Why is the Media Ignoring the Bailey Banks Autism Vaccine Decision?

[Guest guest]

http://snipurl.com/cst2g [Age of Autism]February 27, 2009Why is the Media Ignoring the Bailey Banks Autism Vaccine Decision?Update: Alison just added broadcast media contacts. I've included them below.  I've also added the full text of the decision that you can copy and send, saving the reporters the strenuous effort of a Google search. Warrior Mom Alison MacNeil compiled this list of mainstream media contacts who have, so far, ignored the Bailey Banks vaccine court decision (HERE.) Perhaps you'd like to email each of them, politely of course, to ask when their stories will run informing parents that the "door" is still very much open regarding vaccines and PDD's.  Let's keep demanding coverage until we're blue in.... well, you get the point, right?  Feel free to add more contacts in the comments. Thanks. (PS) Anyone got any gum? CBS hoodm  -mary Hood, health producer ckx - craig katz, news assignment editorNBC brian.williams patricia.martell  -assignment editor jennifer.sizemore -exec prod. news nightlyMSNBC kolbermann ted.savaglio -breaking news editor jonel.aleccia- health reporterCNN shahreen.abedin - medical producer rick.martin -assignment editor ann.curley -medical news unit editor saundra.young - health editorFOX roger.ailes -CEO, Chairman jessica.mulvihill producer housecall NYTandyr (Andy Rosenthal- editorial board)dmcneil (Don McNeil - covered court case) http://nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html (directory of all depts)Reuters: Will.dunham (health reporter) maggie.fox (health editor, covered court case)AP ckjohnson (Carla, top health reporter) lneergaard (Lauran, covered the Feb. 12 court decision) kfreking (Kevin, covered the Feb. 12 court decision)Bloomberg: caryoreilly  (health reporter covered court case)WSJ avery.johnson (covers health, courts) CNN sanjay.gupta campbell.brown   In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 02-0738V Filed: 20 July 2007* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BAILEY BANKS, by his father KENNETH BANKS,Petitionerv.SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Michael G. McLaren, Esq., Black & McLaren, Memphis, Tennessee, for Petitioner; Alexis B. Babcock, Esq., United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.ENTITLEMENT RULING ABELL, Special Master:On 26 June 2002, the Petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act or Act)2 alleging that, as a result of the MMR vaccination received on 14 March 2000, his child, Bailey, suffered a seizure and Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”),3 which led to Pervasive Developmental Delay (“PDD”),4 a condition from which he continues to suffer (the "Petition"). By the terms of the Petition itself, Petitioner brought this action under an actual causation theory of recovery, as the seizure was alleged to have occurred on 30 March 2000, sixteen days after the vaccination date, and outside of the time periods set on the Table. Petition at 2.This petition was reassigned to my chambers on 22 December 2004. Eventually, a telephonic evidentiary hearing on the ultimate issue of entitlement for compensation was held on 1 June 2006 Hearing Transcript ("Tr.") at 1. Whereupon, the Court heard from medical expert witnesses for both parties: Dr. Ivan Lopez for the Petitioner and Dr. John MacDonald for the Respondent. Subsequent to that hearing, the parties filed closing briefs with the Court, and the case is now ripe for a ruling.As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Petitioner has satisfied the pleading requisites found in § 300aa-11(b) and © of the statute, by showing that: (1) he is a valid legal representative of the injured party, Bailey Banks; (2) the vaccine at issue is set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (42 C.F.R. § 100.3); (3) the vaccine was administered in the United States or one of its territories; (4) no one has previously collected an award or settlement of a civil action for damages arising from the alleged vaccine-related injury; and, (5) no previous civil action has been filed in this matter. Additionally, the § 300aa-16(a) requirement that the petition be timely filed has been met. On these matters, Respondent tenders no dispute.The Vaccine Act authorizes the Office of Special Masters to make rulings and decisions on petitions, which include findings of fact and conclusions of law. §12(d)(3)(A)(I). In order to prevail on a petition for compensation under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must show by preponderant evidence that a vaccination listed on the Vaccine Injury Table either caused an injury specified on that Table within the period designated therein, or else that such a vaccine actually caused an injury not so listed. § 11©(1)©.[full text on site - vl] =====In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.