truth was hidden in order to protect the remnants of the man-made global warming scam (worth trillions of dollars) is worst yet.
Britain is expending massive amounts of money on the global warming scam. Billions of pounds are being diverted from needed projects and efforts and people’s lives to chase a mythical ghost. The fact the MET office now admits it is in collusion with members of Parliament and the BBC to hide their little scam is incredible. But is it surprising given all the other false data, covered up date (hide the decline boys!) and exaggerated pronouncements we have seen since Climategate broke (someone get Al Gore back on stage screaming the end of the world is here – I always like a good clown show)?
Let the investigations begin!
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by joseph larosa. joseph larosa said: The Strata-Sphere » Modern Liberal Science: Make Money Via …: It is the method by which unscrupulous lawyers a… http://bit.ly/ht1ti6 […]
As an FYI – I’ve worked for engineers doing expert witness work, and our fees were Time & Materials based both for prep time and for time on the stand. Billed hourly and payable regardless of verdict/decision. Some of the prep time was used to advise the lawyers on their best arguments; which was mostly telling them what conclusions we could draw from the evidence, and what would be considered supposition, or unsupported.
True, NewEnglandDevil, but a law firm stooping to this sort of fraudulent suit will choose experts willing to say whatever furthers the case.
It’s not called “testi-lying” for nothing.
But I agree with AJ. The subornation of scientific integrity for profit is a Great Big Scandal. The perps need to be tried, convicted, and sent to prison…or worse, if legally possible. We’re talking about lies that have cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and Heaven alone knows how many lives will ultimately be lost. People today forget how lethal infectious diseases used to be.
It’s weath redistribution, pure and simple.
I am not against the courts or lawyers as they keep some from murder and destruction by duking it out in court, but there is a strain of lawyers who simply produce nothing but take from those who do.
Our Healthcare is a perfect example where doctors have been ordering test after test NOT NECESSARILY because it is the best medicine but because it will thwart the LAWYERS’ witch hunts and protect the doctors.
And how about the fact that many doctors pay $250,000 PER YEAR in *malpractice insurance*. When and why did this start?And what are the consequences?
In the end the CONSUMER pays for ALL of this as the legal fees are passed down to the consumer. And consequently, healthcare costs SKYROCKET. As in many other businesses.
WHEN WILL THE COST OF LAWYERS REGARDING HEALTHCARE, FOR ONE, BE DISCUSSED IN THE PUBLIC ARENA?
While on the topic – Erin Brockovich’s famous case was nothing but junk science and faked statistics. The California Cancer Registry now shows that there actually was *no* significant difference in cancer rates in that area compared to the norm.
and there’s more: The California Environmental Protection Agency recently ruled that there is no evidence that Chromium 6 (widely used as an anti-corrosive) in water is dangerous.
Yes, it is a known carcinogen — but only when inhaled (as steam, say), not when inadvertently ingested in small quantities.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1343559/Was-Erin-Brockovich-single-mother-claimed-towns-water-poisoned-wrong.html#ixzz1AJdWrI5n
And guess who Florida’s newest personal injury lawyer is.
Charlie Crist
Edwars is scum! Good Post AJ!
ivehadit wrote:
“Our Healthcare is a perfect example where doctors have been ordering test after test NOT NECESSARILY because it is the best medicine but because it will thwart the LAWYERS’ witch hunts and protect the doctors.
And how about the fact that many doctors pay $250,000 PER YEAR in *malpractice insurance*. When and why did this start?And what are the consequences?”
The belief that healthcare costs are high due to cost of malpractice insurance and evil trial lawyers is another propaganda lie to keep the system in tact that is corrupt from the ground up. Everyone needs to realize that the costs of Healthcare are high due to constant government intervention including actually becoming the insurer.
In California, you will find it difficult if not impossible to find an attorney willing to take a malpractice case because the laws have put a $250,000 cap on awards for malpractice. What this means is those who are harmed by malpractice have and are being denied their day in court. Not the lawyers fault, it is the government intervention.
Regarding the over use of MRI and CT scans, it is not because of the malpractice liability protection that overuse has occurred, but rather it is the incentive doctors have in referring their patients for CT and MRI scans that has caused the increase. This is again due to government involvement.
The doctors who see Medicare patients have had their refurbishment constantly lowered by the government, so they found a way to supplement their income and bill Medicare anyway.
WSJ.com – MRI and CT Centers Offer Doctors Way to Profit on Scans
Contracts between imaging centers and doctors are hard to detect from the claims Mr. Ryan sees. But he said he documented that a neurology practice in Nassau County, N.Y., had a lease deal with an imaging center — and that its doctors ordered MRI brain scans 47% more frequently than other doctors. Mr. Ryan said the practice, which he declined to name, ordered MRIs for 26 of every 100 patients in 2003, compared with 17.6 per 100 for other neurologists in the county.
One imaging company’s standard referral agreement with doctors was disclosed in court two years ago.
Medquest Associates Inc.’s contract said patients would be scanned at one of its facilities, but the doctors would bill the insurer.
The fee schedule showed Medquest would charge doctors $350 per patient for a CT scan. The suggested sum for doctors to bill insurers was $650 to $850, depending on what body part was scanned. The documents were introduced in Georgia state court in Atlanta, in a civil suit filed by a patient alleging a violation of the state’s self-referral law. The case was settled on undisclosed terms.
I will leave you with a quote from Abraham Lincoln written in 1850.
There is a vague popular belief that lawyers are necessarily dishonest. I say vague, because when we consider to what extent confidence and honors are reposed in and conferred upon lawyers by the people, it appears improbable that their impression of dishonesty is very distinct and vivid. Yet the impression is common, almost universal. Let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the popular belief — resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. Choose some other occupation, rather than one in the choosing of which you do, in advance, consent to be a knave.
sbd